Mumbai Court April 1994 Judgments
Smt. Shahnaz Shaharyari Alias ShirIn Shaharyari, Nagpur Vs. Dr. Vijay ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-29-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Bom30; 1996(1)BomCR473; (1996)96BOMLR678
1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Smt. Shahnaz Shaharyari alias Shirin Shaharyari takes exception to the execution proceedings pending before the Family Court at Bombay, being Regular Darkhast No. 186 of 1993 in M. J. Petition, No. A-702 of 1990, and alternatively prayed for transfer of the proceedings to a competent Court at Nagpur to try along with other pending proceedings.2. During the course of arguments, I felt that the unfortunate couple is living separate and fighting in the Court of law for their children. The marriage being a social dutytowards the family and community, I persuaded the learned counsel to call both, the spouses and ask them to settle the matter amicably. Both the learned counsels of the parties were of the same view and, therefore, the spouses were called and persuaded by me and the learned counsels to make the marriage a success by compromise and adjustment. The persuation of we all bore no fruits and,...
Tag this Judgment!Khetan Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Manju Ravindraprasad Khetan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-29-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Bom43; 1994(4)BomCR370; (1994)96BOMLR53
ORDER1. Two questions of law arise for consideration in this revision application viz. (1) which is the principal civil Court for Bombay for the purpose of proceedings for removal of the trustees under Chapter 7 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 and whether a civil suit lies for removal of directors of a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956.2. A suit was filed by the respondents against the petitioners (original defendants) in the City Civil Court, as Bombay claiming following reliefs :'(a) This Hon'ble Court will be pleased to remove the defendant Nos. 3 to 5 from the trusteeship of the Defendant No. 2 and be pleased to appoint some other fit and proper person as trustee of the 2nd defendant-trust. (b) This Hon'ble Court will be pleased to remove the Defendant Nos. 3, 6 and 7 fromthe post of Directors and be further pleased to appoint some other fit and proper person as Directors of the Defendant No. 1-company. (c) The Defendants Nos. 3 to 5 be restrained by...
Tag this Judgment!Parsik Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-28-1994
Reported in: (1994)50ITD318(Mum.)
1. The only ground of appeal in this case-is that the revenue authorities were in error in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the benefits of deduction under the provisions of Section 8OP(2)(a)(0 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. It is contended on behalf of the assessee that the denial of relief under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act was totally unwarranted. The main thrust of the argument of the learned Counsel for the assessee is that the assessee being a company governed by the Banking Regulations Act, 1949, its income from investment would have to be treated as in the nature of business income. Adverting to the definition of "banking" as per the Banking Regulations Act, 1949, it is contended that the same would include accepting deposits for the purpose of lending, or investments or deposits. This definition should put at rest the unseemly controversy generated by the revenue authorities. The income accruing to a banking institution from its investments, as per the above d...
Tag this Judgment!Vijay Anandrao Kshirsagar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-28-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Bom206; 1994(4)BomCR38; 1995(1)MhLj42
1. This second appeal is confined to the determination of one single provision of the Maharashtra Resettlement of Project Displaced Persons Act, 1976. The appellant, who is a holder of certain agricultural lands in Satara District in Koregaon Taluka has challenged the acquisition of an ' area of 5 acres and 2 gunthas, after the application of emergency clauses. He filed a suit in the court of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Satara, being Civil Suit No. 84 of 1979, whereby he contended that the acquisition was bad-in-law because his individual holding was less than the prescribed minimum of 8 acres under the Resettlement Act by virtue of a partition that had taken place on 1-12-1968. The Court rejected this plea and held that the computation of the joint family holding of 29 acres and 30 gunthas was treated as a unit for acquisition and that therefore, the amount of land that has been acquired out of this holding was correct. The matter was carried in appeal and the Appellate ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shree Nirmal Commercial Ltd. (and Vice ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-27-1994
Reported in: [1995]213ITR361(Bom)
I.G. Shah, J. 1. Income-tax Reference No. 1 of 1982 has been made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, both at the instance of the Revenue and the assessee. It pertains to the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73. 2. The following three questions have been referred at the instance of the Revenue : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the compensation received from the shareholders was to be taxed as income from business and not as income from property and also in holding that the Income-tax Officer was not entitled to enhance the compensation to the extent of the compensation received by the shareholders in their own right (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the order passed under section 104 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, thereby deleting the additional demand of Rs. 22,242 for...
Tag this Judgment!Goculdas Dossa and Co. and Others Vs. J.P. Shah and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-27-1994
Reported in: 1995(1)BomCR546; (1994)119CTR(Bom)14; [1995]211ITR706(Bom); 1994(2)MhLj1466
V.A. Mohta, J.1. Points of some importance are raised in this petition. They are : (1) Whether an assessee who has himself purchased a depreciable asset prior to January 1, 1954 (date as amended from time to time), is entitled to the option of substituting the fair market value on that date as the cost of acquisition for computing capital gains under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) (2) if not, is section 50(2) of the Act arbitrary and, therefore, ultra vires article 14 of the Constitution 2. The basic undisputed facts are : Petitioner No. 1, the assessee, is a duly registered partnership firm and petitioners Nos. 2 to 6 are its partners. The relevant assessment year is 1981-82. The assessee had purchased the land, building, plant and machinery of a factory at Pusad in District Yavatmal much prior to January 1, 1964. The building and land were sold by the assessee for Rs. 10 lakhs and the plant and machinery also for Rs. 10 lakhs by sale deeds dated October 24, 1980. The assessee had...
Tag this Judgment!Santhosh Manohar Chavan Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-27-1994
Reported in: 1994(4)BomCR590
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. The appellant Santosh Manohar Chavan was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life under section 302 of Indian Penal Code by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri vide order dated 6th December, 1991 passed in Sessions Case No. 37 of 1989. Feeling aggrieved, he has come up in appeal before us.The deceased in this case is an unmarried girl Lata, who it appears was callously done to death sometimes on 2nd November, 1988 in Bhosteghat, village Verar, Police Station Khed, District Ratnagiri.2. The case for prosecution is that the deceased used to reside with her father P.W. 12 Ekanath Tatoba Naik at Bhandup, Bombay. It is said that she was working in a factory. The appellant who was an autorickshaw driver was also a resident of Bhandup. It is alleged that both of them fell in love and often the appellant used to take her in the autorickshaw to her factory and leave her there. It has also been alleged by the prosecution that once the appellant had borrowe...
Tag this Judgment!1) Orient (Goa) Ltd. and Another (W. P. No. 190 of 1994) (2) D. B. Ban ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-27-1994
Reported in: (1994)124CTR(Bom)196; [1994]210ITR896(Bom); [1994]81TAXMAN363(Bom)
PANAJI BENCHG. D. KAMAT J. - The petitioners are companies and they challenge the warrant of search and proceedings relating thereto under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It is common ground that pursuant to the warrants issued dated March 3, 1994, the premises of the petitioners were searched. For that matter, it is complained that searches were continuous right from March 9, 1994, until the petition was instituted and thereafter completed only on April 13, 1994, that too after the notice in the present petitions. Mr. Usgaokar, learned counsel for the petitioners, fairly conceded that the petitioners have no right to know the information based upon which the respondents resorted to action under section 132 of the Income-tax Act. He, however, says that having regard to the notices issued dated March 18, 1994, based upon the search, it is clear that the subject matter of the notices is an undisclosed account. He also complains that whatever fixed deposit amounts recovered from ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammed HussaIn Kasambhai Vs. Chandrabhaga Shivnath Bagul
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-27-1994
Reported in: (1994)96BOMLR927
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. Petitioner is the owner of the house bearing C.T.S. Nos. 1304 and 1306 situate within local limits of Manmad Municipality. The suit premises consists of Room No. 3 in the house situate at the above address. The petitioner filed Regular Civil Suit No. 486/77 for possession on the ground that despite quite notice under Section 12(2) of the Bombay Rent Act, demanding arrears of rent for more than 6 months from 1st August, 1975 onwards, the tenant failed to pay the arrears. The tenant did not file standard rent application also. Therefore, the petitioner filed the above suit for possession.2. By Judgment and Order, dated 27th October. 1980, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the suit notice (Ex. 25) was duly served on the tenant; that the tenant was a defaulter; that she was in arrears of rent for more than 6 months; that she paid rent for two months viz. June, 1975 and July, 1975; that she was in arrears for 23 months; that she paid rent on 19th August, 1976 fo...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Buthello and Co. and Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Other ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-26-1994
Reported in: AIR1994Bom382; 1995(1)BomCR522; 1995(1)MhLj198
ORDERPendse, J.1. In this batch of petitions, the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Abolition of Subsisting Proprietary Rights to Mines and Minerals in Certain Lands Act, 1985 is under challenge. It is not necessaryto set out the facts of each of the petition and it would be convenient to dispose of all the petitions by common judgment. To appreciate the contentions urged in support of the petitions, brief facts involved in writ petition No. 97 of 1986 are set out.In the year 1774, the island of Salsette came within the political sovereignty of the British from the Peshwas. The lands comprising in the village Chandivali were wholly and inalienably granted by East India company in favour of Helenus Scott by agreement dated August 30, 1799. By diverse transactions, assignments and conveyances, the lands transferred hands and ultimately the predecessors of the petitioners secured the assignment in the year 1941. The lands were used for mining operations and some time in the year ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »