Mumbai Court April 1992 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
M/S. Shivraj Fine Art Litho Works and Others Vs. Purushottam and Other ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Bom30; (1992)94BOMLR541; 1992(2)MhLj1260
ORDERH. D. Patel, J.1. A decree for Rs. 8,92,815.14 was passed against the original defendants Nos. 1 to 9 holding them jointly and severally liable to make payment to the plaintiffs by judgment delivered on 29-4-1987 in Special Civil Suit No. 52 of 1980 by the Third Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nagpur. Feeling aggrieved thereby the present appeal is filed by the original defendants Nos. 1 to 3. 2. The facts relevant for the purpose of deciding the appeal are as follows: The plaintiff No. 1 carried on the business as whole-sale paper merchant under the name and style 'Dinesh Paper Mart' being the sole proprietor. The said business is now taken over by the partnership also in the name of 'Dinesh Paper Mart' with all its existing assets and liabilities with effect from 1-1-1980. The suit claim being one of the assets of the partnership firm it was joined as plaintiff No. 2. After formation of the partnership the plaintiff No. 1 Purushottam became the partner of the firm. The plai...
Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-1992
Reported in: 1992(59)ELT505(Bom); 1993(64)ELT172(Bom)
ORDER1. Rule returnable forthwith, Mr. Sethna waives service for the respondents. By consent petition placed on board and called out for hearing. 2. Heard Counsel for the parties. 3. The impugned order of the Tribunal directing the Department to hold the money realised in deposit till disposal of the appeal, is unsustainable. In this case, the petitioners have filed appeal on 6th January 1992, challenging the legality and correctness of the order of the Collector dated 5th December 1991 received on 10th December 1992. Appeal period prescribed for appeal to the Tribunal is three months. In fact, petitioners have filed appeal on 6th January 1992 and also filed stay application. On 18th January 1992, petitioners applied for early hearing of the stay application and accordingly it was fixed on 17th February 1992. In the meantime, on 29th January 1992, petitioners informed the Collector that the hearing of stay application is fixed on 17th February 1992 and, therefore, pending the stay appl...
Udhav Tatya Bhopale Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)BomCR301; (1992)94BOMLR279
M.L. Pendse, J.1. The question which falls for determination in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is whether the two pieces of lands which are mainly used for the purpose of agriculture can be considered as urban land under section 2(o) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1976. To appreciate the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner, it is necessary to set out few undisputed facts.2. The petitioner is owner of two agricultural lands being Survey No. 310/2 admeasuring 8 Hectares 67 Ares, and Survey No. 307/2 admeasuring 2 Hectares 57 Ares, both situated at village Majrewadi in North Solapur Taluka of Solapur District. The lands are situated within the local area of Majrewadi Village Panchayat constituted under section 4 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act 1958.3. After the advent of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, which came into operation from February 17, 1976, the petitioner filed return as contemplated under section 6(1) of the Act...
National Rayon Corporation Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)BomCR42
S.M. Daud, J.1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs. 3,72,025/- representing Customs duty allegedly recovered illegally together with interest thereon. 2. Prior to 15-2-1973, plaintiffs had placed an order with foreign suppliers for supply to them at Bombay a certain quantity of Hicolour Q Wood Pulp. The seller had shipped the said pulp per s.s. Vishwadharma. The vessel owned by the Shipping Corporation of India (SCI) arrived in the Bombay Harbour on 25-2-1973. Had the good been allowed to be cleared on 28-2-1973, the goods would have been assessed duty at 15% plus regulatory duty of 10%. As a result of the budget proposals, the said import from 1-3-1973 was raised to 40% plus 5% Auxiliary duty. Entry Inwards was granted on 3rd March, 1973, with the result that plaintiff was required to pay the duties at the enhanced rate. This exaction was challenged by them under the relevant provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 (Act). Having failed in these proceedings vide orders of defendants Nos. 2 ...
Sou. Janabai Vs. Krishna Ravba RiThe and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-1992
Reported in: 1994(3)BomCR442; (1992)94BOMLR533; 1993CriLJ1183
1. The petitioner is the wife of the 1st Respondent. Her application for maintenance being Misc. Application No. 8 of 1985 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been rejected by the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Khandala. It is rejected on the ground that it is barred by res judicata on account of the dismissal of her previous application being Criminal Misc. Application No. 30 of 1967 of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Wai. The petitioner challenged the order passed in Misc. Application No. 8 of 1985 by filing in the Court of the Session, Satara, Criminal Revision Application No. 242 of 1987. By judgment and order dated 8th August 1988, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was pleased to affirm the finding of the trial Magistrate that the application for maintenance is not maintainable on the ground that the same is barred by res judicata. Both the trial Court as also the revisional Court have not given their findings on the merit...
Special Land Acquisition Officer (1) Vs. Anil Krishna Biswas and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)BomCR46; (1992)94BOMLR362
S.M. Dadu, J.1. This is a reference under section 18 & 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 at the instance of Claimant No. 1 hereinafter referred to as 'Anil Biswas' the authority pitted against him being the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay-hereinafter referred to as the 'BMC'.2. Plot No. 34 out of Worli Estate Scheme No. 52 belonged to the BMC and Anil Biswas had moved an application on 26-11-1946 to take the said plot on lease for 999 years. Anil Biswas made a deposit of about Rs. 8,900/- which included Rs. 300/- towards stamp duty and registration charges etc. He also sent the draft of an agreement reciting the terms of lease. In the meantime, the State intimated a desire to compulsorily acquire the land. In response to the notices issued by the SLAO, Anil Biswas and the BMC put in their respective claims. The SLAO held that the total amount of compensation payable came to Rs. 2,29,425/- and that this sum was to be apportioned in the following manner :- Anil Biswas - Rs. 1,...
Mrs. Karuna Manoharlal Ohri Vs. Vipinbhai U. Sanghani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Bom177; 1992(3)BomCR33; (1992)94BOMLR920
1. This is a suit for possession, compensation and ancillary reliefs in respect of premises being flat No. 16-B, third floor, 'Thakur Niwas', 173, Jamshedji Tata Road, Bombay 400020. 2. Deceased plaintiff Swarup NarayanKhanna was a member of Thakur Niwas Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. which is aSociety registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. ThakurNiwas' is a building owned by the Society and the suit flat was allotted to the plaintiff in his capacity as the holder of five shares of the Society. S. N. Khanna was a tax practitioner and used to visit Bombay in connection with the work of his clients. Defendant in 1972 was a law student and a Director of a private concern known as 'Paramount Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.'. On 18th September, 1972, S. N. Khanna and defendant reached an agreement the terms whereof were reduced to writing, which writing is at Ex. P-1. In this document, S. N. Khanna is described as the 'licensor' and defendant the 'licensee' in respect o...
Rahul Kumar Bajaj Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-1992
Reported in: (1992)42ITD280(Mum.)
1. In this appeal, the assessee is contesting disallowance of Rs. 48,675 out of Rs. 74,906 being the interest paid to M/s. Jeevan Ltd. 2. The assessee is an individual. The assessment year is 1984-85 and the relevant previous year ended on 31-3-1984.3. During the relevant previous year, the assessee had borrowed Rs. 5 lakhs from M/s. Jeevan Ltd. for payment of wealth-tax. It may be mentioned that one of the source of income of the assessee is to earn interest on money advanced to various parties, namely, Shri Ramkrishna Bajaj (HUF), Shri Kamalnayan Bajaj (HUF), Shri Shishir Kumar Bajaj, etc. The interest earned by the assessee was Rs. 2,68,613. The assessee paid interest of Rs. 1,40,616 to the parties from whom he had borrowed funds. One of such party is M/s. Jeevan Ltd., to which interest of Rs. 74,096 was paid. Out of the interest earned, the assessee deducted the interest paid by him and offered for taxation net interest income of Rs. 1.27,997 under the head "other sources". During...
Union Bank of India Vs. Dalpat Gaurishankar Upadyay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-1992
Reported in: AIR1992Bom482; 1992(3)BomCR61; (1992)94BOMLR204; [1993]76CompCas494(Bom)
ORDERDr. B. P. Saraf, J. 1. This case has been referred to the Full Bench at the instance of brother Dhanuka J. The controversy that arose for determination relates to interpretation of the expression 'principal sum adjudged' as used in S. 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter 'C.P.C.'). 2. The suit in relation to which this controversy arose was filed by the Union Bank of India for recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,55,259-35 with further interest thereon at the rate of 16.5% per annum with quarterly rests from the date of the suit till payment. The plaintiffs relied on various documents in support of its contention that the defendant had agreed to pay the amount of interest to it with quarterly rests. In ex parte decree against the defendant was prayed for with interest pendente lite and post-decretal. The controversy arose as to the amount on which pendente lite or post-decretal interest can be granted. The amount of Rs. 5,55,259-35 for which the suit had been filed was admit...
Subhash Photographics Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)BomCR49; 1992(62)ELT270(Bom)
Dr. B. P. Saraf, J. 1. The question for determination in this batch of writ petitions is whether the photographic machineries imported by the petitioners fall under Tariff Heading No. 98.01 and are entitled to the benefit of concessional rate of duty applicable to goods falling under the said heading. 2. The facts, relevant for the purpose of determination of the controversy in these cases being identical, the facts of one of the cases stated to be of representative type viz., Writ Petition No. 27 of 1990 are being stated. The petitioner in this case is a partnership firm which carries on the business of developing and processing of colour photo films. For the purpose of its business, it imported from Singapore certain photographic machineries. These photographic machineries, when imported, were subject to levy of duty under the Customs Act, 1962 read with Customs Tariff Act, 1975. There is no dispute in this regard. The controversy is only in regard to the tariff heading under which t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »