Mumbai Court December 1995 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.
Samradni Sunderrao Ghorpade and anr. Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-1995
Reported in: 1996(3)BomCR210; (1996)98BOMLR367
N.P. Chapalgaonker, J.1. Heard Shri S.B. Mhase for the petitioners and Shri A.M. Kanade, Government Pleader for the respondents. 2. Rule. Taken up for hearing forthwith by consent of the parties.3. The dispute in this writ petition relates to the procedure for filling the drop out vacancies of students, who are already admitted to M.B.B.S. Course in the Medical Colleges in the State of Maharashtra. The petitioner No. 1 Samradni Ghorpade was not admitted in the first instalment of admissions to the free seats and was standing in the que in the waiting list. The process for filling in the payment seats started from 30th August, 1995. Different dates were allotted to the students as per the merit list and on 5th of September, 1995, the claim of petitioner No. 1 was considered and she was admitted against the payment seat and is now studying at Pravara Medical College in Ahmednagar District.4. It is the case of the petitioner that after she was admitted on payment seat, she came to know th...
Smt. Aruna Shantilal Ajmera Vs. Shantilal Vadilal Ajmera
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-1995
Reported in: I(1997)DMC553
V.H. Bhairavia, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant-original petitioner, wife against the judgment and order of the Family Court dated 6.9.1990, passed in M.J. Petition No. 109 of 1986, dismissing the petition of the appellant-wife.2. The short facts of the case are that the petitioner married to the Respondent on 4.6.1972 at Bombay. After marriage, the appellant-petitioner went with the respondent to reside at the matrimonial home at Kandivali, Bombay. It is the case of the appellant-petitioner that in the beginning, the behaviour of the respondent-husband was very cordial but after sometime, respondent started behaving in a peculiar manner. It is further the case of the appellant that the respondent was found in the company of one girl. He was found in squandering the money. On requesting the respondent to refrain from the company of a girl and squandering the money, he did not pay any attention and he continued to move in the company of other girls also in the same manner...
Major Mange Ram Bhagwana Ram Penghal Vs. Union of India Through the Se ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1995
Reported in: 1996(5)BomCR135; 1996(5)MhLj135
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. Rule. Heard forthwith, with the consent of parties. The petitioner herein challenges the two orders passed by the Additional Director General of Army Postal Service, respondent No. 3 herein. By the first order dated 6th July, 1995 (Annexure J to the writ petition), approval is accorded by the respondent No. 3 for the relinquishment of Commission of the petitioner as also to his repatriation to the Department of Post. However, by the subsequent order, the said relinquishment is granted and the petitioner is permitted to retire from the service voluntarily without rejoining the Department of Post on relinquishment of Commission on 7th October, 1995. The petitioner's contention mainly is that his Commission should not be relinquished and he should not be repatriated to the Postal Departmental and his Military services should be continued. 2. A preliminary objection is taken by the respondents to the jurisdiction of this Court in view of the provisions of the Administr...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Tarapur Cables (i) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-15-1995
Reported in: (1996)(85)ELT125Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No. SDK/257/B. II/91, dated 30-7-1991 allowing the appeal of the respondent. The Revenue is aggrieved by this order. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of wires and cables for which they bring duty paid PVC compound, which is used in the manufacture of wires and cables. They were taking Modvat credit in respect of PVC compound. However in respect of waste and scrap of plastic materials, arising in the course of manufacture, they were clearing such scrap without payment of duty, availing exemption under Notification No. 53/88. On a perusal of the Notification, it is found that waste and scrap of plastics arising from various goods falling under Chapter 39, on which the duty of excise or the countervailing duty, as the case may be has been paid, is exempted. There is no stipulation in the Notification that the exemption is not available where Modvat credit is taken. The respondents were clearing plastic scrap without payment o...
Hardiallia Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-15-1995
Reported in: [1996]221ITR194(Bom)
Dr. B.P. Saraf, J. 1. By this reference under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 made at the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal, Bombay 'C' Bench, Bombay, 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 in view of the order of the CIT under s. 263 of the IT Act, 1961, it was not open to the ITO to consider afresh the issue of the claim of the assessee for inclusion of work-in-progress in the capital employed for the purpose of computing the relief under s. 80J 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that no appeal will lie against the order of the ITO with regard to matters already decided by the CIT in exercise of his powers under s. 263 of the IT Act, 1961 ?' 2. The controversy pertains to asst. yr. 1972-73, the relevant previous year being the year ended on 31st Dec., 1971. The original assessment of t...
Prima Realty Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-15-1995
Reported in: 1996(3)BomCR83; [1997]223ITR634(Bom)
ORDER--One of the transferors receiving consideration more than transferee.Ratio :Where entire consideration amount has been tendered by the government, merely because one of the persons entitled to receive the amount has received less amount, will not abrogate the purchase order as party receiving more amount agreed to return the same to other aggreived party and there is no dispute between them. Facts :As per the purchase order the discounted value of consideration amount of Rs. 3,30,00,000.00 was Rs. 3,28.84,384.00. According to the heirs, the discounted value, therefore, of Rs. 3 crores works out to Rs. 2,98,94,895.00, leaving a balance of Rs. 60 lakhs to be paid to the transferees. In the circumstances, the transferors received Rs. 2,98,94,895.00 (consisting of Rs. 6 lakhs in excess which was payable to the trasnsferees). In the above circumstances, the transferees received cheque for Rs. 60 lakhs and not for Rs. 66 lakhs. It is not in dispute that the transferors have undertaken ...
Panorame Estate and anr. Vs. Raad Khalid and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-15-1995
Reported in: (1996)98BOMLR370
D.R. Dhanuka, J.1. By this notice of motion, the plaintiffs seek directions from this Court to the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay, to take physical possession of the suit flats and various other interim reliefs as set out therein.2. The plaintiffs No. 1 is the owner of the suit flats described in para 1 of the plaint. The plaintiffs have filed this suit for possession, arrears of compensation and mesne profits against the defendants after obtaining consent of the Central Government as required under Section 86(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiffs have filed this suit based on title and have formulated their cause of action in the plaint on the footing that the occupation of the suit premises by the defendants constitutes a trespass and the defendants are liable to handover vacant and peaceful possession of the suit flats to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have so stated in para 24 of the plaint. The defendants claim that the defendant No. 2 is the tenant in respect of t...
Rasiklal H. Narechania and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Bom195; (1996)98BOMLR377
1. This petition is filed by the Arbitrators under the provisions of S. 13 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short/the' Act') stating a special case for the opinion of this Court on the question of law involved in the arbitration proceedings before them. The facts giving rise to this Petition are as under:2. A Charter party dated 28th September, 1983 was entered into between the Scindia Steam Navigation Company Limited, Bombay and the President of India for and on behalf of the Union of India, under which a motor vessel 'Walchand' was chartered for carnage of bulk cargo for the benefit of the Food Corporation of India on the terms and conditions mentioned therein. The Food Corporation of India was acting as the handling agents in respect of the cargo for the carriage of which the said vessel was chartered. Disputes and differences arose between the Union of India and the Food Corporation of India on one side and the Scindia SteamNavigation Company Limited, Bombay ('SSNL'for short) on t...
Bhargav Kundalik Salunkhe Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ1228
Majithia, J.1. Bhargav Kundalik Salunkhe, the accused-appellant, was charged for knowingly or intentionally causing the death of his wife Son. Kantabai; for, knowing that an offence of murder has been committed, causing evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, viz. gold ornaments; and for, being the husband of the said Sou. Kantabai, subjecting the said Sou. Kantabai to mental and physical harassment and cruelty. The charges having been proved, he was convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-; to suffer R.I. for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo R.I. for one month; and to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/-, in default to undergo R.I. for one month, respectively, by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Satara, by his judgment and order dated December 8, 1993, in Sessions Case No. 18/87. ...
Geoffrey Manners and Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-1995
Reported in: (1996)136CTR(Bom)169; [1996]221ITR695(Bom)
Dr. B.P. Saraf, J. 1. By this reference, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) has referred the following questions of law to this Court under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, for our opinion : At the instance of the assessee '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that expenses on duty and clearing charges, delivery charges, insurance and freight charges, aggregating to Rs. 63,769 were not eligible for weighted deduction under s. 35B 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that any payments in excess of Rs. 72,000 were disallowable under s. 40(c) even if the remuneration was not found to be excessive or unreasonable and accordingly holding that Rs. 65,629 out of director's remuneration was disallowable ?' At the instance of the Revenue '3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the disallowance un...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »