Mumbai Court November 1996 Judgments
Dharamdas S/O. Motumal Rajpal Vs. Resident Deputy Collector, Amravati ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-1996
Reported in: 1997(3)ALLMR410; 1998(3)BomCR17; 1997(2)MhLj803
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. The unsuccessful tenant against whom both the authorities below have granted permission for terminating his tenancy has come up in this petition.2. The petitioner is a tenant, while respondent No. 2 is the landlord having become owner of the shop in dispute. The tenancy is monthly tenancy; rent is Rs. 300/- per month excluding the municipal taxes and the tenancy month commences from 1st day of each month and expires by the end of the said month. Respondent No. 2 Purushottam Harishchandra Ahuja filed an application wherein he sought the permission to terminate the tenancy on the grounds that the tenant had sublet the premises; that the tenant had the alternate premises and that the shop in question was required for bona fide personal occupation of the landlord. He pleaded therein that he passed B.Com Examination in the year 1984-85 and had also done the Diploma Course. For carrying out the business of Radios, TVs and other electronic goods, he had also an exper...
Tag this Judgment!Jaysinghrao Dadu Patil and Another Vs. KutubuddIn Ismail Soudagar and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-1996
Reported in: I(1998)ACC210; 1997ACJ1374; 1998(4)BomCR446; 1997(1)MhLj737
ORDERR.M. Lodha, J.1. The appellants in this first appeal seek to impugn the award dated 20-8-1995 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kolhapur. The claimants Kutubuddin Ismail Soudagar and Jahirabi who are respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kolhapur on 10-6-1981. Initially, in the claim petition Jaysinghrao Dadu Patil who is appellant No. 1 and Vasant Sattyappa Kambale who is respondent No. 3 herein were impleaded as opponents. Later on by way of an amendment Mr. M. J. Pawar who is respondent No. 4 herein was impended as opponent No. 3 and the United India Assurance Co. Ltd. and the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., were impleaded as opponents Nos. 4 and 5 and appellant No. 2 herein Hindurao Dadu Patil was impleaded as opponent No. 6. The claim was made by the claimants who are father and mother of deceased Latif Kutubuddin Soudagar who died in motor accident which took place on 4-2-1981 in the city of Kolhapur. According...
Tag this Judgment!The Resident Deputy Collector Vs. G.N. Landge, Since Decd. Through His ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-1996
Reported in: 1997(4)BomCR330
M.L. Dudhat1. This appeal is preferred by the Government against the judgment and decree dated 25th of April 1990 passed by the Extra Joint District Judge, Pune in Land Reference No. 75 of 1981.2. The land in question is about 27 acres, 32 gunthas and 8 annas situated at Bhosari, Pune. A notice was issued under section 32(2) of Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as the 'M.I.D.C. Act') on 27th May 1968 for acquiring the aforesaid land and, therefore, one has to consider the valuation of the land on 27-5-1968. During acquisition proceedings, the Acquisition Authority, after hearing both the sides, passed an award granting compensation of Rs. 9,700/- per acre. Against the aforesaid award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the present respondents-claimants have filed a reference under section 34 of the M.I.D.C. Act read with section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of compensation before the Extra Joint District ...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Jairam P. Kamat Vs. State Bank of India and Other
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1996
Reported in: 1997(3)ALLMR339; 1998(2)BomCR242
ORDERT.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. This appeal is filed by the third defendant against the judgment in Special Civil Suit No. 81/81 decided on 16th July, 1988, whereby the appellant/third defendant was made jointly and severally liable for the decretal amount. The suit was filed by the State Bank of India, Margao Branch, against the defendants. The first defendant is a Company and the second defendant is the Managing Director, the third defendant is the Executive Director and the fourth defendant is the Director of defendant No. 1. The suit is for recovery of an amount of Rs. 2,00,593.83p. According to the plaintiff/ respondent No. 1 in 1976 it had granted a Cash Credit Loan with a limit of Rs. 1,00,000/- secured by stocks for working capital purposes. After sometime, the first defendant Company requested to put their accounts under Bank's rehabilitation programme to enable them to tide over the financial crises and to make it a viable unit. The request of the first defendant Company ...
Tag this Judgment!Jagannath Maruti Pisal and ors. Vs. District Deputy Registrar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1996
Reported in: (1997)99BOMLR719
1. This petition impugnes the legality and validity of the order date 17th July 1986 passed by the Assistant Secretary, Agricultural and Co-operative department, Government of Maharashtra, by which order the Government had taken a decision to support six vividh karyakari sahakari seva societies which can be viable and self sufficient and for the purpose granted permission for reconstruction of vividh karyakari Sahakari seva societies of Gogve, Kotroshi, Apati, Munawale, Uchat, Velapur, Alike and Bamnoli by keeping intact Gogve Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Seva Society. The area of operation in villages was also indicated under the said order. The order expressly states that Apati, Munavale, Uchat, Velapur, Vividh Karyakari Seva Sansthas were taken in liquidation on 19th July 1976 and the period was to end on 18th July 1986 and therefore, immediate action be taken to implement work of reconstruction and revival.2. The petitioners are the office bearers or members of different vividh Karyak...
Tag this Judgment!Samrath Knitters (P.) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-1996
Reported in: (1997)60ITD657(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) for assessment year 1991-92.2. The only dispute in this appeal is against the estimation of the value of the motor cars for the purposes of computing the net wealth of the assessee. The assessee has declared the value of the motor cars on the basis of their written down values as per the balance sheet. The Assessing Officer, however, adopted the insurance value as the value of the motor cars for the purposes of computing the net wealth of the assessee. The CWT(A) did not find any reason to interfere with the action of the Assessing Officer. He held that evidently the written down value of a motor car under the Income-tax Act is not indicative of its market value as on the valuation date. According to him, the Assessing Officer had proceeded on a reasonable basis to estimate the value of the motor cars on the basis of their insured value during the relevant period. The assessee is in appe...
Tag this Judgment!Savaliram Gotiram Teli (Deceased) by Heirs and Lrs. Vs. Madhukar Yeshw ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-1996
Reported in: (1997)99BOMLR214
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. In this appeal the question that falls for our consideration is as to whether heirs of a tenant governed by the provisions of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') can claim restoration of possession of the land under the provisions of Section 32(1B) of the Act when such proceedings were initiated suo motu by the Mamlatdar concerned. The Additional Mamlatdar, the Deputy Collector and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal held in favour of the heirs of the tenant and ordered restoration of possession of the lands from the respondent-landlords. The High Court of Bombay by the judgment under appeal took a contrary view and held that such proceedings are maintainable only for the tenant concerned and not for his heirs. Il is this view of the Bombay High Court which is brought in challenge in the present proceedings by the heirs of the erstwhile tenant.2. A few relevant facts may be noted at the outset. One Savaliram Gotiram Te...
Tag this Judgment!Khanduja Brothers Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-1996
Reported in: (1997)99BOMLR5
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. In this petition, an order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, directing the confiscation of 2000 bags of the charcoal is called in question. The said order was confirmed by the appellate authority, i.e., the Resident Deputy Collector as also the revisional authority, i.e., the Additional Commissioner.2. A Talathi of Balajinagar found that there was a coal kiln being operated in the field of one Timaji Jagtap, being survey No. 23 of village Yelabara. This was on 14.9.1989. He did not waste any time and proceeded to stop that kiln. He also executed a panchanama and gave the kiln and the charcoal that was being prepared in the same, in custody of one Rudrashankar Mataprasad Shrivastava who was allegedly a representative of one Khanduja Brothers of Nagpur, the present petitioner. He found that there was no valid permission with the said Rudrashankar Mataprasad Shrivastava in holding trial kiln, muchless in the field belonging to the said Timaji. Curiously enough, th...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Rashtriya Metal Ind. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-15-1996
Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT592Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The assessee after filing a declaration under Rule 57G, sought credit under Rule 57H on inputs received prior to file the declaration.While granting such permission, the Assistant Collector denied permission to take credit on that portion of the inputs which had been lost during the process of conversion of the inputs copper ingots into sheets and strips. In appeal, the Collector (Appeals) found in favour of the assessee. Hence the appeal filed by the department.2. The Departmental Representative adopted the reasoning in the appeal, which is that credit can be only allowed on the stock of inputs as such, or contained in the final product which are lying in stock in the factory at the time of filing of declaration. This is factually not correct. Rule 57H allows credit to be taken on inputs which were lying in stock or were received in the factory after filing the declaration under Rule 57G of the Rules or on such inputs which were used in the manufacture of the final products cleare...
Tag this Judgment!Johnson and Johnson Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-14-1996
Reported in: (1999)(110)ELT759Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant imported a machine declared to be "Automatic Point Grinding Machine with accessories" clearance was claimed under provisions of OGL in terms of Appendix-1, Part-B, Entry Nos. (3) and (7) of the Import Policy. On examination of the machines, Customs was of the view that the machine did not conform to the description in the Entry in OGL of "Automatic Drill Point Grinder". The appellant waived written Show Cause Notice. After considering the explanation at the hearing, the Collector has passed the order confiscating the machine imposing fine and penalty on the appellant. Hence this appeal.2. Advocate for the appellant relied upon the certificate of March, 1989 of the manufacturer of machine, and affidavit affirmed on 12-5-1989 by the Chartered Engineer. According to these documents the machines are capable of grinding points of the drill bits used by the appellant it to drill bits in the surgical needles made by it. The machine was also used for grinding the points of th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »