Mumbai Court October 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.
Nrb Bearings Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-1993
Reported in: (1994)48ITD557(Mum.)
1.These appeals by the assessee are consolidated and disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience as they involve common issues.The assessee is a resident company and the assessment years involved are 1986-87 and 1987-88 for which the valuation dates are 30th June, 1985 and 30th June, 1986 respectively. These appeals arise out of the consolidated older of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) dated 31-1-1992 wherein he has sustained the valuation of the property syled as "DHANUR BUILDING' for the assessment year 1986-87 at cost thereof subject to direction to make addition of the actual repair expenses incurred thereon in that year towards repairs and renewal. As regards the assessment year 1987-88, the CWT(A) accepted the plea of the assessee that 700 sq. ft. out of 3000 sq. ft. of the building was occupied by the assessee for its office use. Therefore the cost of the building and the cost of renovation and renewals incurred in that year should be excluded proportiona...
Vasudeo Harchand Kolhe and Another Vs. Bhaulal Nadarsingh Rajput and A ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Bom124; (1993)95BOMLR100
1. This is plaintiffs' appeal against a decree passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Jalgaon, in Special Civil Suit No. 45 of 1975, dismissing the plaintiffs' suit for specific performance and decreeing the suit only for a sum of Rs. 16,250/-, though the consideration which was alleged to have passed from the plaintiffs to defendant No. 1 was to the tune of Rs. 24,500/- or so. The claim for possession also was dismissed.2. The facts as they transpire from the pleadings and the documents show that an area admeasuring 3 Hectors and 12 Rs. out offormer Survey No. 96/1-A of village Sakaii, which formed part and parcel of consolidated survey No. 829-B, was the subject matter of the suit. According to the plaintiffs/appellants, under an agreement dated 27th January, 1974, respondent No. 1/defendant No. 1 had contracted to sell the said land to the appellants/plaintiffs for a sum of Rs. 28,000/- and had executed in their favour an agreement of sale vide Exh. 104. An amount of Rs....
irkar D. Shahu and anr. Vs. the Bombay Port Trust and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-1993
Reported in: 1994(3)BomCR566
Sujata Manohar, J.1. In 1948, the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948 was enacted for regulating the employment of Dock Workers. Under section 2(b) of this Act a dock worker is defined to mean 'a person employed or to be employed in, or in the vicinity of, any port on work in connection with the loading, unloading, movement or storage of cargoes, or work in connection with the preparation of ships or other vessels for the receipt or discharge of cargoes or leaving port.' Under section 2(c) an 'employer' in relation to a dock worker is defined to mean 'the person by whom he is employed or to be employed.' Section 3 of this Act (hereinafter referred to as the Dock Workers Act) provides for schemes to be framed for registration of dock workers and employers with a view to ensure greater regularity of employment and for regulating the employment of dock workers whether registered or not in a port. Under section 3(2) such a scheme may provide, inter alia, for the application o...
Universal Filteration Co. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1993
Reported in: (1994)(69)ELT77Tri(Mum.)bai
1. For hearing the applicant's appeal on merits they are required to deposit Rs. 6,86,573/- towards duty and a penalty of Rs. 60,000/-. The plant and machinery also have been ordered confiscation but allowed redemption on payment of a fine Rs. 30,000/- vide order in original No.14/93, dated 26-2-1993.2. After hearing both sides we find that the issue relates to denial of small scale exemption by including the value of the parts of diesel engines such as filter head and filter element, which go into the final product, namely filter assembly, which are cleared under Chapter X Procedure in terms of Notification 217/85. The prima facie ground urged by Shri Kulkarni, the learned Chartered Accountant, is that Notification No. 217/85 extends exemption to all parts of diesel engines without naming any particular part. Even assuming the worst against them, filter head and filter elements, which have been cleared captively and used in the manufacture of filter assembly and the entire assembly h...
Manikchand Fulchand Katariya Vs. Lalchand Harakchand Katariya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Bom196; 1994(1)MhLj732
1. There arises a twin question of law in this petition. The first question is whether the counter claim under 0.8, R. 6A of Code of Civil Procedure (for short,hereinafter, Code) is limited to money suit only. The second question is whether by way of counter-claim a decree for possession in favour of defendant in a suit filed by the plaintiff for injunction can be legally tenable.2. In order to appreciate these questions it will be convenient to set out the material facts which have given rise to the controversy between the parties.3. The property bearing city survey Nos. 851 and 851/A situated at Sangamner, District Ahmednagar was originally owned by joint Hindu family comprising of two brothers, namely, Fulchand and Harak-chand. The petitioner is the son of Fulchand whereas, the respondent is the son of Harak-chand. The case of the petitioner is that while the family was joint, there was some dispute and, therefore, he, for convenience, started residing separately in order that he sh...
Naseera Begum and ors. Vs. Syed Habibur Rehman and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1993
Reported in: (1995)IILLJ462Bom
S.S. Dani, J. 1. This revision, which is a referred matter to this Bench by the learned Single Judge of this Court raises an interesting point as to whether future salary of a person can be held to be a tangible movable property for the purposes of Section 421 of Criminal Procedure Code and it cannot, at any time, be attached for recovery of the defaulted amount of the maintenance awarded to a wife. 2. The present Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are the minor sons of Petitioner No. 1. The Petitioner No. 1 is the legally wedded wife of Respondent No. 1. Inasmuch as the petitioners were deserted and neglected by Respondent No. 1, by refusing to maintain them, the petitioner No. 1, for herself and for her sons, started this legal battle in 1981 for monthly maintenance. She filed an application under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, for the monthly maintenance on July 27, 1981 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nanded. It was Miscellaneous Application No. 115 of 1981...
The Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Through Its Chairman Vs. Ran ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1993
Reported in: 1994(2)BomCR20; (1994)96BOMLR757
M.S. Vaidya, J.1. This is defendant's Appeal challenging the decree passed on 28-8-1990 by the learned Additional District Judge, Ambajogai, dismissing the Appeal preferred by the present-appellant, The Appeal has been admitted only on ground Nos. 3 and 4 in the Appeal-Memo. Ground No. 3 in the present Appeal-Memo pertains to the contention of the appellant that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. It was contended that the matter was governed by the Industrial Disputes Act, in as much as only the Labour Court has got the exclusive jurisdiction to try and decide the matters relating to termination and dismissal of service. Ground No. 4 pertains to the plea of present-appellant that the present suit was barred by principle of res-judicata, in view of previous Regular Civil Suit No. 22 of 1972.2. The relevant facts may be stated briefly, at the outset:-The respondent was appointed as a Clerk with the appellant-Agriculture Produce Market Committee on 10-6-196...
Shashikant Waman Kochikar Vs. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bom ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1993
Reported in: 1994(3)BomCR148
A.V. Savant, J.1. This is a petition seeking to challenge the letter/order at Ex. C dated 7th July 1987 issued by the second respondent - Director (Engineering Services and Projects) of the first respondent Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay. Under the said letter/order Ex. C the petitioner had been informed that under office order dated 24th November, 1986 he was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer on ad hoc basis with effect from 4th November 1987. However, it had subsequently come to the notice that at the time of the petitioner's promotion to the post of Asstt. Engineer, he was involved in a criminal case in connection with the approval of the building proposal based on fraudulently increased area of plots of City Survey Nos. 233 and 234 of Byculla Division, Bombay. Para 2 of the order states that the Anti Corruption Bureau (A.C.B.) had investigated the complaint and, prima facie criminal case was made out against certain accused including some municipal employees, peti...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sandoz (India) Ltd
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-1993
Reported in: (1994)120CTR(Bom)38; [1994]206ITR599(Bom)
DR. B.P. Saraf, J. 1. By this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, at the instance of the Revenue, 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 Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the loss of Rs. 6,38,600 arising out of devaluation of the Indian rupee is a revenue expenditure and consequently directing the deduction thereof ?' (2) If the answer to question No. (1) above is in the negative, whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the aforesaid loss of Rs. 6,38,600 was a revenue loss incurred by the assessee in the course of carrying on its business, and consequently directing the deduction thereof from the total income of the assessee-company ?' 2. The assessee is a company. It entered into an agreement of loan with a Swiss company Sandoz (India) Ltd. which was repayable in Swiss francs in Switzerland. The loan was spe...
N.T.C. (S.M.) Ltd. Vs. M.E. Mohadikar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-1993
Reported in: [1994(68)FLR524]
ORDERS.N. Variava, J. 1. This is a Contempt Notice of Motion. The facts are as follows :The Applicants herein had filed an Application under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 being Application (BIR) No. 485 of 1985. On 6th October 1987 the following order was passed : '1. It is hereby declared that the applicant continues in the employment of the opponent-Company with consequential benefits, except for the back wages for the period upto 7-11-1984 and onwards. 2. The Applicant is not entitled to back wages upto 7-11-1984. He is entitled to back wages at the rate of 50% from 8th November, 1984 3. No order as to costs'. 2. The Petitioners herein preferred an appeal to the Industrial Court bearing (IC) No. 174 of 1987. The same came to be summarily dismissed on 29th September, 1989. 3. The Petitioners filed in this Court Writ Petition No. 1615 of 1991. On 18th December, 1992 the same was dismissed with the following order :- P. C. : Heard Counsel Since the point raised in this ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »