Mumbai Court October 1996 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.
Annapurna Farma Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-1996
Reported in: (1997)138CTR(Bom)133
A. P. SHAH, J. :By this petition under Art. 226, the petitioner takes exception to the order dt. 18th July, 1996, passed by the Dy. CIT, Special Range 46. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner is a registered partnership firm which owned certain lands situate at Powai. The assessment year relevant to this petition is the asst. yr. 1983-84 having previous year ending on 31st March, 1983. During the relevant previous year certain land belonging to the petitioner was acquired by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bombay, and Bombay Suburban District. The total compensation received by the petitioner amounted to Rs. 26,78,392. While computing capital gains on the aforesaid acquisition, the petitioner had taken the cost of acquisition of the said land as on 1st Jan., 1984 at Rs. 30,93,264 taking the rate of Rs. 18 per sq. yard for 1,71,848 sq. yards of land. Accordingly, the petitioner computed a capital loss of Rs. 4,32,762 on the transaction of acquisition of the land and filed a ...
Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Steel Rolling Mills of
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-1996
Reported in: (1998)(100)ELT515Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is directed against the Order dated 4-11-1993, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected a review application under Section 35E of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 filed by the Department against a order passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Kalyan Division-I in respect of eligibility to Modvat credit on the inputs used by the Respondent in the manufacture of their final product. The appeal has been filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bombay-Ill. The Respondents are engaged in the manufacture of re-rolling of Iron & Steel Products falling under Chapter No. 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They filed a declaration under Rule 57G to avail of Modvat credit for the input described as 'angles', but the Department found that on certain gate passes under which these inputs had been received, the discription of the goods was given as Black Steel Scrap. This was dur...
India Coffee and Tea Distributing Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-1996
Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT79Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In these two Appeals common issue is involved of whether the Graphite Boats, Graphite powder and solvent used by the appellants herein can be considered eligible for Modvat credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, in the manufacture of their final product namely metallised plastic films falling under Chapter 39 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, after issue of Show Cause Notice held that these items fall within the excluded category of inputs under the explanation to Rule 57A. The Assistant Commissioner held that these material do not play any role such as input within the scope of the definition of the term under Rule 57A. He further observed that the item of Graphite boats does not enter the final product. Assistant Commissioner observed that graphite boats are attached to the equipment in a vacuum metallising plant and on this reasonings, he denied the Modvat credit.The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld t...
Safiyabi Wd/O Jamilkhan Pathan and Others Vs. Wamanrao S/O Anandraoji ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-1996
Reported in: I(1998)ACC133; 1997ACJ906; 1998(2)BomCR420; (1998)IIILLJ1087Bom; 1997(1)MhLj834
ORDERB.U. Wahane, J.1. In this first appeal, the appellant-Safiyabi and others challenged the findings recorded by the learned Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, Wardha, on 24th October, 1991, in W.C.C. No. 7/87, rejecting on the claim of the appellants on the ground that the application under the Workmen's Compensation Act is not tenable. Undisputedly, Jalitkhan-husband of the appellant No. 1 and the father of the appellant Nos. 2, 3 and 4, died while working as Coolie on Truck No. M.T.G. 7288, near village Saled, Tahsil Deoli, District Wardha, on 3-7-1985. The appellants/claimants instituted proceedings under section 92(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and claimed compensation under no fault liability of RS. 15,000/-. It is stated that none appeared on behalf of the respondents in the proceedings under section 92(a) of the Act. The order was passed on 6-4-1987 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal granting compensation of Rs. 15,000/- on the basis of no fault.2. The...
Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Etc. Vs. Fatehsinh Mohan ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ1976
ORDER1. The above criminal application and the criminal writ petition are filed challenging the order of release of the accused-Fatesinh Mohansinh Chauhan on bail on 7-5-96 by the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Silvassa and for cancellation of the bail order passed in favour of the aforesaid accused Fatesinh. The criminal application is filed by the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli for cancellation of bail while criminal writ petition is filed by the complainants impugning the same order dated 7-5-1996 releasing the said accused on bail. 2. These applications for cancellation of bail arise in the following manner. At the time of the General Elections to Parliament elections were to be held on 2nd May 1996. The complainants' party belonged to one political party while the accused party belonged to another political party. The incidents of rioting and murder and other offences had taken place on 29th April 1996 at about 5.30 p.m. in the even...
Balu Mahadeo Randhir Vs. Nabilal Haji Habib Gadiwale and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-1996
Reported in: 1997(2)BomCR462; (1996)98BOMLR803
V.P. Tipnis, J.1. This is a petition by the original defendant challenging the legality and correctness of the decree of eviction passed against him by the lower Appellate Court under the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act. 2. Before I refer to the decisions of both the lower courts, it is necessary to point out some very relevant facts. One Pirale was the original owner of several lands and the defendant -tenant was tenant of the said Pirale. The present plaintiffs' father by name Hajihabib purchased the entire property from said Pirale under two sale deeds, one dated 2-2-1968 and the other dated 6-7-1971.3. In the year 1968, said Pirale, his sons as also the father of the present plaintiffs, viz., Hajihabib filed Regular Civil Suit No. 66 of 1968 against several persons, including the present defendant-tenant as defendant No. 6 therein in the Court of the IInd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangli. It is relevant to notice that in the said suit, the plaintiffs, who included the f...
Jagdish Transport Co. Vs. Dhavalu Kakdya Tamba and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-1996
Reported in: (1997)99BOMLR304
R.M. Lodha, J.1. This group of 8 appeals arose out of one accident and common questions are involved in all these appeals and therefore all these appeals have been heard together and are disposed by this common judgment.A truck bearing No. GTG-2769 owned by the present appellant in all the appeals and driven by Anwarmiya Amarmiya Shaikh was going on Bombay Ahmedabad High way on 14.6.1979. It stepped near hotel Charoti. 18 persons with their goods and baggage wanted to go from Vasai to Chariot. The cleaner of the aforesaid truck took all the 18 persons as passengers on hire with their goods @ Rs. 3/- per passenger and Rs. 1.50 from each one of them for goods. Near Katkona village the truck was driven at the fast speed and it went off the road, dashed against guard stones and after uprooting them it fell down. As a result of that 15 persons died on the spot and three persons sustained injuries. The heirs of the deceased as well as the injured filed various claim petitions claiming compen...
Anusaya W/O Laxman Patil and ors. Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-1996
Reported in: (1997)99BOMLR357
R.M. Lodha, J.1. These two appeals arise out of the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Solapur in Special Civil Suit No. 82 of 1974 and accordingly both the appeals have been heard together and arc disposed of by this common judgment.2. Shri Laxman Patil who was serving as Police Constable in the Police Department, State of Maharashtra, was going to Mahud from Pandharpur on his motor cycle bearing registration No. MHH 9024 on 6.2.1971 at about 3.00 p.m. The S.T.Bus belonging to the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation driven by Shri Gyanba Aba Sagar was going from Atpadi towards Pandharpur and at that time due to rash and negligent act of the driver of S.T. Bus bearing registration No. MHO 9370, the said bus dashed against the motor cycle being driven by Laxman Patil and he was thrown away and died on the spot. The deceased was about 39 years of age at the time of accident and was survived by his wife Smt. Anusaya, 5 sons, 1 daughter and old mother....
Govinddas Mannulal Shroff and Etc. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Bom114
ORDERM. B. Shah, C. J. 1. We have already passed operative order dated 29th August 1966 striking down Rules 4.1.2.1 of the Rules called 'Rules for Selection to M.B.B.S./B.D.S./B.A.M.S./B.H.S.S. Course 1996-97' (hereinafter referred t as 'The Rules') giving short reasons for the same The said order of under:-- 'P. C. These four petitioner are heard and disputed of together as they involve a common question with the regard to validity of Rule 4.1.2.1 of Rules for Selection of M.B.B.S./B.D.S./B.A.M.S./B.H.M.S. Courses 1966-97 framed by the State Government. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties at length, we pass the following the short order:-- 2. As the matter involves admission of Medical Colleges on the basis of Rules called 'Rules for Selection of M.B.B.S./B.D.S./B.A.M.S./B.H.M.S. Course 1966-97' (hereinafter called 'the Rules') framed by the State Government which are under challenge and as stay order is granted by the Division Bench of the Aurangabad Bench of the Writ P...
Govinddas Mannulal Shroff and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-1996
Reported in: 1998(5)BomCR934; (1996)98BOMLR952
ORDERM.B. Shah, C.J.1. We have already passed operative order dated 29th August 1996 striking down Rule 4.1.2.1. of the Rules called 'Rules for Selection to M.B.B.S./ B.D.S./B.A.M.S./B.H.M.S. Courses, 1996-97' (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') giving short reasons for the same. The said order is as under:-'P.C. These four petitions are heard and disposed of together as they involve a common question with regard to validity of Rule 4.1.2.1. of Rules forSelection to M. B.B.S./B.D.S./B.A.M.S./B.H.M.S. Courses, 1996-97 framed by the State Government. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties at length, we pass the following short order:- 2. As the matter involves admission to Medical Colleges on the basis of Rules called 'Rules for Selection to M.B.B.S./B.D.S./B.A.M.S./B.H.M.S. Courses, 1996-97' (hereinafter called 'the Rules') framed by the State Government which are under challenge and as stay order is granted by the Division Bench of the Aurangabad Bench in Writ Petition ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »