Mumbai Court June 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.
Krimpex Synthetics and Others Vs. Industrial Credit and Investment Cor ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Bom171; 1994(1)BomCR288; (1993)95BOMLR993
ORDERM. K. Mukherjee, C. J.1. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) have filed the suit from which the instant appeal sterns, for declaration that certain amounts as mentioned in the plaint are due and payable by the appellant Company (the defendant No. 1 in the suit) and for declaration that the land and/or building and/or plant and machinery etc. belonging to it are secured to them for securing repayment of the said amounts. After filing the suit the plaintiffs took out a Notice of Motion being No. 1819 of 1989 for an injunction restraining the Company from disposing of and parting with possession of the properties secured to them and for appointment of Court Receiver. In that noticeof motion initially an interim order of injunction was passed in favour of the respondents. On a further application for ad interim relief moved by them an order was passed by the learned trial Judge on October 23, 1989 appointing Court Receiver in respect of the propert...
Krimpek Synthetics Ltd. and Others Vs. Industrial Credit and Investmen ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1993
Reported in: [1995]82CompCas556(Bom)
M.K. Mukherjee, C.J. 1. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 herein (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiffs') have filed the suit from which the instant appeal stems, for a declaration that certain amounts, as mentioned in the plait, are due and payable by the appellant-company (defendant No. 1 in the suit) and for a declaration that the land and/or building and/or plant and machinery, etc., belonging to it are secured to them for securing repayment of the said amounts. After filing the suit the plaintiffs took out a notice of motion, being No. 1819 of 1989 for an injunction restraining the company from disposing of and parting with possession of the properties secured to them and for appointment of a court receiver. In that notice of motion initially an interim order of injunction was passed in favour of the respondents. On a further application for ad interim relief moved by them an order was passed by the learned trial judge on October 23, 1989, appointing a court receiver in respect of the...
Satishkumar S/O Premchand JaIn Vs. Krishnagopal S/O Mohanlal Sarda
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1993
Reported in: 1994(2)BomCR680; (1993)95BOMLR869; 1994CriLJ887
ORDER1. Heard Shri C. P. Sen, learned Advocate for the applicant, at length.2. This revision application under section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is for setting aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No. 4, Nagpur, below Exh. 21 in Criminal Case No. 136 of 1990, by which the learned Magistrate rejected the application filed by the applicant challenging the maintainability of the criminal complaint filed by the non-applicant or for quashing the criminal proceedings initiated by the non-applicant.3. The main question that arises for my consideration in this revision application is if the cheque bounces on presentation for the second time, can a criminal complaint under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is maintainable. In other words, whether the complainant under S. 138 of the Act can have second cause of action on the same cheque when no complaint was filed by him on bouncing of the ch...
G.A. Randerian Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1993
Reported in: 1993LC551(Bombay); 1993(67)ELT54(Bom)
Pendse J.1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners are challenging order dated August 27, 1983 passed by Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay directing confiscation of the goods in exercise of powers conferred under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act r/w Section 3 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. The Additional Collector gave an option to the petitioners to pay a fine of Rs. 2,25,000/- in lieu of confiscation and clear the goods. The petition raised three contentions (i) landing charges; (ii) advantage of exemption notification and (iii) whether the petitioners were entitled to import goods which were permissible under the policy for the year 1982-83. 2. Shri Kantawalla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, very fairly stated that the first two issues viz. landing charges and availability of exemption notification stand concluded by decisions of this Court reported in : 1987(32)ELT262(Bom) Ashok Traders v. Union...
Dwarkabai Ganesh Mukkawar Vs. Harachand Chintu Sawji Gour (Since Decea ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1993
Reported in: (1993)95BOMLR489
N.P. Chapalgaonker, J.1. This revision application raises an interesting question about the limitation for redemption of mortgaged property.2. One Harachand Gour - original respondent in this revision application, was the owner of House No. 5-2-148 (old No. 1058) situated at Udgir. He mortgaged this property with one Bhanudas s/o Venkati Kautikwar on 12 Isfindar 1359 Fasli (corresponding to the year 1949-50 A.D.) by a registered mortgage deed for a sum of Rs. 4300/-. Osmania currency (approximately Rs. 3700/- Indian currency). Mortgage was to be redeemed after the expiry of 3 years from the date of the registration of the mortgage deed and the possession of the property mortgaged was to be enjoyed by mortgagee in lieu of the interest on the money advanced.3. Mortgagee Bhanudas Venkati expired sometime in the year 1978 and is survived by his mother Subhadrabai and a daughter Dwarka. Mortgagor filed an application under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act and deposited mortgage am...
Dawn Apparels Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-1993
Reported in: [1994]208ITR93(Bom)
V.A. Mohta, J.1. Under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question at the instance of the assessee : 'Whether the Tribunal erred in holding that the expenditure incurred by the assessee on the travel outside India by the assessee's director for promotion of exports of the assessee's goods did not qualify for weighted deduction under section 35B of the Income-tax Act. 1961 ?' 2. The relevant assessment year is 1976-77, the assessee manufactures wearing apparels. By a resolution dated June 30, 1972, the company decided to sell its entire output to the Dawn Mills Company Limited. There was no condition that the mills should export the goods outside India. There was no material on record to indicate that the output sold by the assessee to the Dawn Mills Company Ltd. was substantially diverted for export. 3. Against the aforesaid factual background, the Tribunal held that the expenditure incurred by the assessee on the fo...
Gopinath Vasudeo Datar Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-1993
Reported in: 1993(67)ELT56(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. The petitioner an order for import of methyl ethyl ketene from the sellers in Netherlands. The consignment arrived by ship on February 15, 1979 and the petitioner filed bill of entries for home consumption. The Assistant Collector of Customs completed the assessment and the petitioner paid duty of Rs. 27,442.26. The petitioner thereafter sought delivery of the imported article but could not get the same. The petitioner was directed to the barge owners and even the barge owners could not find the imported goods. The petitioner thereupon filed criminal complaint against the barge owners on February 13, 1980 and the Metropolitan Magistrate appointed the Commissioner to visit the barges and ascertain whether the imported goods are available. The Commissioner made a report on February 21, 1980 that the imported goods are not traceable. 2. On February 22, 1980 the petitioner filed claim for refund of duty paid in respect of goods which were not traceable. The Assistant Collector...
Narendra Mafatlal Mehta Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-1993
Reported in: 1993(67)ELT464(Bom)
M.L. Pendse, J.1. The petitioner applied for export house certificate on June 21, 1978 in accordance with the requirement of Import-Export Policy of April 1978 to March 1979. The application made to the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports was rejected by order dated August 30, 1978 on the ground that the petitioner failed to diversify exports. The petitioner preferred Writ Petition No. 1458 of 1979 to this Court and by decision of one of us (Pendse, J.), reported in : [1981]129ITR609(Bom) (Narendra Mafatlal Mehta v. Union of India and Anr.), the respondents were directed to issue the requisite export house certificate.2. In pursuance of the judgment, the respondents issued additional licence, but subsequently served a show cause notice on March 9, 1983 to explain why the licence should not be amended by deleting the advantage of being registered during the period of April 1978 and March 1979. The petitioner preferred Writ Petition No. 842 of 1983 to challenge the issuance of show c...
Nusli N. Wadia Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-1993
Reported in: (1993)46ITD31(Mum.)
1. The assesses, an individual, resident/non-citizen, is in appeal for the assessment year 1984-85, for which the valuation date shown is March 31, 1984. Assessment has been framed under Section 16(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The return was filed by the assessee on September 28, 1984, declaring a wealth of Rs. 16,26,200, while the assessment stood framed at Rs. 1,20,42,441. The assessee appealed and the learned first appellate authority, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Central-I, Bombay, dismissed the appeal, vide orders of January 3, 1990. The assessee is as yet aggrieved, hence this second appeal and we have heard the parties at length, since the hearing was spread over three days. The addition being agitated upon by the assessee amounts to Rs. 1,01,61,850 and it has the following components : (i) Rs. 93,02,545 being the market value of shares of the Bombay Dyeing and Mfg. Ltd. ; (ii) Rs. 2,00,000 representing advances to the two minor sons of the assessee ; (iii) Rs. ...
Shree Construction Company Vs. Mumbai Postal Karamchari Co-operative H ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-1993
Reported in: 1994(2)BomCR207; (1993)95BOMLR694; 1994(1)MhLj353
Sujata Manohar, J.1. The appellants are the original plaintiffs. The 1st respondent who is original defendant No. 1, is Co-operative Housing Society. The appellants filed this suit under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act for a declaration that under an Agreement dated 25.12.1981, which was entered into between the appellants and the 1st respondents, there is a valid and subsisting Arbitration Agreement as contained in Clause 19 of the said agreement under which the disputes between the appellants and the 1st respondents relating to the said contract dated 25.12.1981 are required to be referred to the sole arbitration of Mr. M. S. Belekar, an Architect as provided in that clause, and for other reliefs. A learned Single Judge of this court by his judgment and order dated 7.1.1988 has dismissed the Arbitration Petition/Suit with no order as to costs. Hence the appellants have filed the present appeal. 2. Under the agreement of 25.12.1981, the appellants agreed to construct a residential b...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »