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.
Parashram Gangadhar Fugat and anr. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-14-1996
Reported in: 1996(5)BomCR741
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Vide judgment and order dated 31-12-1981 the Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik in Sessions Case No. 62 of 1981 convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner stated hereinafter:---Appellant Parashram Gangadhar Fugat:--- (i) under section 302 I.P.C. to life imprisonment; and(ii) under section 323 I.P.C. to one week's R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to suffer R.I. for one week. Appellant Gangadhar Fakira Fugat:---(i) under section 323 I.P.C. to one week's R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to suffer R.I. for one week; and(ii) under section 325 I.P.C. to two weeks' R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default to suffer R.I. for two weeks.Hence this appeal.It may be mentioned that along with the appellants two others viz. Popat Gangadhar Fugat and Kisan Gangadhar Fugat were also tried but they have been acquitted vide the impugned judgment.2. Briefly stated the prosecution case runs as under:---Appellant Gangadhar Fakira Fugat is the fa...
Bharat Bijlee Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT216Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Though all the appeals arise out of separate group of Orders-in-Appeal, where, in each order, number of appeals have been disposed of. Because all the appeals relate to the same issue and in subsequent orders in appeal, orders initially passed are referred to and endorsed, the entire group of Appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2.1. The Appellants are engaged inter alia, in manufacture of Electric Motors falling under Tariff Entry 8501.00 of the Central Excise Tariff.Claiming to be the manufacturers of two different types of Electric Motors described as "Standard" and "Non-standard motors", they filed Price Lists in Part I and Part II, where Part I was in relation to the Standard Motors and Part II was in relation to the Non-standard Motors.It however appeared that the prices shown in Part II were lower as compared to those in Part I. Further, discount claimed in Part II was higher, which was felt as an attempt to suppress the correct ass...
Poddar Tyres Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-1996
Reported in: (1996)59ITD548(Mum.)
1. This is an assessee's appeal for assessment year 1992-93 against the order of the CIT (Appeals)-II, Mumbai, dated 25-9-1995.2. The only question involved in this appeal is whether investment allowance which remained unabsorbed and relating to the assessment year 1990-91 can be allowed to be carried forward and set off from the profit of the assessment year 1992-93 while completing the assessment proceedings for that year. Admittedly, the income-tax return for assessment year 1990-91 was filed long after the time prescribed under Section 139(1), (3) or (4) was over, i.e., on 2-2-1993. Copy of the income-tax return was furnished at pages 1 and 2 of the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. The Income-tax Officer did not accept the return and treated it as non est in the eye of law. In the said return, no doubt, unabsorbed investment allowance was shown at Rs. 24,74,385 and unabsorbed depreciation allowance was shown at Rs. 2,19,395. The Deputy Commissioner, Spl. Range 21, Mumba...
Deepak S/O. Nawal Chavan Vs. Competent Authority for the Purpose of Ad ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Bom1; 1997(1)MhLj370
ORDER1. The learned Counsel for the petitioner states that for the present relief, Respondent No. 2 is not a necessary party. The relief claimed against Respondent No. 2 may be asked for at the appropriate time.2. In view of this request for deleting the name of Respondent No. 2 allowed.3. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard Shri Dixit and Shri Kanade, Government Pleader.4. The only point agitated in this writ petition is based on certian requirements provided for the in the Rules for admission to Engineering Courses.5. The petitioner claims to belong to Tokre Koli, Scheduled Tribe. In the Rules for admission framed this year to Engineering Courses; and probably also in the Rules relating tot he Medical courses, it is provided that the candidate claiming to belong to the category of Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe etc., shall produce certificate of caste validity issued by Director, Social Welfare (Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee) and Chairman Scheduled Tribes Caste Certificate Scr...
Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Etc. Vs. Bishandas Motilal ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Bom74; 1996(4)BomCR1; (1996)98BOMLR1; 1996(2)MhLj948
1. Both aforesaid appeals arise out of the common order dt. 28-2-1992 passed by Bombay City Civil Court of Notice of Motion No. 6544 of 1991 in L. C. Suit No. 7977 of 1991, and, hence have been heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.2. The respondents Nos. 2 and 3 in the Appeal No. 312 / 92, and, appellants in Appeal No. 313 / 92 are owners of the property known as 'Khandelwal Easte, Opp. L&T; Welfare Centre, Saki-Vihar Road. The respondent No. 1 in both the appeals viz. Shri Bishandas Motilal Shrama Claims himself to be tenant of the structure admeasuring 22'x15' in the said Khandelwal Estate since 21-3-1986. The tenant B. M. Sharma was carrying business in the said structure in the name and style of 'Asian Tyres and Battery' as a sole proprietor. It appears that some dispute arose between the owners and the tenant on the question of electric meter and according to tenant, the owners threatened him that he would be dispossessed. According to the tenant, he filed th...
Anita Sohanlal Ghai and Others Vs. V. Snehalata and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-1996
Reported in: 1996(4)BomCR669; 1996CriLJ3641
M.B. Shah, C.J. 1. Notice of Motion No. 925 of 1989 in S.C. Suit No. 1055 of 1989 was disposed of by the learned single Judge by her order dated 25th April, 1995. Against that Judgment and Order in Notice of Motion, the Appellants (original Defendants 1, 2 and 5) have filed Appeal No. 672 of 1995. In the Judgment and Order while setting out the controversy between the parties it is stated that the question as to who was the legally wedded wife of deceased Sohanlal was a matter of evidence which would require to be examined at the time of the trial of the suit. The Court further observed that the deceased Sohanlal has left behind valuable property and this valuable property is required to be preserved and protected for the administration of the estate of the deceased Sohanlal Ghai for the benefit of his heirs and thereafter the Court has passed a detailed interim order with regard to the preservation of the property. 2. Against that order, in the Appeal Memo various statements have been...
Sukhadeo S/O Bhiwaji Tumdam Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ1059
L. Manoharan, J.1. The appellant who was accused in Sessions Case No. 685 of 1992 before the 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergone imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two months. The appellant challenges the said conviction and sentence. 2. At about 9.00 p.m. on 12-4-1991, father of P.W. 1 Murlidhar was attacked in front of a water tap by the accused with the Article 'A', spear blade. P.W. 1 Murlidhar who witnessed the occurrence unsuccessfully intervened to save his father, and he also sustained incised injury on his buttock. Though the injured was removed to a bullock cart with the object of taking him to the hospital, it was revealed that he was no more and, therefore, P.W. 1 Murlidhar proceeded to the Police Station, Kuhi and tendered oral st...
Sanjay Shivkumar Sood Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-1996
Reported in: 1997BomCR(Cri)755
D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. The point that arises for consideration and decision in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 26th of May 1995 made by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department (Preventive Detention) and Detaining Authority, respondent No. 2, under the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for the sake of brevity) placing one Shivkumar Shivramdas Sood under preventive detention is 'Can a person be detained in custody under the preventive detention laws without the detaining authority recording a satisfaction in the detention order itself that the person concerned is likely to indulge in prejudicial activities in future if not detained in custody.' The order impugned is at Annexure 'A' to the petition. The order is accompanied by a communication dated 26th May ...
Shivji Malji Gindara Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-1996
Reported in: 1996(5)BomCR649
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. The appellant aggrieved by the Judgment and order dated 5th September, 1981 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Thane in Sessions Case No. 208 of 1980 convicting and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life under section 302 I.P.C. has come up in appeal before us.2. The prosecution case in brief is as under :The deceased Naval Shivji Gindra was the wife of the appellant. She was married to the appellant in the year 1974. In the beginning the relations were good. However, two to three years after marriage when she visited her uncle Shivji Satra P.W. 5 she complained that the appellant used to beat her. Some days later she went to Kutcha the native village of her father Lakhmising Karamsi, P.W. 2. From there the appellant brought her back. Thereafter both of them started living separately at Jogeshwari. The appellant had a friend Kuverji Satra P.W. 1. He was constructing a building M.V. Estate in Virar. Fifteen to twenty days before the incident the appella...
Tarachand Gulabchand Zaver Vs. Vaibhav Guest House
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-1996
Reported in: (1997)99BOMLR115
G.D. Kamat, J.1. This petition challenges the order dated 4th March 1983 made by the Additional Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Bombay in Appeal No. 510 of 1980 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.2. For the view that I am taking and propose to pass final order in this matter, not many facts are necessary to be staled, nor advert to legal position, The (actual matrix is this that the building known as 'Saileela' situate at Jogeshwari (East), Bombay is owned by one Ramchandra Nimbalkar. He also claims to be a partner of M/s. Waibhav Guest House which is respondent in this petition. A part of Saileela building is let out by Shri Nimbalkar to M/s. Waibhav Guest House which runs the Guest House there. On 14th July 1979, Room No. 17 of M/s. Waibhav Guest House was given to the petitioner on payment of Rs. 450/- per month. For failure of the petitioner to pay the monthly rates and falling in arrears thereto and also for committing some other nuisance, it appears that on behalf of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »