Mumbai Court August 1995 Judgments
Bombay Keraleeya Samaj Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-1995
Reported in: (1996)56ITD26(Mum.)
1. These two appeals by the assessee are directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XIII, Bombay, and pertain to the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86. Since the issue involved is identical, for the sake of convenience these appeals are consolidated and disposed of by a common order.2. Briefly the facts : The assessee is a charitable trust. Originally, it was registered with the Registrar of Companies, Bombay, on 20th July, 1934. Thereafter in 1953 and 1957, there were amendments in the objects of the Trust. It is registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1980, vide registration No. F. 4491 (Bombay). It is also registered under Section 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The objects of the trust as described in the Rules and Regulations as amended up to 23rd July, 1967 are as under : To start and maintain for institutions and charitable purposes, viz., relief of the poor, education, medical relief, cultural activit...
Tag this Judgment!Raju @ Ajit Sarfaraj Tadvi and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)ALT(Cri)3; 1996(3)BomCR457
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Rule.The learned Advocate General urges that since on account of the interim order passed by this Court, the trial of the applicants has been stayed and submissions canvassed by Mr. Gupte, learned Counsel for the applicants, are purely legal, the Rule be made returnable forthwith. Mr. Gupte has no objection.In the circumstances, rule issued earlier is made returnable forthwith. The learned Advocate General waives service for respondent. 2. Through this application preferred under section 482 Cr.P.C. the applicants seek to impugn the order dated 18-7-1995 passed by the learned Joint District and Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, in Exhibit 14 and 21, in Sessions Case No. 446 of 1994 and pray that this Court be pleased to direct that Sessions Case No. 446 of 1994 be transferred for trial to the appropriate Court.3. A narration of the facts in brief, which give rise to the present application is necessary for the proper appreciation of the issues involved in this petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Jetu Jacques Taru Lalvani and Another Vs. J.B.A. Printing Inks Limited ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1995
Reported in: 1996(2)BomCR593; (1997)97BOMLR566; [1997]88CompCas759(Bom)
A.P. Shah, J.1. This company application taken out by the original petitioners seeks leave to amend the company petition and further seeks interim injunction to restrain the respondent from acting on the resolution passed in the extraordinary general meeting of the first respondent company dated April 17, 1995, and issuing or allotting bonus or rights shares in pursuance of the said resolution. 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to this company application are as follows : Respondent No. 1-company was set up in 1950. Respondent No. 1 was initially incorporated as a private limited company. It became a deemed public limited company in 1968. The company manufactures printing inks at its units located in Bombay, Calcutta, Madras, Ahmedabad and Delhi. There is five families in control of the company, namely, (a) Mirchandani, (b) Advani, (c) Malkani G.H., (d) Malkani T.L. and (e) Lalwani. The families of Advani and Lalvani hold about 62 per cent. of the shareholding and the remaining ...
Tag this Judgment!Pyarelal Maganlal Jaiswal Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ989
1. Judgment of acquittal passed by the 2nd Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Buldana, on 3-3-1992, whereby the said Court has acquitted the respondent No. 2 for the offence punishable under Section 500, I.P.C., has compelled the Complainant/appellant to file this appeal against acquittal. 2. The brief facts which led to filing of the complaint by the present applicant (for short 'complainant') under Section 500, I.P.C. against the respondent No. 2 Shivaji Deorao Dethe (for short 'accused') are that on 20-11-1988 a function was organised at village Chandol to felicitate newly elected M.L.A. The complainant as well as accused were present in the said function on dias and the complainant was the member of the reception committee. There was good gathering though there is dispute about the number of people. In the said meeting the accused in his speech while making gesture towards the complainant uttered that Pyarelal Seth (complainant) and Sahebrao Wani do not have any regard for leaders a...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. B.V. Manek Vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Bom53; 1996(1)BomCR288; (1995)97BOMLR643
1. Leave under Rules 147 and 148 the High court of Judicature at Bombay (O.S.) Rules, 1980 is granted to the plaintiff to take out Notice of Motion in terms of the draft notice of motion handed in. By consent, Notice of Motion is made returnable forthwith and placed for hearing. The defendant waives service.2. The plaintiff is a doctor by profession. Pursuant to the application made by the plaintiff in December 1987, the defendants Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited ('M.T.N.L.' for short) provided a telephone connection to the plaintiff under special category bearing Telephone No. 5603314 at the plaintiff's residence at B-8, Mugh Malhar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., 2nd Floor, Murar Road, Mulund (W), Bombay -400 080. Thereafter, the defendant shifted the said telephone to the plaintiffs present address of Flat No. A-2, ground floor, Anubhav, R.P.X. Road, Mulund (W), Bombay. There is no dispute that the plaintiff has paid all the bills sent to the plaintiff with respect to the said ...
Tag this Judgment!Joseph Fernandes Vs. State of Goa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ822
Vaidyanatha, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 29th September, 1993 in Special Criminal Case No. 14/92 on the file of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Court, Mapusa. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. The appellant and three other accused were prosecuted by the Police for an offence under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The prosecution case is that on 12th February, 1992, on reliable information the Sub-Inspector, Anti-Narcotic Cell, Panaji, along with panchas entered a hotel called Ali Baba Sea Food and Juice Corner at Baga. The appellant was found there. Then the Sub-Inspector Smt. Sunita told the appellant that he is suspected to be in possession of drugs and required to be searched. She also gave an option that if he desired he could be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer, but the appellant declined the Offer. Then the person of the appellan...
Tag this Judgment!Uttamchand Mulchand Vs. Indian Overseas Bank and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)BomCR333; (1995)97BOMLR722
D.R. Dhanuka, J.1. This petition involves consideration of interpretation of clause 10 of 'Promotion Policy for Officers' of respondent No. 1 Bank duly published by the Bank based on the guidelines issued by Government of India under the relevant service regulations and application thereof. The principal questions arising for consideration of the Court in this petition are as under :- (1) (a) Whether with effect from 21-3-86 the petitioner was absorbed as a Law Officer by respondent No. 1 i.e., an officer in the category of specialist officers within the meaning of the said expression used in 'Promotion Policy for Officers' in force at the relevant time? (b) If so, whether the petitioner was and is liable to be promoted to the post in his field of specialisation i.e., the Law and is not liable to be transferred on promotion to the general category i.e., The Main Stream of Banking except with the consent of the Petitioner or at his opinion? (2) (a) Whether the petitioner was appointed...
Tag this Judgment!Ranchhod Lala of Sayli and Others Vs. the Union of Territory of Dadra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Bom656; 1996(1)BomCR460; (1995)97BOMLR682
ORDERJhunjhunuwala, J.1. By these writ petitions, the petitioners seek to have orders passed by the Land Resettlement Officer-III, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Silvasa; Deputy Collector (LR) Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Silvasa; and Officer Exercising Appellate and Revisional Powers of the Administrator under the Dadra and Nagar Haveli land reforms regulation, 1971. Though short but important question of law involved is common and the facts are interlinked, both these writ petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. In the year 1956, the petitioner 1 and 2 in Writ Petition No. 1512 of 1982 had purchased land admeasuring 5 Hectares and .01 Are from Survey Nos. 534/1, 634 and 693 situate at Saily. Both the said petitioners though related to each other as brother-in-law constituted different and separate families. In the month of February, 1964, both the said Petitioners along with Petitioners 3 and 4 in Writ Petition No. 1512 of 1982 purchased Alwara land admeasuring 25 hectares an...
Tag this Judgment!Hiramal Sundermal Kalantri Vs. Kesharimal Premsukhdas Bhutada and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-1995
Reported in: (1995)97BOMLR375; 1996CriLJ1493; II(1996)DMC683; 1996(2)MhLj207
1. Question involved in this appeal is intricate and also of public importance. The facts relevant for adjudication are thus : The respondent No. 1 Kesharimal on 22-6-1988 married Usha. On 4-9-1988 Usha committed suicide. During the course of investigation vide Exh. 27, ornaments and other articles of deceased were seized. Mother of the respondent No. 1 was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. However, she was acquitted. The learned Sessions Judge by the impugned order, rejected application under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 ('The Act') presented by the applicant (father of deceased Usha) for delivering him the property so seized. 2. According to Mr. Bhide, the learned Counsel for the respondent, the property in question was not given under any agreement or on demand, so as to constitute a Dowry. Section 6 of the Act on which reliance is placed has, therefore, no application. Section 2 defines term 'Dowry' thus :- ...
Tag this Judgment!Tejram S/O. Mahadeorao Gaikwad Vs. Smt. Sunanda W/O Tejram Gaikwad and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ172
1. Heard Shri A. D. Vyawahare, the learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Shri Vyawahare, the learned counsel for the applicant, submits that there is no evidence of non-applicant No. 1 wife that the applicant husband has neglected to maintain her and the child Devendra and, therefore, the courts below were not justified in awarding the maintenance to the wife and the son. Shri Vyawahare also contends that the amount of maintenance awarded by the courts below to the wife at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month and to the child at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month is excessive and beyond the financial capacity of the applicant and, therefore, the orders passed by courts below deserve to be set aside. 3. There is no dispute that the applicant Tejram (for short 'the husband') married non-applicant No. 1 Sunanda (for short 'the wife') in the year 1985 and out of the wedlock, non-applicant No. 2 Devendra minor son was born. The husband and the wife cohabited for about six years and thereafter the w...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »