Mumbai Court August 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.
Tilaksingh S/O Ramsingh Aulan and anr. Vs. Pyarookhan @ Mohd. Inamussu ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-1995
Reported in: 1996(2)BomCR441; (1996)98BOMLR886
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. Being aggrieved by the refusal to decide the application or to grant any interim relief on the application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 & 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, the appellants/plaintiffs have come up in this appeal. An injunction application has been filed by the plaintiffs. However, on the date when it was fixed i.e. on 9-11-1993 it seems that the learned Counsel for the applicants was present before the trial Court. However, the only order which is passed on the application of the plaintiffs is as follows :-'Plaintiff and his advocate absent when called on 8-9-1993, 6-10-1993 and also on 27-10-1993. It appears that the plaintiff has no urgency of the matter. Defendant and his Counsel are also absent. ORDER : The application be kept for hearing with main suit.'2. Being aggrieved by this order, the plaintiff filed the present appeal under Order XLIII, Rule 1(r) of the Civil Procedure Code. Thus the Court has neither allowed the application nor has it refused ...
Harikisnan S/O. Jagannath Baheti Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Anot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-1995
Reported in: 1998(5)BomCR599; (1995)97BOMLR735
ORDERA.D. Mane, J.1. This application is filed by the original complainant against the order dated 18-9-1993 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pathri, acquitting the respondent No. 2 of offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1988.2. The learned Magistrate on examining the evidence of the complainant recorded his finding that the cheque dated 21-4-1990 was not presented for withdrawal within a period of six months from the date of handing over it to the complainant by the accused. Therefore, the accused was acquitted for want of fulfillment of Clause (a) to proviso to section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1988 (for short, the Act).3. There is no quarrel that from the evidence of the complainant it is clear that it is not his case that the cheque was actually handed over to him by the accused on 25-4-1990, In his evidence he tried to contend that the amount of loan which he had advanced to the accused was to be repaid within a peri...
M.G. Sequeira Vs. Francisco Pinheiro and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-1995
Reported in: [1996]87CompCas118(Bom)
T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, by the J.M.F.C., Margao in Criminal Case No. 450 of 1992. The complaint against the petitioner was that he had issued three cheques bearing No. 0705923, dated July 3, 1992, drawn on Canara Bank for Rs. 50,000, cheque No. 0705924, dated July 2, 1992, drawn on Canara Bank for Rs. 30,000 and cheque No. 0705926, dated July 2, 1992, drawn on Canara Bank for Rs. 30,000. It is alleged that when the aforesaid three cheques were presented to the bank for payment, all of them were dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. A legal notice was sent by registered post and the postal acknowledgment shows that it was served on the petitioner on August 10, 1992, in compliance with section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter called the 'the Act'). The learned Magistrate went on with the trial and convicted the petitioner for the offence under section 138 an...
Narayandas S/O Gulabchand Agrawal Vs. Rakesh Kumar S/O Nem Kumar Porwa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ29; 1996(2)MhLj463
ORDER1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties on the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal on 31-8-1994 against the order of acquittal dated 21-9-1991 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur, in Criminal Complaint No. 518/1990 Mr. V. V. Bhangde, the learned counsel for the applicant, submits that the applicant filed the Criminal Complaint No. 518 of 1990 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 against the respondent No. 1 on 20-2-1990 and in the said complaint summonses were served on the accused. When the case was fixed for 21-9-1991 and at the time it was called, the applicant had gone to inform his counsel but the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur, in the absence of the complainant/applicant and his counsel dismissed the complaint since neither of them was present at the time the case was called. Mr. Bhangde further submits that on that very day the complaint moved an application for restoration of the complainant which was allowed by the...
Kashinath S/O Kodambarao Katake Vs. the Additional District Judge, Pus ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-1995
Reported in: 1996(2)BomCR273; (1996)98BOMLR677
M.B. Ghodeswar, J.1. The petitioner, an elected Zilla Parishad member from Vidul Constituency (reserved for Scheduled Caste) of Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal, had impugned the order dated 3-2-1994 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Pusad in Election Petition No. 1 of 1992 rejecting the application of the petitioner to lead oral evidence.2. Shortly stated, the facts of the case are as under:The petitioner claims to be belonging to Lingered caste which is included in the Scheduled Caste. On the basis of the certificate issued by the Naib Tahsildar, the petitioner contested the election in the month of February, 1992 for Zilla Parishad member from Vidul Constituency (reserved for Scheduled Caste). The petitioner got elected. The respondent No. 2 filed the Election Petition on 7-3-1992 challenging the election of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner does not belong to the Scheduled Caste. It is averred in the petition that the petitioner belongs to Lingayat Wani caste ...
Adhyaatmam Bhaamini Vs. Jagdish Ambalal Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-1995
Reported in: II(1996)DMC131
G.D. Kamat, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18th June, 1993 rendered by Family Court, Bandra, Bombay in Petition No. A-272 of 1990.2. The respondent-husband instituted a petition for divorce alleging cruelty and desertion by the appellant-wife on 26thFebruary, 1990 vide Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1995. The Judge of the Family Court found favour with both the grounds and by the impugned judgment dated 18th June 1993, the marriage solemnised between the parties on 15th November, 1959 was directed to be dissolved. A direction was made requiring respondent-husband to pay Rs. 1,000/- per month to the appellant-wife by way of permanent alimony from the date of the order. A further direction was also made to the respondent-husband to hand over vacant and exclusive possession of Flat No. 602, Damodar Park, Building No. 3-E, Ghatkopar (West), Bombay within two months from the date thereof.3. In the present appeal, some challenges have been made...
Kajetan Leo Vaz Vs. Jagdish Raghunath Mankar and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-1995
Reported in: 1996ACJ249; AIR1996Bom62; 1996(1)BomCR202; (1995)97BOMLR741; 1995(2)MhLj615
1. Heard Shri Bhagwat for the applicant.2. This is an application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for transfer of Misc. Application No. 11 of 1990, pending before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ratnagiri, to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for Greater Bombay, at Bombay for trial. Two points arise for my consideration:-- (i) Whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal constituted under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 is a 'Court Subordinate to the High Court' within the meaning of Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908? (ii) Whether the balance of convenience is overwhelmingly in favour of proceedings in the Ratnagiri Tribunal being transferred to the Tribunal, at Bombay? A few facts giving rise to this application for transfer are as under. 3. On the Independence Day -- 15th August, 1989 the applicant was travelling from Goa to Bombay as the second driver of Tempo bearing No. MCY 3566. At about 5.30p.m., near Kankavali, which was then ...
Cimmco Birla Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-1995
Reported in: 1996(82)ELT206(Bom)
ORDERS.H. Kapadia, J.1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 28-6-1995 of the Respondent No. 2 directing the Petitioners to pay duty on import of Rollers (being components of Cement Manufacturing Plant), the Petitioners have filed this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. The facts giving rise to this Petition, briefly, are as follows :- 3. Under the Import Policy (1990-1993), Petitioners were granted Special Imprest Licence on 11-1-1991 for import of raw materials and components (Roller Press) for manufacture of Cement Plant Machinery under Duty Exemption Scheme. The import against the Special Imprest Licence was exempt from payment of duty. Accordingly, in March 1992, Petitioners imported 5 Rollers [Presses]. The goods were cleared for home consumption. The goods on importation in 1992 were given benefit of duty exemption. It is the case of the Petitioners that the four Rollers failed during the period December, 1994 upto February, 1995 and since the Rollers were required...
J.K. Chemicals Limited Vs. Government of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)BomCR197; (1997)IIILLJ578Bom; 1996(1)MhLj126
S.M. Jhunjhunuwala, J. 1. The Petitioner is a public limited Company registered under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 having its registered Office at J. K. Building, Narottam-Morarjee Marg, Ballard Estate, Bombay-400038 and a factory at Thane. The 1st Respondent is the State of Maharashtra. The Respondents 2 and 3 are the Trade Unions. 2. At all material times, the Petitioner at its factory at Thane has been engaged in manufacture and sale of Sodium Hydrosulphite and other Chemicals. For the financial year ending on December 31, 1979, the Petitioner suffered a loss of Rs. 55.99 lacs. In the following year, the Petitioner changed its accounting year from January 1, 1980 to April 30, 1981. For the accounting year ending on April 30, 1981, the Petitioner suffered a loss of Rs. 79.5 lacs (after providing for depreciation of Rs. 51.1 lakhs). 3. To provide for payment of bonus to persons employed in certain establishments on the basis of the profits or on the basis of produc...
Shri Bhandup JaIn Temple Vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax (Also Shri ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-1995
Reported in: (1996)54TTJ(Mumbai)104
ORDERS. L. BANERJEE, J. M. :Both these appeals filed by the assessees relate to levy of penalty under s. 272(2)(e) [sic - 272A(2)(e)] of the Act and involve common facts. They arise out of the orders passed by the same CIT(A) and, therefore, they are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.2. In both the cases the penalty levied and confirmed Rs. 51,600 for asst. yr. 1991-92.3. The assessees are charitable trusts and it appears that no tax was payable for the year under consideration. However, in view of s. 272(2)(e) the AO (AO) levied penalties for delay of submission of return at Rs. 51,600. Before the CIT(A) the assessees argued that there was no time limit prescribed under s. 139(4) for filing of the return of income as the time limit is prescribed in s. 139(3). It was, further argued that due to lack of competent accountant audit of the accounts could not be completed in time. The assessee also relied on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of C...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »