Mumbai Court September 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.
Sakharam Trymbak Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-1992
Reported in: 1993(1)BomCR134
B.V. Chavan, J.1. The appellant/original accused, has challenged his conviction and sentence for offences under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 5(1)(d) read with section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 along with the sentence of R.I. for a year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- on both counts in default R.I. for three months.2. The appellant was charged on the following facts.Madhaorao Gadekar (P.W. 3 ) was looking after the property of his brothers inspite of the partition amongst themselves. They held the landed properties at village Birsingpur and Deulghat. Madhaorao (P.W. 3) being the President of a Co-operative Society as per the rules of the Society, he could not obtain any loan in his name. Therefore, he had to obtain loan from the society in the name of his brother Yadeorao. At the material time, he approached the Secretary of the society one Deokar for obtaining a fresh loan in the name of his brother-Yadeorao. Deokar told him to repay the arrear...
Shashikant Panachand Gorakhia Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-15-1992
Reported in: 1993(65)ELT15(Bom)
A.V. Savant, J.1. The short question raised in this Petition is whether the stainless steel circles imported by the petitioner fall under Item 73.15(1) of the Central Customs Tariff Act, 1975, attracting lesser customs duty as contended by the petitioner or whether the said stainless steel circles fall under Item 73.15(2) of the said Tariff Act attracting higher customs duty. The relevant period of import is February 1982. There is no controversy before us that by virtue of the amending Act No. 15 of 1982, which was enacted on 11th day of May 1982 but was retrospectively brought into operation with effect from 1st of January 1981, the imported goods would fall under item 73.15(2) of the said Tariff Act. It appears that the Delhi High Court had an occasion to consider the identical question in a series of matters starting with the case of Super Traders v. Union of India, being Civil Writ Petition No. 2131 of 1982 decided on 23rd of September, 1982 which decision has been reported in 198...
Narayandas Chatrabhuj Mawani Vs. Hiralal Haribhai Thakkar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-15-1992
Reported in: 1993(1)BomCR168
S.M. Jhunjhunuwala, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to set aside the Award dated 17th January, 1984 made by the sole arbitrator in the reference to his arbitration made by consent of the parties in Suit No. 1388 of 1976 filed in this Court, which Award has been filed in this Court and numbered as Award No. 25 of 1984.2. In the Suit Bearing No. 1388 of 1976 filed by the respondents against the petitioner in this Court to recover the sum of Rs. 1,63,259.65 together with interest on the principal amount of - Rs. 1,37,284.75 at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of decree and at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till payment and the costs of the suit, by consent of the petitioner and the respondents the disputes and difference therein were referred to sole arbitration of Mr. Satish Gandhi, learned Counsel practicing in this Court, on 10th August, 1983 as per consent terms filed therein. The arbitrator was to have summary powers and ...
Rajaram Bandekar (Sirigao) Mines Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Export Credi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-1992
Reported in: 1993(2)BomCR526; [1995]82CompCas470(Bom); 1993(1)MhLj91
Dr. E.S. Da Silva, J.1. In this petition field under article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners are challenging the communication dated October 24, 1985, sent by the first respondents to respondents Nos. 2 to 4 and all other nationalised, scheduled or other banks directing the latter to obtain the prior approval of the said respondents for the continuation of export packing credit facility granted by respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 to the petitioners and/or for the grant of any fresh export credit facilities by respondents Nos. 2 to 4 and/or other nationalised, scheduled or other banks in India to the said petitioners or any of them. 2. The first petitioners are a private limited company carrying on business of extraction of iron ore from mines situated in Goa and export of such to foreign. The seventh and the eighth petitioners are the managing director and the joint managing director, respectively, of the first petitioners and hold 60.17 per cent. of the paid-up share capital of th...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hotel Jagsons
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-1992
Reported in: [1995]214ITR573(Bom)
V.A. Mohta, J. 1. This is an application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for stating the case and referring the following two questions for the opinion of this court : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in rejecting the miscellaneous petition filed by the Department holding that there is no mistake apparent from the face of the record (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the investment allowance is allowable in this case ?' 2. Against the order of the Tribunal holding that the assessee was entitled to investment allowance under section 32A of the Income-tax Act, dated December 28, 1988, an application for rectification under section 254 was filed. The ground was that a Madras High Court decision in the case of CIT v. Buhari Sons Pvt. Ltd. [1983] 144 ITR 12 holding that the activity similar to the one carried on by the assessee was essentially tra...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vidarbha Co-operative Marketing Society ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-1992
Reported in: [1995]212ITR412(Bom)
V.A. Mohta, J.1. The Commissioner of Income-tax had applied to the Tribunal under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act for making a reference to the High Court on the following six questions : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Nagpur, allowing the deduction of Rs. 39,09,850 under section 80P(2)(a)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(iv) in respect of the sale of commodities to non-members (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in placing the onus on the Department of indicating the basis for ascertainment of the intention of the assessee under the provisions of section 80P(2)(a)(iv) of the Act at the time of the purchase o...
Hariom @ Kalicharan Shiriram and Gopal Agarwal @ Saxena Vs. the State ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-1992
Reported in: 1994(2)BomCR219
H.H. Kantharia, J.1. In Sessions Case No. 444 of 1985, by his judgment and order dated October 5, 1988, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, Bombay, convicted the accused-appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') for an offence of robbery punishable under section 392 read with section 397 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 8 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months.2. Being aggrieved, the accused preferred this appeal.3. One Sawarmal Mittal is doing business in stainless steel in partnership in the name and style of Agarwal Industries and has his office at Room No.1, 2nd floor, Sharda Niwas, Ardeshir Dadi Street, Bombay-4. The said office is annexed to a residential room and the entire premises are divided into three parts - an office, a kitchen and a bathroom. Some of the employees, including Suresh Shah (P.W.1) and Shrinath Yadav (P.W.2) were resid...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rukmani Chandrabhan Patil and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-1992
Reported in: 1994ACJ556
A.A. Halbe, J. 1. These appeals arising out of the awards passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Aurangabad, have been disposed of by this common judgment as the main claim petitions arise out of the accident doled 22.2.1991, involving Matador vehicle No. MVF 8236 and truck No. TN 27X 1168, wherein about ten persons died and seventeen persons sustained injuries. The Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 25,000/- in each application under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The appellant insurance company has been impleaded in those awards and it is the insurance company that has come up in all those appeals, inter alia, contending that the owner and insurer of truck No. TN 27X 1168 have not been impleaded in the claim petition by the claimants and further that the owner of the Matador used the vehicle for hire and reward contrary to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and for these reasons, all the appeals should be allowed and the award passed by the Trib...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Nagpur Zilla Krishi Audyogik Sahakari S ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-1992
Reported in: (1994)122CTR(Bom)322; [1994]209ITR481(Bom)
NAGPUR BENCHV. A. MOHTA J. - At the behest of the Commissioner of Income-tax, the following four questions have been referred to this court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction under section 80P(2) (a) (iv) in respect of the sales of commodities to non-members also ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in rejecting the contention of the Revenue that the intention of the assessee under the provisions of section 80P(2) (a) (iv) at the time of purchase of eligible commodities should be, in the absence of any other evidence, inferred with reference to their ultimate sales either to members or to non-members ?(3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in granting deduction of the entire gross profit arising from the bus...
Nagpur Zilla Krushi Audyogik Sahakari Sangh Ltd. Vs. Second Income-tax ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-1992
Reported in: [1994]207ITR213(Bom)
ORDER UNDER S. 144B--Not signed by ITO.Held :The law required forwarding of the draft of the proposed order of assessment by the ITO. This communication, no doubt, required authenticity. The signature of the ITO on the forwarding letter provided that authenticity. By virtue of the mere fact that the draft order was not signed, it could not be said that the condition precedent was not fulfilled and the entire proceedings were rendered invalid. The defect, if any, must be held to be only technical keeping in view the object behind s. 144B.Conclusion :Non-signing of draft assessment order is only a curable technical defect.Application :Not to current assessment years.Income Tax Act 1961 s.144B ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »