Mumbai Court February 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.
The Janta Commercial Co-operative Bank, Through Its Managing Director ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-19-1996
Reported in: 1996(4)BomCR158
R.M. Lodha, J.1. Since the arguments on Rule on stay as well as the writ petition were identical, the learned Counsel for the parties were directed to address the Court on merits in the writ petition itself.2. Heard Mrs. Patil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ghare, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 respectively.3. The order passed by the Industrial Court, Amravati, on 10-10-1995 is impugned in the present writ petition. By this order, the Industrial Court, Amravati, Camp at Akola, directed the petitioner-Bank to transfer respondent No. 2 herein to Murtizapur by cancelling the earlier order of transfer whereby respondent No. 2 was transferred from Akola to Manora.4. The respondent No. 2 Punamchand (for short, 'the employee') is litigating for almost 8 months challenging his transfer from Akola to Manora. By the transfer order dated 15-6-1995, the employee was transferred from Main Branch Akola to Manora Branch. This transfer order dated 15-6-1995 was not an isolation orde...
Virgen Rupa Talsania Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-19-1996
Reported in: I(1997)DMC676
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Heard Mr. Kiran P. Jain for the applicant and Mrs. Jyoti S. Pawar A.P.P. for State.2. This is third application for bail in a case under Sections 306 read with 498A, IPC etc. The first application for bail was rejected by D.K. Trivedi, J. vide his order dated 10th June, 1994 passed in Criminal Application No. 1419 of 1994. Thereafter another application for bail preferred on behalf of the applicant vide order dated 20.9.1994 passed in Criminal Application No. 1019 of 1994 was rejected by M.S. Rane, J.3. In this application bail is sought primarily on the ground of delay in the commencement of the trial of the applicant. The learned Counsel for the applicant urged that the applicant is in jail since 22.2.1994 and no date for his trial has been fixed nor there appears to be any likelihood of his trial commencing in the near future. He invited my attention to the fact that the two offences for which the applicant is being prosecuted viz., 306 and 498A, IPC, are punishab...
Maharashtra State Electricity Board Vs. State of Maharashtra and Other ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Bom267; 1997(3)BomCR493
ORDER1. This is a writ petition filed by the Maharashtra State Electricity Board (for short, MSEB) through its Executive Engineer (Civil Construction-Maintenance) Division Nasik Road, Nasik, to challenge the order made on 24-8-1995 by the State Government directing the resumption and restoration of the land to the original owner under the 1973 Resolution.2. The Petitioner seeks the reliefs of issuance a 'Writ of Ccrtiorari or any other directions in the nature of a Writ' to quash the order or the recommendation of the Commissioner, Nasik, dated 24-8-1995 and also the order of the Tahsildar, Pathardi, dated 4-10-1995 in execution of the order for restoration of possession of the land to the respondents Nos. 3 and 4.3. The material facts are these :The State Government -- Respondent No. 1 acquired agricultural lands bearing Survey No. 10 admeasuring 1 H 95 R and Survey No. 11/7 admeasuring 1 H 15 R belonging to the respondents No. 3 and 4 along with the land Survey No. 11/8 admeasuring 1...
Murlidhar Yadan Tonpe Since Deceased by Heirs and L. Rs. Vs. State of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1996
Reported in: 1996(5)BomCR166; 1996CriLJ995; 1996(1)MhLj926
A.P. Shah. J. 1. Is petitioner entitled to receive the benefit of Government resolution dated April 28, 1961 providing for computation of temporary and officiating service for pension? Is the date of retirement a relevant consideration for eligibility for receiving the benefit of the said resolution? Whether clause 3 of the said resolution giving benefit only to the Government servants, who retire from service on or after the date of issuance of this resolution is constitutionally valid? These are some of the questions, which fall for our consideration in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. The facts are few and almost undisputed. The petitioner joined the services of the then Province of Bombay on August 12, 1939 on temporary basis to one of the twenty permanent posts in the office of the Director of Prohibition and Excise. The said posts were created by the Government resolution No. GR/RD/347/39, for implementation of the policy of prohibition, which was then adop...
Mukund S/O Rambhau Pinjarkar Vs. Sarda Education Trust, Through Jugalk ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1996
Reported in: 1996(5)BomCR520
R.M. Lodha, J.1. The orders passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur on 20-7-1989 and 30-9-1988 affirming the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Daryapur on 20-2-1987 and the order passed by the Tahsildar, Anjangaon on 31-1-1986 are impugned in the present writ petition.2. Two points arise for consideration in this writ petition, viz. (i) whether the application filed by one of the trustees of Sarda Education Trust under section 19(1)(d) of the Bombay Tenancy Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (for short, the 'Tenancy Act') was maintainable having not been filed by all the trustees of the said Trust, and (ii) whether the petitioner who was only a sub-tenant in the land in question, could maintain revision application before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal against the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and Tahsildar when the tenant-in-chief did not challenge the orders in revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal.3. Sarda Education Trust i...
Popular Carpet Inds. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (P)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-1996
Reported in: (1996)(84)ELT244Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Today only the stay petitions were listed for hearing. However, considering the submissions made, we feel that the matter ought to be remanded for limited purpose detailed here below: The appeals are, therefore, taken up for hearing by granting waiver against pre-deposit and are heard on the said issues. The stay petitions had come up for hearing on 21-4-1996 when non-compliance with the principles of natural justice was pleaded. The adv. Dr. Kantawala was heard that day and the matter was kept back for Mr. Puri to seek instructions on the copies of the documents that were filed before the Tribunal on the particular day. Today the matters have been taken up for hearing.2. Dr. Kantawala, the ld. advocate appearing for M/s. Popular Carpet Inds. submits that there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice in as much as this appellant asked for cross-examination of one Shashikant Shah who is also a co-noticee and on whom the personal penalty has been imposed. The purpos...
S.K. Somaiya Vs. 10th Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-1996
Reported in: (1996)58ITD322(Mum.)
1. Appeal No. 4434/Bom/88 (assessee's appeal) and No.4672/Bom/88(Revenue's appeal) are related to the assessment year 1983-84 and are directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 17-3-1988. Appeal Nos. 3854 to 3856/Bom/89 are assessee's appeals for the assessment years 1984-85 to 1986-87 and are directed against the orders of the ld. CIT(A) for these years dated 27-2-1989. As common points are involved, these appeals are heard together and are disposed of by this common order.2. It is convenient to consider assessee's appeals for all the years together and to consider the Department's appeal only for 1983-84 separately.3. The assessee sought to file some additional grounds vide his letter dated 22-4-1992 and vide letter dated 20-1-1996 for the assessment years 1983-84 to 1986-87. All the additional grounds are related to the grounds already filed. They are admitted.4. The assessee is an individual deriving income from business by way of selling agency commission and income from ...
Gharban Ali Pour Azadi Shekhar Sareoi Vs. Intelligence Officer, Air In ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-1996
Reported in: 1996(5)BomCR535; 1996CriLJ2420; 1996(2)MhLj839
ORDER1. This is a petition for bail. The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent has opposed the application and has filed an affidavit in reply. I have heard both the sides. 2. The petitioner is one of the accused in N.D.P.S. Special Case No. 2 of 1995 in the Court of Special Judge for N.D.P.S. Cases, Bombay. He had moved an application for bail which was rejected by the learned Special Judge. Hence he has approached this Court for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 3. The prosecution case is that on the midnight of 2nd/3rd October, 1994, the petitioner who was going to board Singapore Airlines flight, on suspicion, was stopped by officers of Air Intelligence Unit of Customs at Sahar Airport. The petitioner was found in possession of a briefcase. The petitioner was brought to the office of the Customs Officer on suspicion. He was questioned whether he was in possession of any foreign currency or any narcotic drugs. The petitioner replied in the negative. Then on suspi...
Sukhraj Bhikchand JaIn Vs. the State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)BomCR463
A.S.V. Moorthy, J.1. The contentions raised and reliefs sought for in both the writ petitions are the same and hence they can be disposed of by a common order.2. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4739 of 1987 is a member of the Lasalgaon Agricultural Produce Market Committee, while the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 5866 of 1987 is a trader and a member of the Islampur Agricultural Produce Market Committee. The reliefs sought for in the above writ petitions are: (i) to issue a writ of certiorari striking down the provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) (Amendment) Act, 1987- Maharashtra Act No. XXVII of 1987- seeking to amend the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 and (ii) thereby declare that the provisions of sections 5, 6, 8, 12, 15, 17, 18, 19 & 29 of the Maharashtra Act No. XXVII of 1987 seeking to amend the provisions of the Maharashtra Act No. XX of 1964, are unconstitutional, void and inoperative and, for that ...
income-tax Officer Vs. Narendra S. Kapadia
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-1996
Reported in: (1996)58ITD329(Mum.)
1. This appeal by the revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-IX, Mumbai and pertains to the assessment year 1987-88.2. The short question neatly identified by the learned Departmental Representative is : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was correct in giving directions to Assessing Officer, to allow the amount of Rs. 12 lakhs, being the alleged payment made by the assessee to his three brothers for vacating the premises at 51, Monalisa, 10, Bomanji Petit Road, Bombay - 400 030, while calculating the amount of capital gains?" 3. Briefly the facts :- Assessee owned a 1580 sq. ft. flat at Monalisa.Indisputably, the flat was purchased by the assessee with his own funds. It was purchased on 21-2-1968 for Rs. 48,201. It was sold on 25-11-1986 for Rs. 22 lakhs. During the relevant assessment year, assessee reflected capital gains derived from the sale of this flat. He claimed deduction of Rs. 12 lakhs in respec...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »