Mumbai Court July 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.
Mohanlal V. Nakum Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-1996
Reported in: [2002]255ITR649(Bom)
M. B. Shah, C.J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Rule.3. At the request of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is fixed for hearing.4. The petition is filed challenging the order dated March 25, 1996, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 273A(1) of the Income-lax Act, 1961. By the impugned order, the Commissioner of Income-tax rejected the prayer of the petitioner to waive penalty as well as interest by holding that the petitioner has not made any satisfactory arrangement for the payment of unpaid amount.5. In the present case, it is undisputed that on July 31, 1989, the petitioner filed a revised return for the accounting period ending up to March 31, 1985, by contending that he had previously filed the return for the accounting period 1985-86 (?) wherein it has been specifically mentioned that the petitioner has received a share of profit by sale of plot amounting to Rs. 3,60,000. At that time, he claimed exemption with regard to the payment of ta...
Suresh Shivram Kadam Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-1996
Reported in: 1997BomCR(Cri)180
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. By means of this appeal the appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 25th June, 1982, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, in Sessions Case No. 189 of 1981, convicting and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life under section 302 I.P.C.Along with the appellant two others viz., Balu Shivji Jagtap and Mumtaz Kasam Shaikh were also tried; whereas the latter was acquitted the former was convicted under section 352 I.P.C. and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. However he has not preferred any appeal challenging his conviction and sentence.2. Briefly stated the prosecution case runs as follows:In the red light area of the Budhwar Peth, Pune is situated a 'B' Grade hotel called 'Samadhan' hotel. At the time of the incident the manager of the said hotel was one Devidas Keshav Waghavkar P.W. 8. A number of waiters, including Maruti Asaram Shinde P.W. 4, Mahatma Manikrao Bal...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Raju @ Jitu Santoni Amrohi (Pardeshi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-1996
Reported in: 1997BomCR(Cri)913
N.P. Chapalgaonker, J.1. Raju @ Jitu Santoni was convicted by learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon on 2nd April, 1996 in Sessions Case No. 250 of 1995 for committing murder of Sanjaykumar Singh and also for committing robbery punishable under section 392 of I.P.C. with the use of deadly weapon punishable under section 397 of I.P.C. Since the learned Sessions Judge awarded death sentence, the matter has come up before us by way of confirmation proceedings and by way of appeal filed by the convict.2. Today, when we started the hearing of the matter, Shri R.G. Karmarkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, giving a brief summary of the facts of the case, brought to our notice that the accused was not heard as is required under section 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, on the point of sentence. We find Ground No. (XXXVI) in the appeal memo making grievance about the same. The ground is as under.'The learned Judge did not give proper consideration as t...
Shri Gramdev Laxmi-Naraiana Devalaya, a body corporate under 'Lei de M ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-1996
Reported in: 1997(3)BomCR292
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. This appeal arises from the order dated 31st July, 1993 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Margao, in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 242/92/B in Special Civil Suit No. 208/92/B. The grievance of the appellant is that the trial Court while dismissing the application for temporary injunction filed by the appellant, did not take into consideration the vital document of Certificate of Record of Right in respect of the suit property and the presumption arising from the entry therein and the application was dismissed solely considering the case pleaded by the defendants and totally ignoring the case put forth by the appellant.2. The controversy in the suit relates to property bearing Survey No. 379/7 situated at Matvem in the village of Cola in the Taluka of Canacona. The contention of the appellant is that the property belongs to him and during the new Survey the name of the appellant was put in the column 'Name of Occupant' and the new Sur...
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Meghraj GolechA. (Meghraj Gol ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-12-1996
Reported in: (1997)57TTJ(Mumbai)209
ORDERJ. K. VERMA, A. M. :All these cross-appeals and cross-objections arise from a common order of CIT(A) in the above-mentioned assessment years. They were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience. Facts giving rise to these appeals and cross-objections may be briefly stated as under.2. Assessee is an individual. Assessee was claimed to be the proprietor of M/s Asian Trading Co. and M/s Ekta Sales. A search was conducted at the business premises of the assessee on 12th Feb., 1982. According to the Revenue assessee was running 11 other concerns in different names from the same premises, namely, Abhinandan, Kalbadevi, Bombay. Assessee did not and has not till today, admittedly, filed any income-tax return for the assessment years under consideration. Ex parte orders dt. 12th Feb., 1986, were passed for all these years since assessee defied all notices issued under ss. 147, 139(2), 142(1) and 131 of the IT Act, 1961. The view of the AO was th...
Akasaka Electronics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-1996
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT817Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Duty of Rs. 9.78 lakhs and penalty of Rs. 1.50 lakhs has been demanded and imposed was relevant on findings in the Commissioner's order that the assessee did not include in the assessable value of printed circuit boards manufactured by it the cost of tooling which had been developed for such manufacture, and suppressed such non-inclusion.2. The Advocate for the applicant contends that it is not possible to establish any clear relationship between the cost of the tooling and the number of items manufactured. He relies upon the interim order of this Tribunal reported in Automotive Axles Ltd. v. C.C.E. - 1995 (79) E.L.T. 275 and the observations in an earlier decision.3. The Deptartmental Representative contends that these two decisions are distinguishable because in one case there had been no manufacture and in the other case the cost of tooling had been included. Neither of these two decisions have been satisfied in the present case.4. The issues involved in this appeal are arguable...
Bombay Tubes and Containers Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT491Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Original No. 14/92 Addl. Collr. dated 24-1-1992, of the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-Ill.2. Show Cause Notice dated 19-3-1990, was served on the Appellants raising demand for Rs. 40,808.31, wrongly taken Credit during the period 1-12-1986 to 2-12-1986, on the printed aluminium collapsible tubes, which were initially manufactured by them but returned as rejects and received under D-3 declaration and for which Modvat credit to the extent of duty paid thereon, was taken by treating them as the inputs. The appellants raised a contention that Collapsible Tubes were their declared input and were received back for reprinting after removal of the print earlier made. The adjudicating authority, however, did not accept the explanation and confirmed the demand and also imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/-.3. Mr. Nadkarni, the ld. Consultant has submitted that in their declaration under Rule 57G, Collapsible Tubes have been declared as ...
M/S. Sardesai Transhippers Pvt. Ltd., and Etc. Vs. State of Goa and An ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Bom326
ORDERChandrashekhara Das, J.1. Common questions arise in these writ petitions and, therefore, we are proposing to dispose of these petitions by this common judgment. 2. The petitioners in these writ petitions are barge owners and they challenge the demand made by the respondents towards wharfage for the use of the wharf at the Panaji port. One of the demands so made is produced in Writ Petition No.108/96 evidenced by Exhibit 'A'. As per this demand, the respondents sought to realise wharfage dues payable from 1st April, 1984 to 31st May, 1994. Similar notices were given to the other petitioners. The petitioners challenge in these writ petitions these demands on the ground that they are unauthorised levies having no support of law. Before going into more details of these cases, we have to mention here that on an earlier occasion when similar demands were made by the respondents from barge owners, they had approached this Court by way of writ petitions. Those writ petitions numbering abo...
Shaukatali Ibrahim Rangrez and Others Vs. Mohommad Siraj and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ1352
ORDER1. Heard Shri Darak, learned advocate holding for Shri R. R. Jethlia, advocate for the petitioners, Shri Kasliwal, learned advocate for respondent No. 1 and Shri Godhamgaonkar, learned APP, for Respondent No. 2. 2. By granting Rule, the matter is taken up for final hearing with the consent of the learned advocate for the parties. 3. The present criminal application is filed by the petitioners-original accused in RCC No. 1542/95 for quashing the order of issue of process passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Parbhani on 22-9-95. 4. The complainant in the private complaint has alleged that he is a respectable person of Rangrez community and is working as electrical contractor. He belongs to Rajasthan Muslim Rangrez Biradari Dakkhan (Maharashtra, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh). Right from the beginning, his fore-fathers started using the surname Rangrez. He belongs to Muslim community and following the traditions laid down by Islam. It is further contended that he has built...
Shri Gajanan M. Mathka Vs. the State of Goa by Its Chief Secretary and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)BomCR679
T.K. Chandra Shekhara Das, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on probation by the respondent No. 3 in Shri Vasant Vidyalaya English High School, Siolim, Bardez Goa as per the Letter of Appointment dated 15th January, 1987. While he was continuing as such in the academic year 1987-88 there was reduction in the staff strength and, consequently, the petitioner was retrenched from services. The petitioner approaches this Court in this petition with a prayer for reinstatement and other consequential benefits, quashing the order of retrenchment. 2. Heard counsel for the petitioner and also for the respondents. 3. The counsel for the respondents 3 to 5 Shri Thali raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner has an alternative remedy by way of appeal before the Administrative Tribunal and so long as he has not availed of that remedy any relief from this Court by way of writ cannot be granted. He brought to our notice section 22 of the Goa, Daman and Diu School Educ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »