Mumbai Court September 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.
20th Century Finance Corporation Ltd. Vs. Maegaware Computers Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1993
Reported in: [1997]89CompCas487(Bom)
M.S. Rane, J. 1. On behalf of the respondent-company draft judge's summons is tendered. Leave under rule 19(3) of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, granted to the applicants to take out judge's summons in terms of the draft judge's summons handed in judge's summons made returnable forthwith. The petitioners waive service. The respondents to get the same registered. 2. The petitioners are common petitioners in this group of petitions and are creditors of Maegaware Computers Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the company' for brevity's sake), the respondents herein. They have presented these petitions for winding up the respondent-company with a case that the said company is unable to pay the debts for the amounts mentioned in each petition. It may be stated that the liability is in respect of lease rentals of the appliances and instruments leased by the petitioners to the said company. 3. On filing of the petitions, but before their admissions, the parties arrived at settlement on March...
C.P. Nangia, Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay Vs. Omprakash Agga ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1993
Reported in: 1994CriLJ2160
1. Rule. The learned Advocates for the Respondents waive notice. By consent heard forthwith. 2. The Respondent No. 1 who is a Managing Director is alleged to have been involved in offences punishable under section 135(1)(a)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 and Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1967 for not exporting the goods worth about Rs. 17 lakhs even though he was under an obligation to export the same as equivalent raw material was imported without payment of import duty. Statement of Respondent No. 1 was also recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act. 3. Respondent No. 1 came to be arrested on 27-8-1993 and produced on the same date before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 37th Court, Esplanade, Bombay and remanded till 28-8-1993. On 28-8-1993, the learned Magistrate considering all the facts and circumstances and by reasoned order remanded Respondent No. 1 to judicial custody till 3-9-1993. The bail plea made by Respondent No. 1 was rejected. This w...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rajmata Shri Gulabkunvarba Sahiba of Na ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1993
Reported in: [1994]206ITR534(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 has referred the following question of law to this court for opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to section 80G(4), the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee is entitled to deduction for donation under section 80G(1) with reference with reference to the gross total income as defined in section 80B(5) ?' The assessee is an individual. This reference pertains to the assessment year 1968-69. The previous year relevant to this assessment year is year ended on March 31, 1968. During this year, the assessee had donated a sum of Rs. 1,21,101 and claimed relief under section 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect thereof. There is no dispute either about the applicability of section 80G of the Act to the donation in question or the rate at which deduction is allowable under sub-section (1) of section 80...
Damodar Mangalji and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1993
Reported in: [1994]206ITR524(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 has referred the following question to this court for its opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the hire charges received from Messrs. Sesa Goa (P.) Ltd. was assessable under section 28 under the head 'Profits and gains of business' and not under section 56 under the head 'Income from other sources' ?' 2. The assessee is a company engaged in the business of mining, hiring of barges and other retail business. It has been carrying on the above business during the last fifteen years. In the year 1950, it had acquired six barges which were used for the purpose of carrying ore belonging to it from its plot to the ships. These barges were deployed by the assessee on voyage and/or time charter to others as and when it did not have sufficient cargo of its own. 3. For the purpose of deployment of these barges on hire, the assessee had engage...
Petrosil Oil Company Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1993
Reported in: [1999]236ITR220(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 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 Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee-company was not a company in which the public are substantially interested as defined in the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1971, for the purpose of the First Schedule to the said Finance Act 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal rightly held that no appeal lies against charge of interest under section 139 of the Act ?' 2. Though this reference pertains to the assessment years 1971-72 to 1975-76, the second question is confined to the assessment year 1974-75 only. 3. The assessee is an Indian company incorporated under the Companies Act in India. During the relevant assessment years, it was a wholly-owned subsidiary of a company incorporated in the Un...
Baburao Sahebrao Deshmukh and anr. Vs. Onkarmal Bachharaj and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1993
Reported in: 1996(2)BomCR436
H.W. Dhabe, J.1. Since we have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants at length, we admit this appeal and dispose it off on merits. Since the grievance of the appellants was that because of lack of communication to the advocate at Nagpur, the appellants remained unrepresented when the writ petition was heard and decided on 7-2-1989, without referring to the judgement of the learned Single Judge, in view of the submissions made on behalf of the appellants, we have gone through the entire evidence in the instant case. It is only thereafter that on the contention being raised that there was no error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, either original or in review, that we have perused the judgment of the learned Single Judge to consider the contention raised on behalf of the appellants, whether it was open to the learned Single Judge to interfere with the orders of the above authority in his jurisdiction under Article 2...
S.B. Jogdand Vs. Shrinivas S/O Shaligram Totla and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1993
Reported in: 1994(2)BomCR86
N.P. Chapalgaonker, J. 1. Applicant, who is in service of the State of Maharashtra and was working as Chief Officer of the Municipal Council at Parali Vaidyanath at the relevant time, has filed this application before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Parali Vaidyanath praying for quashing the process issued against him for offence punishable under sections 166, 192 and 218 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Complainant claims to be owner of Municipal House No. 204 situated at Ward No. 7 at Parali Vaidyanath. He had filed a suit claiming rent from some persons including accused No. 5 to 7 namely; Maruti Memaji Shinde, Kerba Memaji Shinde and Bhikulal Baburam Pardesi who were in actual possession of said property. This suit, in which Municipal Council was not a party, was decreed. Later on Municipal Council through its Chief Officer (Applicant) had filed a civil suit against Maroti Memaji Shinde, Kerba Mamaji Shinde and Bhikulal Baluram Pardeshi in respect of the same proper...
Mohamed Javed Abdul Aziz Shaikh Vs. D.K. Jain, Principal Secretary (Pr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1993
Reported in: 1994(2)BomCR98; (1994)96BOMLR798
H.H. Kantharia , J. 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-detenu takes exception to the detention order dated October 23, 1992 passed against him by the Principal Secretary (Preventive Detention) to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department and the detaining authority (first respondent) under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 with a view to preventing him from engaging in illicit traffic of Narcotic Drugs.2. The grounds of detention on which the detaining authority relied are, shortly stated, that on 2-7-1991 at about 6.00 a.m., information was received that four persons, including the petitioner, were likely to make a transaction on 2-7-1991 at about 8.45 a.m. to 9.45 a.m. in the vicinity of an open place situate between Saifee Masjeed and Wanjara Compound along M.E. Sarang Marg, Dongri, Bombay-400 009 about narcotic drugs. A trap was, therefore, ar...
Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Patel Engineering Company ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Bom80; 1994(3)BomCR139; (1993)95BOMLR302
1. This is an appeal preferred by original Respondents to challenge Order dated January 27th 1993 passed by the Learned Single Judge in Arbitration Petition No. 45 of 1993. By the impugned order, the Learned Single Judge made the petition absolute and pending arbitration, restrained the Appellants herein from encashing or receiving any amount under the Bank Guarantees mentioned in Exhibit 'F' thereto. The facts which gave rise to the filing of the said Petition are as follows :--In or about the year 1987, the Appellants had floated a tender notice inviting tenders in respect of construction of an underground tunnel which was part of the Bombay III Water Supply Project. Along with their letter dated 16th May J9S8, the Respondents had submitted their tender for construction of underground tunnel between Dr. E. Moses Road and Ruparel College, Bombay, a part of the said project which was accepted by the Appellants and a contract bearing No. 2769-IN/1750-IN/W/20 (for short 'the said Contrac...
Vasant Namdeo Baste and ors. Vs. Madhukar Trimbak Suryawanshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1993
Reported in: 1(1994)ACC400
M.K. Mukherjee, C.J.1. These two appeals have been heard together as they stem from a common judgment2. Facts relevant for disposal of these two appeals, are as under:On January, 31, 1982 at or about 11.30 a.m. when Madhukar Trimbak Suryawanshi, the respondent in First Appeal No. 985 of 1985 was proceeding along Deola-Satna Road on a motor-cycle with Ashok Sukdeo Jadhav, the respondent in the other appeal, on the pillion, a truck suddenly dashed against them, as a result of which both of them sustained severe injuries. A matador which was also coming along that road at that time stopped there and its two occupants namely, Ratan Vithal Mahatma and Ramdas Trimbak Shewale took the two injured to a doctor and arranged for their treatment. Information about the accident was also lodged with the local Police Station.3. The above two injured thereafter filed two separate applications before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal claiming compensation from the appellant No. 1, as according to them...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »