Mumbai Court November 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.
Major Amarjit Singh Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-04-1996
Reported in: 1997(3)ALLMR430; 1997(3)BomCR619; (1996)98BOMLR770
S.S. Nijjar, JJ.1. In this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Court Martial dated 21st March, 1990. He has also challenged the order of confirmation passed by the General Officer, Commanding in Chief, Southern Command, Pune, dated 14th July, 1990 and the order of the Chief of Army Staff, New Delhi dated 9-1-1991 whereby the petition against the confirmation order under section 164(2) of the Army Act, 1950 was dismissed.2. On 3rd November, 1988, the petitioner was appearing in a written examination known as 'Technical Staff Course-16 Examination.' On that day the petitioner was appearing in the Mathematics paper. One Major Bhowmik along with Major Sharma and Major Bakshi were acting as Invigilators in the examination. The petitioner had in his possession a calculator which contained some written mathematical formulae on the reverse side. The petitioner was allegedly making use of the ...
Shankarrao Sakharamji Supare Vs. B.J. Loya, Joint Charity Commissioner ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-04-1996
Reported in: (1996)98BOMLR710
B.U. Wahane, J.1. The appellant Shri Shankarrao Sakharamji Supare in this First Appeal' questioned the findings recorded by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur, in its judgment and decree dated 19.5.1993 in Application No. 4 of 1992 under Section 47 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950.2. Before dealing with the submissions and giving my findings, I feel it my bounden duty to note some astonishing and shocking events in this appeal. This first appeal for the first time came on the board for hearing on 14.10.1996. Shri A.P. Deshpande, Senior Counsel, appearing for the respondent Nos. 3 and 7, requested to adjourn the matter and at his request, the matter was adjourned to 23.10.1996. On 23.10.1996, again the matter was adjourned to 25.11.1996. On this day, Shri S.V. Manohar made a request on behalf of Shri A.P. Deshpande that Shri Deshpande not being well, the matter be adjourned. Ultimately, the matter was posted on 1.11.1996 and with the consent of Shri Khapre the learned Counsel fo...
Deepchand Venichand Shah (Deceased) by His Legal Heirs Vs. Sukhdevi Na ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-04-1996
Reported in: (1997)99BOMLR199
V.P. Tipnis, J.1. This is a petition by the original defendants. The plaintiffs/landlords filed Suit No. 853 of 1977 in the Court of Small Causes at Pune against the defendant-tenants one Deepchand Venichand Shah for possession under the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act on the ground that they require the suit premises reasonably and bona fide and refusal to grant decree would result in greater hardship to them than the hardship to which the defendant would be subjected, if the decree is passed against him. It appears that after the death of the original defendant, defendant 1(a) Vatsalabai Ganpatbai Shah and defendant No. 1(b) Sau Indubai Narayandas Shah were brought on record as the heirs being the married daughters of the original defendant-tenant and defendant No. 2 and defendant No. 3 who are the grandchildren of the original defendant-tenant, defendant No. 2 Prakash Ganpatdas Gujar being the son of Vatsalabai and defendant No. 3 being the son of Indabai, were impleaded as party-...
Fabrica De Igreja De N.S. De Milagres Vs. Government of Goa and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-04-1996
Reported in: (1996)98BOMLR649
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. This appeal arises from the judgment dated 6.7.1994 passed by the learned Single Judge in First Appeal No. 104/1989, whereby the said appeal was dismissed, thereby confirming the judgment of the trial Court passed on 13.1.89 in Special Suit No. 122/81.2. The case of the appellant is that they are the owners in possession of a plot of land in survey No. 121/0 and old cadastral survey No. 209 and situated in the village of Cortali of Sanguem Taluka and which has been registered in the Land Registration Office under No. 26737 and in Taluka Revenue Office under Matriz No. 542. The said property is bounded on all four sides by property 'Patem' belonging to the Sanguem Municipality. The appellant claims that the suit property is in their open, peaceful and public possession and enjoyment for the last more than 50 years. It is their case that there was a cemetery located in the suit property which was demolished 50 years ago and a new cemetery was built at some other...
Prabhakar Vs. Dr. Jamnadas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-04-1996
Reported in: (1997)99BOMLR166
B.U. Wahane, J.1. In this First Appeal under Section 72(4) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred as 'Act'), the appellants questioned the findings recorded by the District Judge, Chandrapur by the common Judgment in Misc. Civil Application No. 58 of 92 and Misc. Civil Application No. 64/92 dtd. 18.8.93 allowing the same and setting aside the order declared in favour of the Appellants in Appeal No. 8 of 92 passed on 7.10.1992.2. After hearing the learned Counsel of the parties at length, a fair proposal came from the learned Counsel of the parties that the Society being in the name of Dr. Babasaheb Amedkar, running an educational institution, in the interest of the Society, the parties settle their dispute amicably in stead of washing their dirty linen in public. It being a bona fide expression came from the learned Counsel of the parties, the members/trustees instead to be at logger-head and thereby to continue hurdles in the Management and administration of the T...
