Mumbai Court July 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.
Ramon Distilleries Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-1992
Reported in: 1993(1)BomCR18; (1992)94BOMLR498
H.D. Patel, J.1. Since common questions of fact and law arise in all the three petitions, they are being disposed of by this judgment.2. In Writ Petition No. 3084 of 1989 the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 29th August, 1989/20th September, 1989, passed by the Collector, Nagpur whereunder a sum of Rs. 1,17,14,025.00 on account of excise duty and transport fees was demanded for committing alleged breach of Rule 25(3)(4) and (6a) of the Maharashtra Foreign Liquor (Import and Export) Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). Similarly, the petitioners have also challenged the order dated 16th October, 1989 also passed by Collector, Nagpur demanding the sum of Rs. 64,55,426.60 on account of Excise Duty and Transportation Fees for alleged breach of the rules referred to above. It is alleged in those notices that in enquiry held by the Special Enquiry Officer , it transpired that on the basis of Import permit submitted by the petitioners, export passes were obtaine...
Sukumar Biswas Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-1992
Reported in: II(1992)DMC369
M.B. Ghodeswar, J.1. The applicant Sukumar has filed this application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code read with Article 227of the Constitution of India praying for quashing the order issuing process andcriminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 10 of 1990 and the order passed bythe Sessions Judge, Akola dated 6.9.1990 in Criminal Revision No. 183 of1990.2. Shortly stated, the facts of the case arc that the applicant wasmarried with one Preeti Biswas (nee) Mondal on 10.5.1984 and they wereresiding.in Calcutta. That the wife of the applicant deserted the applicant inthe year 1989. The applicant filed a suit for divorce on 22.11.1989 and thereinhe has pleaded in addition to ground of the desertion and cruelty, adulterywith the non-applicant No. 2 Mukund Behari. Summons of the suit wereissued. The non-applicant No. 2 was serving as Chief Executive Officer, ZillaParishad, Akola where he received the summons of the case. He has filedCriminal Case No. 10 of 1990 in the Court o...
Safat Mohammad Razak Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-1992
Reported in: 1993(1)BomCR213
A.V. Savant, J.1. Heard both the learned Counsel.2. Appeal admitted. Mr. Singhvi for the respondents-Corporation waives service. By consent appeal taken up for hearing forthwith. Heard both sides.3. This appeal seeks to challenge the order dated 29th June 1992 passed by the City Civil Court, Bombay by which the prayer for ad-interim relief pending the motion has been rejected. The Counsel for the parties have argued the matter in details raising an important question of law and have invited a decision on it. Since the point arises in several cases, the question of law which has been argued is as to whether the right to have an oral hearing or personal hearing is a necessary concomitant of the principles of natural justice. In other words, in the facts of the present case, the precise question of law which arises is whether in the proceedings under Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 351 of the B.M.C. Act, 1888 (for short 'the Corporation Act'), the Municipal Commissioner or the De...
indirabai Raghunath Gund Vs. Suresh Malu Jadhav and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-1992
Reported in: (1992)94BOMLR525
M.G. Chaudhari, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the original complainant Indirabai Raghunath Gund against the acquittal of the Respondent No. 1 of the offence under Sections 447, 323 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 2nd Court, Thane dated 31.1.1984. It appears that as the allegation of the complainant was that the Respondent No. 1 had committed the offences under Sections 447 and 323 along with several other persons the charge under Section 114, I.P.C. was framed. However in this appeal only the Respondent No. 1 has been joined and therefore the acquittal of the Respondent No. 1 under Section 114, I.P.C. cannot be interferred.2. As far as the remaining two offences are concerned the complainant and the accused (Respondent No. 1) have compounded the offences. The learned Advocate for the said parties pray for an order accordingly.3. The portion of land of complainant encroached upon by the Respondent No. 1 giving rise to the inc...
Pimpri Chinchwad Nagarpalika Vs. Nisar Ahmed Ibrahim Attar and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-1992
Reported in: (1992)94BOMLR486
H.H. Kantharia, J.1. The first respondent-workman was appointed to the post of a driver in the transport department of the petitioner, Pimpri Chinchwad Nagarpalika. He was absent from duty without permission from 2.6.1980. Therefore, a show cause notice dated 5.8.1980 was issued to him to show cause why his services should not be terminated. However, he did not give any explanation. Therefore, the matter was placed before the Standing Committee of the petitioner and a decision was taken to terminate his services as it was presumed that he was not interested in the services of the petitioner as he had not replied to the show cause notice. The Standing Committee of the petitioner accordingly passed a Resolution on 4.9.1980 terminating the services of the first respondent effective from 20th June, 1980. Accordingly his services were terminated from that day.2. The first respondent raised an industrial dispute in the matter of termination of his services and for reinstatement with full bac...
Sunil Kisan Chavan Vs. the Special Executive Magistrate, Crimes, Pune ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)BomCR392; 1992CriLJ3445
ORDER1. This is a petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution and S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) 2. The petitioner was hauled up before the Special Executive Magistrate, Crimes, Pune under S. 110(e) and (g) of the Cr.P.C. The Special Executive Magistrate - hereinafter to be referred to as 'respondent No. 1' - went through the papers and decided to proceed against the petitioner. A notice was served upon him and he was called upon to show cause why proceedings under S. 110 read with S. 117 of the Cr.P.C. should not be initiated against him. The petitioner appeared before the respondent No. 1 and was called upon to execute and interim bond under S. 116(3) of the Cr.P.C. The order initiating proceedings and calling upon the petitioner to furnish interim bond was questioned in a revision application to the Sessions Court. The revision was assigned to an Additional Sessions Judge. The operative part of the verdict delivered by the said learned Judge on 6-5-1987 rea...
Smt. Shilavati Agarwal Vs. Fifth Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-14-1992
Reported in: (1993)46ITD230(Mum.)
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-XV, Bombay and relates to the assessment year 1981-82.2. The solitary ground taken in this appeal projects the following grievance: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,07,000 made by the ITO by way of long-term capital gains. The CIT (A) erred in not accepting the appellant's claim for exemption under Secton 54 of the Act. The CIT (A) should have held that the appellant was not liable for any payment or long-term capital gain after giving exemption to the appellant under Secton 54 of the Act.3. The assessee is an individual. Her accounting year corresponding to the relevant assessment year ended on 30-4-1980. On 30-1-1980, the assessee entered into an agreement to sell 3/4th share of property situated at Bharatiya Friends Housing Co-op. Society for a consideration of Rs. 2,62,500. The capital gains arising out of the sale of the said property c...
J.N. Marshall Engg. (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-14-1992
Reported in: (1992)43ITD116(Mum.)
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT (Appeals) -VII, Bombay and pertains to the assessment year 1980-81.2. The assessee is a company. The accounting year for the relevant period ends on 30-6-1979. On 29-11-1975, the assessee-company acquired the property known as "Marshall Lodge" from a private family trust for a consideration of Rs. 4,50,000. An agreement was entered into and the property was transferred in the name of the assessee-company. As per balance sheet of the assessee-company as on 30-6-1978, the total cost of acquisition of the property inclusive of incidental charges amounted to Rs. 4,90,510.3. By an indenture dated 1st August, 1978 the assessee-company entered into a partnership with Mr. S.J. Marshall and Jiji Marshall Investment Pvt. Ltd. under the name and style of M/s. Marshall Real Estate and Investment Corporation. (a) The Parties of the First Part have agreed title and interest in the said property described in the Schedule hereund...
Saransingh S/O Attarsingh Vs. Gopal S/O Ragunathrao Joshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-14-1992
Reported in: 1994(1)BomCR558
N.P. Chapalgaonker, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith.2. Respondent herein had filed a Regular Civil Suit No. 996 of 1985 claiming for possession of an open space admeasuring 341/2 X 261/2 feets, forming a portion in House No. 2-9-24 situate at Aurangpura, Aurangabad, against the present petitioner. Respondent herein filed an application which was at Ex. 45 in the said suit for conversion of that suit as a Small Cause Suit which came to be rejected. An application bearing No. 94 of 1989 was filed by the present respondent before the District Judge, Aurangabad, under section 24 of Civil Procedure Code praying that the Regular Civil Suit No. 996 of 1985 by withdrawn from the file of the Judge to whom it was assigned and also prayed that it be converted into a Small Cause Suit whereas the learned District Judge was pleased to reject the first prayer, he was pleased to allow the second prayer and ordered that the suit be converted as a Small Cause Suit. Thereafter the suit was numbered as Sm...
Suresh Lalchand Lulla and ors. Vs. Neela Sudhish Talpade (Smt.) and an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)BomCR394; (1992)94BOMLR274
S.M. Daud, J.1. This is a quashing petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.2. Respondent No. 1 -hereinafter to be referred to as 'complainant'-has filed a private complaint in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Andheri at Bombay. Shortly stated, the complaint recites that Flat No. D/1 in Beach House Co-operative Housing society, Gandhigram Road, Juhu, Bombay 400 049 is an acquisition of the complainant. Petitioner Lalchand is the father of petitioners Suresh, Amarnath, Ramesh and one Manohar. These people will hereinafter be referred to as 'accused'-Suresh and Manohar being referred to as 'accused Nos. 1 and 3 respectively'. In about November 1968 accused No. 3 approached the complainant with a request that she give the flat mentioned above for his residential use on a leave and licence basis. The proposal was accepted by the complainant who made it clear that the flat was not to be given to any firm or body corporate as it was meant only for the use of ac...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »