Mumbai Court March 1994 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.
Bhalchandra Narayan Tangadi and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1994
Reported in: 1995(1)BomCR358; (1994)96BOMLR620
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. The 7 petitioners, abovenamed feeling aggrieved by order dated 7th March, 1988 passed by Shri J.A. Patil, Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, have come up in Criminal Revision Application No. 243 of 1988 before this Hon'ble Court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was pleased to upheld conviction of petitioners under section 324, 147, 148 I.P.C. as directed by Smt. S.B. Gaikwad, J.M.F.C. Ist Court, Thane vide order dated 18th August, 1983. I have heard Shri S.V. Kotwal, holding brief for Shri S.R. Chitnis, as also the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. In para 25 of the Judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, it to has been observed:'Before concluding, I may mention that the learned Magistrate, did not discharge his duty properly in recording the statements under section 313 Cr. P.C.'It is found that only one common statement is recorded and that common answers of the accused are recorded. This is obviously not the proper way of recording state...
Miss Mariana D'Souza Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1994
Reported in: 1994(3)BomCR175
E.S. Da Silva, J.1. These two appeals which arise out of the same judgment passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Panaji in Sessions Case No. 53/92 can be conveniently disposed by a common judgment. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge by judgment dated 15-12-1992 convicted both the appellants for an offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under section 304 Part II read with section 34 of I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for five years.2. The prosecution case is that between 28.4.1992 and 1.5.1992 at Bhirmotem Bastora, both the appellants/accused in furtherance of common intention assaulted Joaquim Mariano D'souza alias Martin and inflicted injuries on him with the knowledge that such injuries were likely to cause his death, as a result of which the said Joaquim succumbed on the same night of 1-5-92. The prosecution examined in all 14 witnesses. However there were no eye witnesses to the incident and the conviction was based only on circu...
Atul Drug House Ltd. (Now Known as Atul Chemical Industries Ltd.) Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1994
Reported in: [1995]211ITR604(Bom)
Mrs. Sujata Mahohar, C.J.1. The assessee manufactures petro-chemicals. The assessee at the material time had a unit for the manufacture of Formaldehyde. The assessee had also set up a Penta plant in which Formaldehyde manufactured by one of the industrial units of the assessee was used as raw material in the manufacture of Penta. For the assessment year 1974-75, the assessee worked out the profit of the Penta plant at Rs. 9,34,127 for the purpose of application of section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961. While calculating the profit of the Penta plant at Rs. 9,34,127, the value of Formaldehyde which went into the manufacture of Penta was valued at cost and debited to the Penta unit. 2. The assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 2,21,066 under section 80J in respect of the Penta plant. The Income-tax Officer, however, did not grant relief under section 80J to the assessee in respect of the assessee's current profits on the ground that the Penta unit had incurred a loss and not profit. In arr...
Chemifine Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1994
Reported in: 1994LC368(Bombay); 1994(72)ELT15(Bom)
M.L. Pendse, J.1. The issue raised in the petition is concluded by judgment reported in : 1985(22)ELT644(Bom) Apar Pvt. Ltd. & Others v. Union of India. In view of the judgment, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. 2. Mr. Mehta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the concluded contract to import the consignment was entered into on June 11, 1984 and the letter of credit was opened on July 11, 1984. The consignment arrived by Air on August 18, 1984 and the Bill of Entry for home consumption was filed. Prior to this date, the notification dated August 10, 1984 was published in the Government Gazette. The learned counsel submitted that the notification which provides for payment of duty at the higher rate has no application to the import of the consignment of the petitioners because the petitioners has no notice of the said notification, since it was not made public. Mr. Mehta did not dispute that the notification was published in the Governme...
Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1994
Reported in: 1994(71)ELT906(Bom)
Pendse, J. 1. The petitioner No. 1 is a company registered under the Companies Act and carries on business as manufacturer of commercial vehicles. The company imported spares by Air and in respect of imported consignment, Bill of Entry for home consumption was filed on July 14, 1982. The consignment was cleared on payment of customs duty of Rs. 55,317.32. The company subsequently realised that the value mentioned in the Bill of Entry has been incorrectly declared in Deutsche Marks as against French Francs with the result that the company had paid excess import duty to the extent of Rs. 36,404.66 ps. 2. The company filed an application dated November 23, 1983 for refund of customs duty before the Assistant Collector of Customs, Air Cargo Complex, Sahar. The application was rejected by order dated June 13, 1984 on the ground that refund was sought beyond the period of six months from the date of payment and therefore was barred by the provisions of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. Th...
Zoom Films Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1994
Reported in: 1994LC364(Bombay); 1994(71)ELT898(Bom)
Pendse, J. 1. The controversy in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India lies in a narrow compass. The petitioners were registered as Small Scale Industrial Unit with Directorate of Industries for manufacture of various plastic articles. The list of items under registration included manufacture of Video Cassettes. The petitioners used Polyacetal Resin as raw material for manufacture of Video Cassettes and the raw material was required to be imported. 2. The Government of India published notification dated August 18, 1983 in exercise of powers conferred under sub-section (1) of Section 25 of Customs Act reducing the duty of customs payable from 100% ad valorem to 40%. By another notification dated March 1, 1984, the entire payment of auxiliary duty on the imported articles was exempted from payment. The benefit of the exemption notification was available provided the importer produced certificate of Small Scale Industries Directorate certifying that the import...
Echjay Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1994
Reported in: 1994(52)LC366(Bombay)
ORDERM.L. Pendse, J.1. The petitioners are a Private Limited Company registered under the Companies Act and carry on business as manufacturers of Steel Forging at Rajkot in State of Gujarat. The petitioners imported one Multi Spindle Copying Duplicating and Profile Milling Machine complete with standard accessories. The import was from Italy. The machine was imported after payment of customs duty of Rs. 5,75,669.38. The machine could not be commissioned because of some defect and the defective part was required to be imported as replacement. The petitioners accordingly imported Contour Scan Valve. In support of import of this defective part, the petitioners claimed exemption from payment of customs duty in pursuance of exemption notification dated August 29,1970 issued by Government of India in exercise of powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Customs Act.2. The notification, inter alia, provides that the articles and component parts thereof, when imported for replac...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rajaram Bandekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1994
Reported in: [1994]208ITR503(Bom)
Mrs. Sujata Manohar, C.J.1. The following questions are referred to us under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, interest/discounting charges of Rs. 2,59,956 in respect of machinery purchased under deferred payment scheme was rightly capitalised for allowance of depreciation and development rebate 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, payment of Rs. 3 lakhs was a permissible deduction for the asst. yr. 1974-75 ?' 2. As far as the first question is concerned, which is at the instance of the Department, in view of the decision of this Court in CIT vs . Rajaram Bandekar : [1993]202ITR514(Bom) , the question will have to be answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. The first question is answered accordingly. 3. The second question is referred to us at the instance of the assessee. In this connection, the relevant facts are as follows : (a) The assessee is a partnership firm which came into existence...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Star Andheri Estate
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1994
Reported in: (1994)120CTR(Bom)254; [1994]208ITR573(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, having particular regard to section 176(3A), the income-tax assessment could be filed for the assessment year 1976-77, even if the firm was dissolved on March 31, 1975 ?' 2. This reference pertains to the assessment year 1976-77. The assessee is a partnership firm. It was constituted as per deed of agreement dated October 26, 1963, for the purpose of acquiring a large area of land admeasuring about 25,000 square yards and disposing of the same. One of the partners of the said firm, Shri Manilal K. S. Vaidya, by an agreement for sale dated October 11, 1963, had agreed to purchase the said land from the Central Bank Executor and Trustee Co. Ltd., for a sum of Rs. 6,50,000. By another agreement dated November 22, 1968, entered into on be...
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Smt. Vasudha Anant Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1994
Reported in: 1995(1)BomCR458
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the Union of India and it is directed against Appeal No. 361 of 1983 decided by the 7th Extra Assistant Judge, Pune. By that order, the Appeal Court had set aside the order passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 1298 of 1982 by the 5th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, Briefly stated, the facts that are material for purpose of the decision of this second appeal are as follows:--2. The respondent before me Smt. Vasudha A. Kulkarni was at the relevant time an employee of the National Sample Survey Organization at Pune. She was working at that time as a clerk. She had joined the services of the National Sample Survey Organization on 19-3-1959 and was confirmed as a Lower Division Clerk on 20-5-1963. She was promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk with effect from 28-1-1972. It is alleged that in the year, 1977, the respondent, in the course of her duties, committed certain acts of misconduct. On 4-8-1978, a memo-cum-charge-sheet...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »