Mumbai Court March 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.
Machhindra Kundalik Nale and ors. Vs. Vithal Sendu Lokhande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1993
Reported in: (1993)95BOMLR352
M.G. Chaudhari, J.1. The respondent has filed regular Civil Suit No. 115 of 1985 against the petitioners which is pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Barshi. The suit is for specific performance of the Agreement for sale of the suit property allegedly executed between the parties on 17-6-1981. The plaintiff has also sought relief of possession and other reliefs incidental to specific performance. The suit was filed on 13-3-1985.2. The petitioners-defendants filed their written statement on 19-2-1986 inter alia raising the contentions that no Agreement for Sale was executed as alleged, that Defendant No. 1 Machhindra was addicted to vices and there was neither any legal necessity nor any other compelling reason for him to have executed an Agreement for Sale and that therefore the plaintiff was not entitled to the reliefs claimed in the suit. Other contentions were also raised which are not necessary to be set out here. The substance of the written statement bei...
Yashodhan Industrial Investment Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1993
Reported in: (1993)46ITD80(Mum.)
1. The assessee appeals for the assessment year 1984-85. The order impugned is dated March 13, 1989, and has been made by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka-II, Bangalore, under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The assessment order is dated February 9, 1987. The said order was the subject-matter of an appeal by the assessee and the order of the learned first appellate authority bears the date July 31, 1987. The order of the learned Commissioner presently impugned in this appeal, as mentioned earlier, is of March 13, 1989.3. In view of the finding of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case reported as CIT v. International Computers Indian Manufacture Ltd. [1991] 187 ITR 580 (Bom) at page 582, the impugned order stands cancelled with consequences flowing out of the above finding to follow.The decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court is in the following terms : " It is held that the amendment is retrospective with effect from June 1, 1988, whic...
Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1993
Reported in: 1994(1)BomCR128; 1993(65)ELT186(Bom)
Mrs. Sujata Manohar, J.1. In this Writ Petition, the petitioners Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd., have challenged certain show cause notices issued to them by the Superintendent, Central Excise and also certain orders dated 19th October, 1979, 8th July, 1980, 19th July, 1980 and 15th July, 1980, passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise against them. They have also asked for a direction for approving the price-lists as set out in the petition and for permitting the petitioners to clear their goods upon payment of excise duty calculated on the basis of the price-lists submitted by the petitioners. By an amendment, they have further prayed that various claims for deductions made by the petitioners from the assessable values of their products should be granted and the amounts of duty payable by and refundable to them should be calculated on that basis. During the pendency of the petition, by an interim order dated 9-12-1983, the assessing authorities were directed to permit the ass...
Raghunath Vishnu Patil Vs. R.N. Gavande and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1993
Reported in: (1994)IILLJ213Bom
Ashok Agarwal, J.1. The petitioner, at the relevant time, was a bus conductor in the B.E.S.T. undertaking. He was a member of the B.E.S.T. Kamgar Union and also the Depot Secretary of the Colaba Depot Union. An incident took place on the April 19, 1882. The day was declared a 'Maharashtra Bandh Day'. The petitioner is alleged to have assaulted a co-worker, one Shri P.M. Patil, who, at the material time, was also a bus conductor. A report in respect of the incident was made by Shri Misal, who is a Bus Inspector. Based on the report, a departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner. On May 18, 1982 a charge-sheet was framed for breach of Standing Order 20(r), 20(b) and 20(f). By Standing Order 20 (r) the petitioner was charged with the assault on a fellow employee. Under Standing Order 20 (b) he was charged with abetting, inciting, instigating a strike and under Standing Order 20 (f) he was charged with slowing down the performance or wrongful interference with the work of the...
Yashodhan Industrial Investment Co. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1993
Reported in: (1993)47TTJ(Mumbai)152
ORDERS. P. KAPUR, J. M. :The assessee appeals for the asst. yr. 1984-85. The order impugned is dt. 13th March, 1989 and has been made by the learned CIT, Karnataka II, Bangalore, under S. 263 of the IT Act, 1961.2. The assessment order is dt. 9th Feb., 1987. The said order was a subject-matter of appeal by the assessee and the order of the learned first appellate authority bears the date 31st July, 1987. The order of the learned Commissioner presently impugned in this appeal, as mentioned earlier, is of 13th March, 1989.3. In view of the finding of the Honble jurisdictional High Court in the case reported as CIT vs . International Computers Indian . : [1991]187ITR580(Bom) , the impugned order stands cancelled with consequences flowing out of the above finding to follow. The decision of the Honble jurisdictional High Court is in the following terms :'It is held that the amendment is retrospective w.e.f. 1st June, 1988, which means that it will cover only those orders which became the su...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Greaves Foseco Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-1993
Reported in: [1994]205ITR424(Bom)
U.T. Shah J.1. Under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with section 18 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, the Income-tax Appellant Tribunal has referred the following question at the instance of the Revenue for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having to the decisions of the Bombay High Court in the case of Marrior (India) Ltd. : [1977]107ITR35(Bom) and Shree Ram Mills Ltd. : [1977]108ITR27(Bom) , the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that there was no apparent mistake which could be rectified under section 13(1) 14(1) of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, in the assessments for the assessment years 1968-69, 1970-71 and 1971-72 ?' 2. In the assessment originally framed the Income-tax Officer had computed the capital as per provisions of the Second Schedule to the Surtax Act by taking the figures of 'general reserves' as on the first day of the relevant accounting year. Thereafter, he initiated proc...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mahendra Sobhagchand Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-1993
Reported in: [1993]203ITR178(Bom)
Dr. B.P. Saraf , J.1. By this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, made at the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal'), has referred the following question of law to this court for opinion : 'Having regard to the definition of 'gross total income' under section 80B(5), whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding deduction under section 80K on the gross dividend income without taking into account deduction for expenses incurred for earning the same ?' 2. The assessee is an individual who carried on the business of sale and purchase of shares. In the assessment year 1974-75 (corresponding previous year being year ended on October 26, 1973), the assessee received the following income under different heads : Rs.Ready share income 2,49,606Speculation business income 1,68,969Dividend income 6,72,220 ---------Total 10,90,795 ---------3. The assessee claimed deduction ...
Smt. Vimla Devi G. Maheshwari Vs. S.K. Laul and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-1993
Reported in: 1993(2)BomCR579; [1994]208ITR734(Bom)
ORDER UNDER S. 269UD--Interference by court--Not permissible unless findings perverse or lack non-application mind to material facts by appropriate authority.HELD :The appropriate authority has in its order critically examined the three instances which were relied upon by the department and has noted the location of these flats as also the purchase price which was paid for these flats, although they were sold much earlier. The appropriate authority has also dealt with the two instances which were relied upon by the petitioner and has considered the material produced by the petitioner. The grievance, therefore, of the petitioner that the comparable sale instances have not been taken into account or have not been properly considered, does not appear to be justified. Hence, this is not a case where the court could consider the order as perverse or as suffering from non-application of mind nor could it be considered erroneous or illegal.APPLICATION :Also to current assessment years.Income ...
Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vs. S.A. Patil and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-1993
Reported in: (1994)IILLJ438Bom
Ashok Agarwal, J.1. By judgment and order, passed by the Industrial Tribunal, on June 10, 1985, in Application IT No. 113 of 1983 under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, in Reference IT No. 95 of 1978, the prayer of the petitioner for grant of approval of the company's action of dismissal of the second respondent workman is refused. The said order is impugned in the present petition.2. The incident, which has given rise to the present proceeding, took place on July 30, 1982. The second respondent, at the material time, was working as Machine Operator 'C' in Engine Shop of the petitioner's establishment. On July 30, 1982 at about 5.45 p.m. while a worker of the establishment Shri S.J. Tarlekar was waiting on Plat Form No. 2 of Kandivli Railway Station for boarding a Suburban Train, the second respondent alongwith one other worker Shri R.S. Kesarkar, accosted Tarlekar, caught him by his shirt and hit him on his forehead, slapped him on his face and threatened him of dire c...
Alan Joseph D'Souza Vs. Joyce Mariquinha D'Souza
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-1993
Reported in: II(1994)DMC270
M.S. Rane, J.1. The Petitioner-husband has filed this Petition seeking declaration that his marriage with his wife-the Respondent be annulled by a decree of nullity, under Sections 18 and 19 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869. The said relief is claimed on the two grounds, viz, (i). That the Respdt. was impotent at the time of marriage and continued to be so at the date of the institution of this Petition; and (ii) His consent to the marriage was obtained by practicing fraud.2. Relevant necessary facts are adverted to hereinbelow :3. (i) The Appellant married the Respondent at Bombay on 31st of May, 1986 according to the Roman Catholic rites and ceremonies of the Catholic Church. A copy of the Marriage Certificate has been annexed as Exh. A to the Petition. The petitioner is the permanent resident of Bombay and is engaged in the business of clearing and forwarding Agent whereas, at the time of marriage the Respondent was working in the American Embassy and was posted in Baharain and conti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »