Mumbai Court January 1993 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.
Madhukar Chandar Alias Ramchandra Patil Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-1993
Reported in: 1994(1)BomCR617; 1993CriLJ3281
Saldanha, J.1. Instances do arise before criminal Courts where the question is validly posed as to whether consigning the accused to jail is the most appropriate form of punishment and whether the plight of the aggrieved parties is not of equal consequence. Where the accused, a young agriculturist with no criminal antecedents, acting with impassioned zeal, went to the assistance of his sister in seemingly chivalrous exercise and stabbed her husband to death, he was liable to be convicted under S. 304 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court has the option of imposing a fine apart from a jail sentence and the predominant consideration would be to ensure retribution for the damage done - in this case to the old mother who lost her only son and to the three young children who are left fatherless. The conduct of the wife, in this instance, disqualifies her from any consideration. First, however, the facts. 2. This appeal arises out of an incident that took place on the night of 2-11-1988 at abo...
Ciba of India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-1993
Reported in: (1993)114CTR(Bom)105; [1993]202ITR1(Bom)
Dr. B.P. Saraf, J.1. By this reference made under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions of law to this court for opinion : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sums of Rs. 46,178 and Rs. 10,399 are allowable as revenue expenditure for the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66, respectively (2) If the answer to question No. 1 is in the negative, whether the plea of the assessee that the said amounts should be added to the 'actual cost' of the plant and depreciation should be allowed thereon, has been rightly disallowed to be raised by the Tribunal (3) If the answer to question No. 2 is in the negative, whether the said amounts should be added to the 'actual cost' of the plant and depreciation should be allowed thereon for the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66 respectively (4) Whether the expenditure of Rs. 10,60,827 and Rs. 1,46,312 incurred by the assessee for bringing the ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mahindra Sintered Products Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-1993
Reported in: [1993]201ITR605(Bom)
U.T. Shah, J.1. The following three questions have been referred by the tribunal under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue : 'Whether, on facts and in circumstances of the case, the assessee's claim for deduction of Rs. 70,545 being accrued liability for payment of gratuity (under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, ascertained on actuarial valuation) but for which no provision was made in its account maintained on mercantile basis is allowable notwithstanding the fact that the condition prescribed under section 40A(7) were not fulfilled (2) Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to depreciation at rate of 30 per cent. on jeep vans (3) Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that roads constructed within the factory premises constituted 'plant' and not 'building' and were, therefore, eligible for depreciation and...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vickers Sperry of India Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-1993
Reported in: [1995]216ITR861(Bom)
U.T. Shah, J.1. Both the parties stated that since the questions raised in this reference are covered by the decisions of this High Court as well as of the Supreme Court, the preparation of the paper book may be dispensed with and the reference be disposed of in the light of the said decisions. 2. This reference relates to the three assessment years, viz., assessment years 1973-74 to 1975-76, and there are certain common questions on certain issues. 3. For the assessment? year 1973-74 question No. 1 reads as under: '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the cash house rent allowance and the reimbursement of gas and electricity expenses to the employees should not be treated as perquisites for the purpose of the disallowance under section 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961? ' 4. Similar questions have been raised for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76. 5. Both the parties agreed and stated that in view of the d...
Sva Udyog Viniyog Limited Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-1993
Reported in: 1993LC376(Bombay); 1993(65)ELT20(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. The appellants imported a consignment of almonds-in shell declared as 'seeds of almonds' and claimed clearance against various REP licences for the export product covered under Appendix 17, clause G-2(i) of Import and Export Policy April 1985-March 1988. The Customs authorities felt that the goods imported are not covered by the licences and thereupon show cause notice was served on the appellants to explain why the goods should not be confiscated under Section 111 of the Customs Act. The three reasons set out in the show cause notice were : (a) The item imported is almonds which is commercially known as dry fruit and not as seeds. (b) Almonds are 'consumer's goods of agricultural origin' covered by entry 121 and required a specific licence for clearance. and (c) As per the provision of Paragraph 8 of Appendix 17 of Import & Export Policy, only such goods are permitted for import against REP licences as actually used in the manufacture of export products and almonds in ...
Surendra Singh S/O Balwant Singh Manna Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-1993
Reported in: 1994(1)BomCR470
V.V. Kamat, J.1. The petitioner - Surendra Singh has presented this petition under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 under inherent powers contending that the provisions of the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the TADA Act') are not applicable to the acts constituted and alleged against him on the basis of F.I.R. dated April 17, 1992 - for offence under section 302 Indian Penal Code registered as C.R. No. I-122 of 1992 at the Vazirabad Police Station and consequently for quashing the proceedings of Special Case No. 15 of 1992 of the Designated Court (Special Judge, Nanded) and to direct continuance thereof under the normal Criminal Law, together with a prayer for bail by confirming the Order dated June 20, 1992 granting bail, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded in Misc. Criminal Application No. 352 of 1992. In this the petitioner also, as a sequeiter, challenges the order dated September 19, 1992, be...
Manubhai Paragji Vashi Vs. University of Bombay and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-1993
Reported in: AIR1993Bom197; 1993(3)BomCR364; (1993)95BOMLR855; 1993(2)MhLj1197
ORDER1. This writ petition involvesconsideration of validity of Ruling given by Shri C. Subramanian, the then Chancellor of University of Bombay incorporated in Circular Exhibit 'A' to the petition prescribing a norm of propriety required to be observed by members of Senate and Executive Council of the University who happen to be legal practitioner. By the said ruling, it is declared that it would not be proper for members of Senate and Executive Council to appear against the University in any litigation so long as such members continue to be members of Senate or Executive Council. By the impugned ruling and the impugned Circular members of Senate and Executive Council are requested to! refrain from appearing against the University. In case of breach of the said ruling, there is reasonable possibility of commencement of proceedings for disquali-fication of the member concerned under Section 76B of Bombay University Act, 1974. 2. At the outset, I shall refer to a few facts and the relev...
Swiss Bank Corporation and Canara Bank Vs. Jai Hind Oil Mills Co. and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-1993
Reported in: 1994(1)BomCR371; [1997]90CompCas518(Bom)
M.L. Pendse, J.1. Both these appeals are directed against the judgment and decree dated April 17, 1989, passed by the learned single judge in Suit No. 807 of 1986. By the impugned judgment the learned judge decreed the suit and dismissed the counter - claim filed by defendant No. 1. The facts giving rise to institution of the suit are as follows : The plaintiffs (Jai Hind 011 Mills Co.) are a partnership firm registered under the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, and carry on the business of dealing in the manufacture of various types of edible oils and are also engaged in the business of importing and exporting diverse goods into and from India. On August 3, 1985, the plaintiffs agreed to purchase diverse quantities of Turkish chick peas 1985 crop from defendant No. 4 (Inter ocean Reefers A. G., a firm incorporated under the laws in force in Switzerland) under the terms and conditions which are incorporated in confirmation notes issued by Tri Une, Produce, Brokers of def...
Bsn (Uk) Ltd. and Others Vs. Janardan Mohandas Rajan Pillai and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-1993
Reported in: 1993(3)BomCR228; [1996]86CompCas371(Bom)
Jhunjhunuwala J.1. By this chamber summons, defendants Nos. 1 and 2 who are directors of Britannia Industries Ltd., the seventh defendant, in the suit seek that : (i) the names of plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 be struck out and/or deleted from the cause title of the plaint filed in the suit; (ii) the portions of the pleadings put forth in the plaint as more particularly mentioned in the schedule to the chamber summons be struck out and/or deleted; and (iii) the verification clause of the plaint filed be struck out and plaint be returned as defective. 2. The first plaintiff is a company, incorporated under the laws of the United Kingdom. The first plaintiff holds 50% of the share capital of a company called 'Associated Biscuits International Holdings Ltd.' (for short, 'ABIH') which is also incorporated under the laws of the United Kingdom. ABIH holds 100% of the share capital of a company called 'Associated Business International Ltd.' (for short, 'ABIL') a company also incorporated under t...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. British Insulated Calender's Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-1993
Reported in: [1993]202ITR354(Bom)
U.T. Shah, J.1. The issue involved in this reference is whether the assessee has a choice in respect of setting off of business loss against income from other heads of the same year 2. The assessee is a sterling company with a branch in India. The assessment year is 1967-68 and the relevant previous year is the calendar year 1966. The Indian branch had suffered business loss during the previous year. As per the profit and loss account, the loss suffered by the Indian branch was Rs. 39,87,929. The Income-tax Officer computed the loss from business at Rs. 7,14,759. The assessee had also earned considerable income by way of dividend (Rs. 21,79,245). The dividend income was taxable at a concessional rate and, therefore, the assessee claimed before the Income-tax Officer that its business loss should be carried forward to be set off against business profits in the subsequent year(s) and its dividend income for the year under consideration should be taxed at the concessional rate. The Income...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »