Mumbai Court July 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.
Robert Punaji Salvi Vs. the Bombay Diocesan Trust Association Pvt. Ltd ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-12-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Bom39; 1996(2)BomCR15; (1995)97BOMLR109; 1995(2)MhLj679
ORDERA. V. Savant, J.1. Heard both the learned Counsel, Shri Naphade for the appellant (original defendant) and Shri Thorat for the respondents (original plaintiffs).2. This appeal is against the Order dated 23rd March 1995 passed by the learned single Judge in Civil Application No. 349 of 1995 in pending appeal from Order No. 93 of 1995. Appeal from Order No. 93 of 1995 was admitted on the 7th Feb. 1995 and in Civil Application No. 349 of 1995 interim relief in terms of prayers (a) and (b) was granted on the same day and the same was made absolute by disposing of the Civil Application on 23rd March, 1995. Thus, the Appeal is against the order granting interim relief in a pending appeal from order, which appeal is admittedly under Section 104 read with Order XLIII, Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Proce-dure. A few facts necessary for the disposal ofthis appeal may be stated as under:--3. Respondent No. 1 Bombay Diocesan Trust Association Pvt. Ltd. is a Companyincorporated under the Comp...
AmIn Mehdi Merchant Vs. S.M. Karnik, Asstt. Coll. of Customs, Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-12-1995
Reported in: 1995(80)ELT777(Bom)
Kapadia, J.1. By this petition, petitioner seeks refund of Rs. 47,182.32 pursuant to the Order of Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal dated May 28, 1986. Facts giving rise to this petition briefly are as follows :- Petitioner imported components of footwear viz. plastic heels in February 1982. At the time of clearing of the said consignment, the petitioner was assessed for import duty of Rs. 62,136.57. Petitioner paid duty on April 26, 1982 petitioner applied to respondent No. 1 for refund on the ground that recovery of duty has been made in excess by the Department. By an Order dated August 25, 1982 the respondent No. 1 rejected the petitioner's claim. Petitioner preferred Appeal on November 29, 1982 to the Appellate Collector. By an Order dated January 31, 1984 the Appellate Collector set aside the Order passed by the respondent No. 1 and directed refund of the amount of Rs. 47,182.32. Being aggrieved by the said Order, the Department preferred an Appeal to CEGAT. B...
Bachhraj Factories Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-1995
Reported in: (1996)56ITD225(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of the CIT (Appeals) for the assessment year 1986-87. The only dispute in this appeal is as to whether the payment of tax amounting to Rs. 42, 490 is an allowable deduction in computing the income of the assessee.2. According to the Assessing Officer (A. O.) it is a wealth-tax payment and, therefore, not allowable in view of Section 40(a)(iii) of the IT Act. Before the CIT (Appeals) the assessee submitted that it had paid this tax under Section 40 of the Finance Act, 1983 and that the Explanation to Section 40(a)(iia) specifically excludes any tax chargeable with reference to the value of any particular asset of the business or profession. The CIT (Appeals) held that charging of wealth-tax on companies has been introduced by Section 40 of the Finance Act, 1983 and by the mere fact that it was not charged under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, it could not be said that it would not constitute wealth-tax as defined in the Explanation to Se...
Sudam Kisan Dhurjad Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)BomCR156; 1995CriLJ4029
Sahai, J.1. Vide Judgment and Order dated 4-10-1993 passed in in Sessions Case No. 93/93, the Additional Sessions Judge, Nasik convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner stated hereinafter :- (i) Under Section 302, I.P.C. life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- in default of payment of fine one month R.I. (ii) Under Section 452, I.P.C. one year R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default of payment of fine, R.I. for one month. (iii) Under Section 323, I.P.C. R.I. for one month. The substantive sentences of the appellant had been directed to run concurrently. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid convictions and sentences, the appellant has come up in appeal before us. 2. The matter before us arises out of an incident which took place on 19-4-1993, at about 9 p.m. at the house of Informant Balu Narvade P.W. 1 situate in village Pimpalgaon Khamb within the limits of police station Nasik Road, District Nasik. During the incident, Smt. Jaivantibai aged 65 years, a paralytic pa...
Rina International Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-1995
Reported in: 1995(80)ELT780(Bom)
M. L. Pendse, Acting C.J. 1. The petitioner No. 1 is a partnership firm carrying on business of export and import of rough diamonds. By letter dated February 20, 1986, the petitioners applied for issuance of an advance licence and the licence was issued on July 21, 1986 for value of Rs. 20,11,200/-. While granting the said imprest licence, the respondents called upon the petitioners to furnish Bank guarantee for 50% of the licence value a condition precedent. The petitioners invited attention of the respondents to a Note under Para 340 of the Hand Book of Import Export Procedures for April 1985 - March 1988. The petitioners pointed out that it is open for the respondents to accept a legal undertaking in lieu of Bank guarantee. The respondents by letter dated August 11, 1986 turned down the request for acceptance of legal undertaking on the ground that though the petitioners are exporters of cut and polished diamonds during year 1982-83 and year 1983-84, for the period of year 1984-85, ...
Shri Kamalakar Kamulkar Vs. the District and Sessions Judge, North Goa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-1995
Reported in: 1997(4)BomCR255
D.R. Dhanuka, J.1. This petition raises an interesting question of law regarding the due date of retirement of the petitioner as a bailiff working in the subordinate courts in the State of Goa. The petitioner was born on 1-1-1932. It is the petitioner's case that the petitioner was due for retirement only on 31-12-1991 on completion of the age of 60 as on that date. The petitioner's case is duly supported by letters dated 16-4-91 and 16-5-91 addressed by respondent No. 2 to the learned District and Sessions Judge, North Goa, Panaji. It is the case of respondent No. 1 that the petitioner was due for retirement on 31-12-1989 on completion of age of 58 years. The petitioner however continued to be in actual employment of the Court until 31-10-1990. 2. On 31-10-1990, the District and Sessions Judge, Panaji, Goa passed the impugned order (Exhibit 'A' to the petition) stating therein that the petitioner stood retired from service with effect from 31-12-1989 on attaining the age of super-annu...
Babulal Hiralal Sainy and Another Etc Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-1995
Reported in: 1995CriLJ4105
R.M. Lodha, J.1. These two criminal appeals, one by original accused No. 2 Babulal Hiralal Sainy (A2) and original accused No. 3 Mirajuddin Munnikhan Pathan (A3) and the other by original accused No. 1 Umesh (A1) are directed against the conviction and sentence awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, in Sessions Case No. 545/1990, on 31-7-1991, to the accused/appellants for the offence punishable under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (for short the N.D.P.S. Act). The appellants have been sentenced to suffer R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- each and in default to suffer R.I. for 6 month.2. The principal contentions raised by Mr. Rizwy, the learned counsel for the appellants/accused A2 Babulal and A3 Mirajuddin in Criminal Appeal No. 336 of 1991, are (1) that the mandatory provisions contained in Sections 41 and 42 of N.D.P.S. Act have not been complied with inasmuch as the information received about commission of offen...
Basanna Nigonda Hattali and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-1995
Reported in: 1995CriLJ4034
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Vide judgment and order dated 24-8-1993 passed in Sessions Case No. 54 of 1992, the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Pandharpur, convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner stated hereinafter :(i) Basanna Nigonda Hattali (appellant No. 1), Malku Bhimraya Hattali (appellant No. 8), Tamrayya Nigonda Patil (appellant No. 12) and Mallensha Nigonda Patil (appellant No. 13) under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. to life imprisonment; (ii) Chandrakant Murgappa Umrani (appellant No. 2), Laxman Hanmant Hattali (appellant No. 3), Dundeppa Shivappa Umrani (appellant No. 4), Pandurang Jagannath Nikam (appellant No. 6), Mohan Baliram Koli (appellant No. 7), Sangappa Bhimraya Hattali (appellant No. 9), Malkanna Annarayya Birajdar (appellant No. 10) and Kallappa Ramchandra Hattali (appellant No. 11) under Section 304, Part II, I.P.C. read with 34, I.P.C. to 5 years R.I. and under Section 323 read with 34, I.P.C. to 6 months R.I. Malkanna Annarayya Birajdar (...
Bombay Bolts and Nuts Merchants Association Vs. B.S. BhadangA. and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-1995
Reported in: [1995(71)FLR966]; (1997)IIILLJ729Bom
1. This is a writ petition directed against the order dated June 28, 1995 at Ex. U-11 in Complaint (ULP) No. 610 of 1995. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard Counsel for both the sides. The petition is being disposed of at the admission stage. 2. The second respondent-Complainant filed a complaint in the Industrial Court, Maharashtra at Bombay alleging unfair labour practice on the part of the petitioner. The trial Court granted an ad-interim order. Subsequently, the trial Court extended the ad-interim order by the impugned order. Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has come up with this writ petition. 3. It was urged on behalf of the petitioner that the complaint itself was not maintainable and the Industrial Court had no jurisdiction to proceed with the matter and that the trial Court should not have extended the ad-interim ex-parte order. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the second respondent has supported the impugned order and says that there is no justification f...
Gangadhar Laxman Reddy Vs. the State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-1995
Reported in: 1995(4)BomCR529
M.L. Pendse, Acting C.J. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Mr. C.J. Sawant, Advocate General for respondent No. 1 and Mr. Rana for respondent No. 2 waive service. By consent, petition taken on board and called out for hearing. Heard Counsel.On January 25, 1993 Government of Maharashtra exercised powers conferred by section 3 and section 5 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 and appointed Commission of Inquiry of Mr. Justice B.N. Srikrishna, a sitting Judge of this Court to inquire into and make report on-(a) the circumstances, events and the immediate causes of the incidents which occured in the Bombay Police Commissionerate area in December, 1992 on or after the 6th December, 1992 and again in January, 1993, on or after the 6th January, 1993; (b) whether any individual or group of individuals or any other organisation, were responsible for such events and circumstances; (c) the adequacy or otherwise of the precautionary and preventive measures, taken by the Police preceding the aforesai...