State of Maharashtra and Etc. Vs. Harishchandra Tukaram Awatade
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-02-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ612
Vishnu Sahai, J. 1. Since both these matters arise out of a common incident and the same impugned judgment, they are being disposed off together. 2. A perverse judgment of acquittal dated 3rd December 1982 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Solapur, in Sessions Case No. 109 of 1982 acquitting the respondents for offences punishable under Sections 307, 326, 324 and 427, all read with Section 34, I.P.C., has prompted the State of Maharashtra to prefer this appeal under Section 378(1), Cr.P.C., in this Court. The same consideration has prompted the original complainant Dinkar Krishnaji Patil to prefer Criminal Revision Application No. 63 of 1983. 3. Briefly stated the prosecution case runs as follows : The informant Dinkar Krishnaji Patil P.W. 3 was residing at the time of the incident, along with his wife Shashikala P.W. 6 and children, in House No. 741 in South Kasba area, of Solapur. There was enimity between him on the one hand and respondents Harishchandra Tukaram Awatade and Pr...
Finolex Cables Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-01-1996
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT752Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Applicant requests modification of the order dated 17-7-1996 passed by this Bench.2. We have heard both the sides. In the earlier order, the Bench directed the applicant to deposit the whole of duty demanded on fork lift trucks and mobile cranes. The representative for the applicant contends that subsequent to this decision, the South Regional Bench has held in C.C.E. v. MM Forgings Ltd., 1996 (15) RLT 374 that cranes were 'Capital Goods' within the meaning of Rule 57Q and eligible for Modvat credit. The order of the Bench was passed on 17-7-1996. The decision in question had been reported in the Revenue Law Times of 29-7-1996. There is a clear finding in the decision that the assessee would be entitled to Modvat credit of the duty paid on fork lift trucks if it is able to show that use of this equipment is essential for manufacture of the final products. On this basis, therefore, there is a strong prima facie case in favour of the applicant. The contention of the Departmental Repr...
Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Ralliwolf Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-01-1996
Reported in: (1998)(100)ELT528Tri(Mum.)bai
1. M/s. Ralliwolf Ltd. (RW for short) the assessee manufacturers portable power tools and their components. There are two issues in these appeal The first appeal is a classification of the components.The second is determination of the assessable value of the power tools holding RW to Rall is India Ltd. Rd for short).2. The Assistant Collector had held in his order of August, 1993, that the assessable value of the tools sold by the assessee should be the price at which RI sold the goods to its dealers, because, Rw & RI were related persons. The grounds on which he based this conclusion were that RI held 60% of RW's share capital; RI was the sole distributor in India and Nepal for RW's products, the sale agreement between the two provided that RW would sell the goods to RI at mutually agreed prices and RI would sell then to dealers at any price; it also provided that advertising and publicity expenses would be borne by RI and that the profit of RI of the abnormally high being 32 to ...
Pond'S (India) Limited Vs. Dputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-01-1996
Reported in: (1998)64ITD33(Mum.)
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the CIT(A) dt. 18th December, 1995 pertaining to the asst. yr. 1992-93.2. In ground No. 1, objection has been raised to the following disallowances sustained by the CIT(A) under s. 37(2A) of the IT Act : Rs. employees/business associates 40,000(b) 25 per cent of Rs. 2,12,941 being business associates 53,235(c) Out of pocket expenses incurred on Rs. 16,402 and Laundry expenses Rs. 312 18,199(d) Expenditure on staff get-together 18,077 3. As regards item (a) above, it was the case of the assessee that the expenditure incurred on lunch to employees and the business associates, etc. outside the premises of the assessee-company does not amount to an entertainment. This contention of the assessee was not accepted by the AO as also by the CIT(A) and as such disallowance of Rs. 40,010 was made.4. In the appeal before us, the learned counsel for the assessee has reiterated that the expenditure does not amount to entertainment.According to him, lu...
Pascal @ Pasco Kinny Vs. Cilina Sybil Kinny and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-01-1996
Reported in: I(1997)DMC93
K.K. Baam, J.1. This suit for divorce has been filed by the petitioner/husband Under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act. Notice has been served upon the respondent and co-respondent. Though served, none of them cared to remain present before the Court. Affidavit proving service has been filed.2. In view of the fact that respondent and co-respondent have, despite service, not cared to file any reply nor engaged any Advocate to represent them, the matter was placed on Board for ex-parte. Even today when the matter was called out, neither the respondent nor co-respondent was present in the Court nor represented by any Advocate. Hearing of the petition is, therefore, proceeded ex parte.3. The petitioner has examined himself on oath. From his uncontroversial evidence it transpires that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnised on February 14,1982 in the Church of Our Lady of Perpetual Succour, Manori, Bombay according to Christian rites. The certificate of marriage...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »