Mumbai Court June 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.
Atmaram Gajanan Patil Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-1996
Reported in: 1996(5)BomCR748
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. The appellant aggrieved by the Judgement and order dated 28-7-1981, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, in Sessions Case No. 350 of 1980, convicting and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life under section 302 I.P.C., has come up appeal before us.2. Briefly stated the prosecution case runs as under:---On 12-3-1980, marriage of one Yesha an acquaintance of Mohammed Yameen Khan, P.W. 1 and deceased Mark Alexander on one side and the appellant on the other was scheduled to take place in Payalipada, Bombay. It appears that the appellant was a member of the marriage procession. At about 9 p.m., the procession reached the place of marriage. At that time, Mohammed Yameen Khan and Mark Alexander were standing in the verandah of the place, where the marriage was to be performed. Mohammed Yameen Khan was keeping his hand on the shoulders of Mark Alexander. At that time, the appellant came there and said as to why they were standing like girls. Say...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. R. C. Dalal
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1996
Reported in: (1982)1ITD126(Mum.)
1. The revenue has filed this appeal against the order of the Appellate Controller holding that the Assistant Controller was not justified in deducting the liabilities amounting to Rs. 50,566 from the value of Rs. 96,000 of the residential flat No. 6 of Divine Grace Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., which was exempt under section 33(1) (n) of the Estate Duty ACt, 1953 ("the Act"). According to the revenue, the Appellate Controller further erred in holding that the said liability of Rs. 50,566 should be allowed against the principal value of the estate of the deceased and not against the value of Rs. 96,000 of the residential flat, mentioned above.2. The facts of the case are that Shri C. M. Dalal died on 14-5-1977, leaving as one of his assets a residential flat in the Divine Grace Co-Operative Housing society Ltd. at Santacruz, Bombay. He had purchased this flat for Rs. 96,000 from the Co-operative Society. Part of the funds were raised by him in his lifetime from the Tata Sons Cons...
Indian Airlines Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1996
Reported in: (1996)59ITD353(Mum.)
1. These appeals are by the same assessee and arise out of the same set of facts. Hence they were heard together and are being disposed of as under. It would be appropriate to mention here that the assessee is a Public Sector Undertaking and Cabinet Secretariate, Litigation Cell, of the Central Government has permitted the assessee to pursue to the appeals before the Tribunal in the meeting held on 21st September, 1995.2. During the scrutiny of annual salary returns filed by the assessee, it was noticed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, TDS (Salaries), Bombay, that the assessee had been making payment of the following allowances to its employees mainly to the flying crew members :- 3. It was claimed by the assessee that the said allowances are not taxable and the Central Board of Direct Taxes had issued instructions to that effect. It was also claimed that whatever has been paid to the employees is nothing but reimbursement of the expenses incurred by them and as such nothi...
Hardillia Chemicals Limited Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1996
Reported in: 1997(92)ELT474(Bom)
M.B. Shah, C.J.1. The relevant submissions of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners are as under : The Petitioner company is engaged in the manufacture of petrochemicals. For the purpose of manufacturing petrochemicals the petitioner company uses 3 Ethyl Hexanol (EH) as a raw material/input. EH is a non-potable industrial alcohol. During the period 13-8-1979 to 1-3- 1984 the petitioner imported various quantities of EH paying additional duties of customs (under Section 3 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975) amounting to Rs. 57,80,183/- equivalent to the excise duty payable under T.I. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. 2. On 18-12-1986 this Hon'ble Court by a judgment and order in the matter of Raman K. Bhandari : 1987(27)ELT617(Bom) (This judgment was ultimately upheld by a Division Bench of this Hon'ble High court in 1990 (29) ECC 152 held that non-potable industrial alcohol was not liable to pay additional duty of customs. On the rendering of the aforesaid decision the petitioner realised it...
Kashivishwanath Atmaram Desai Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1996
Reported in: [1996(74)FLR2588]
ORDERA.P. Shah, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner is seeking a direction to the State of Maharashtra to convey the approval of the Governor under Article 226 of the Constitution to the proposal made by the Chief Justice in the letter of the Prothonotary and Senior Master dated 18.4.1991 proposing the upgradation of the scale of pay of Accounts Officer to that of the Deputy Registrar on the Appellate Side and to give the scale of pay of Rs. 1100-1700 (unrevised) and the scale of pay of Rs. 3700-5000 (revised) with effect from 1st April, 1986 and to grant all consequent benefits to the petitioner. The petitioner joined the Court as an Interpreter in October, 1965 in the City Civil Court, Mumbai. In the year 1971 he was promoted as a Sheristedar. He was selected and ap pointed as an Associate on the Original Side of the Bombay High Court on 1st November, 1980 and was confirmed in the said post in the year 1986. Thereafter, he was promoted to the p...
Saudi Arabian Air Lines, Bombay and ors. Vs. Salim Gandhi and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1996
Reported in: [1996(74)FLR2162]
Tipnis, J. 1. This petition filed by M/s. Saudi Arabian Airlines challenges the legality and correctness of the order dated 2nd November, 1992 passed by the learned Judge, Labour Court at Bombay directing the petitioners to maintain status-quo until further orders in Complaint (ULP) No. 379 of 1992 and continuation of the said order by orders dated 24th November, 1992 and 10th December, 1992. However, it is not necessary to deal with this aspect of the matter in as much the main complaint being complaint (ULP) No. 389 of 1992 is admittedly disposed of and as such interim orders are of no consequence as of today. 2. The petition also impugned the legality and correctness of the order of issuance of summons or process to the petitioners by the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Bombay in Miscellaneous Criminal Complaint (ULP) No. 139 of 1992 filed by the employee by name Salim Gandhi. 3. Shri Cama, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the orders of issuance of p...
Dr. Fondo Shivram Dessai and ors. Vs. Shri Mahendra Shivram N. Dessa a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)BomCR281
R.K. Batta, J.1. The petitioners (defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and defendants Nos. 5 and 6 in the suit) had filed an application on 5-11-1992 under Order 23, Rule 3, C.P.C. in which it was prayed that this suit may be decreed in terms of compromise/agreement dated 23-4-1988. This application was dismissed by impugned order dated 16th September, 1993 by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Margao and it is this order which is challenged in revision.2. Learned Advocate Shri M.P. Almeida took me through the contents of the said compromise/agreement and submitted that the same is a concluded agreement and nothing more remained to be done by the parties; that whatever was left to be done under the said compromise/agreement could be subject-matter of execution; that the said compromise/agreement is not opposed by the opposite party on grounds of undue influence, fraud or plea of like nature; that the execution of the said compromise/agreement has not been denied by the parties and that in a suit for par...
Shri Uttam @ Ratnakar Pandurang S. Hodarcar Vs. Shri Premanand Fotu Fa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1996
Reported in: 1997(2)BomCR81
R.K. Batta, J.1. This Revision is directed against order of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Quepem, allowing amendment sought by the respondent (defendant in the suit).2. In order to appreciate the controversy relating to the amendment, it is necessary to briefly enumerate the facts :Petitioner (plaintiff in the suit) claimed to be co-owner of property surveyed under No. 28/2 that the defendant has his common residential house in property under Survey No. 28/1 which also belongs to plaintiff and his family members; that in the month of December 1990, plaintiff noticed that the defendant without his consent and that of his brothers, had embarked upon construction of laterite masonry structure admeasuring 7 x 7 metres; that the matter was sought to be amicably settled and the plaintiff agreed to sell an area of 72 square metres to the defendant for a sum of Rs. 5,000/- of which a sum of Rs. 1,000/- was paid on the date of the execution of Agreement on 7-12-1990 and the balance amount of Rs...
The Union of India (Uoi), Through Deputy Salt Commissioner and anr. Vs ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1996
Reported in: 1996(4)BomCR679; (1996)98BOMLR118
M.L. Dudhat, J.1. These two companion appeals are arising out of land acquisition proceedings which are being disposed of by this common judgment. The trial Court has also disposed them of by a common judgment.2. Both these appeals are preferred by the Union of India (appellant No. 1) and the Special Land Acquisition Officer (appellant No. 2) against the Judgment and decree dated 23rd April, 1993, passed by the learned Joint District Judge, Thane, in Land Acquisition Reference No. 90 of 1986 and Land Acquisition Reference No. 91 of 1986. First Appeal No. 257 of 1994 is preferred against the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in L.A.R. No. 90 of 1986 and the First Appeal No. 258 of 1994 is preferred against the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in L.A.R. No. 91 of 1986. At this stage, we may also mention that the respondents in the aforesaid appeals have also filed Cross Objections being Cross Objections (Stamp) No. 30532 of 1994 in First Appeal No. 257 of 1994 an...
Pearl Soap Company Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT486Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Though, both the appeals are directed against different captioned orders, since the issue involved is common, they were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by this common order.2. Appeal No. E/83/93 from M/s. Pearl Soap Company is against the captioned order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II disallowing the modvat credit on the adhesive tape used for the purpose of packing soap, which is an excisable product for which the facility of Modvat credit was being availed of. The tapes were declared as inputs in the declaration filed under Rule 57G. It was, however, held that the tapes being packing materials were not eligible for Modvat credit.3. Shri RJ Parka, the ld. advocate, submits that the issue has been settled amongst others, by the decision of the East Regional Bench in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Commissioner of Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta-II reported in 1994 (70) E.L.T. 595 (Tri.) where cellophane tapes used as packing mater...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »