Mumbai Court January 1997 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.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vijaymal Sand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-1997
Reported in: [1998]233ITR699(Bom)
Dr. B.P. Saraf, J.1. By this reference made at the instance of the Revenue, the Tribunal has referred the following two questions of law to this Court under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the surplus realised by the assessee on the sale of the shares and flat represented by them in Suburban Queen Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. constituted long-term capital gain and was entitled to relief under s. 80T(b)(ii) of the IT Act, 1961 (2) Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the capital asset sold by the assessee on 16th April, 1974 was the very same asset as the share in the Suburban Queen Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. purchased by him in 1964 ?' 2. The counsel for the parties are agreed that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ramesh Himmatlal Shah vs . Harsukh Jadhavji Joshi : AIR1975SC1470 , it is clear that the deduction in respect of transfer of t...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Heredilla Chemicals Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-1997
Reported in: [1997]225ITR532(Bom)
Dr. B.P. Saraf, J. 1. By this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, made at the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ('the Tribunal') has referred the following two questions of law to this court for opinion : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the premium paid on leasehold land was includible in the cost of the building constructed thereon for allowance of depreciation to the assessee for the accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1975-76 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the assessee was eligible for deduction in respect of the amount of Rs. 7,10,238 being the cost of the PAN catalyst written off by the assessee during the year in the determination of the total income for the year ?' 2. Counsel for the parties are agreed that the first question is covered in favour of the Revenue by the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. A...
Sindhudurg District Central Co-op. Bank Ltd., Kudal Vs. Sindhu Sahakar ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-1997
Reported in: (1997)IILLJ1217Bom; 1997(2)MhLj537
1. This petition under Article 226 raises some fundamental questions in regard to the conduct and procedure of the Wage Board established by the State Government under Section 86A of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 ('Act' for short). 2. The circumstances can be briefly stated : The petitioner is a bank and a co-operative 11 society registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. The Respondent No. 1 is a trade union registered under the provisions of the Trade Unions Act, 1946, and is also an approved and representative union as contemplated under the provisions of the Act. The Respondent No. 2 is the President of the union and is also a Member of Parliament. He is also a member of the Wage Board constituted by the State Government under Sec. 86A of the Act. The petitioner had signed a settlement dated November 26, 1993 with the Respondent No. 1 union and had thereby revised the service conditions of the employees of the Bank. The Respondent No. 2 was a sign...
Shri K.P. Shukla and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)ALLMR364; 1997(3)BomCR252
A.P. Shah, J.1. The petitioner who are teachers of Shri Sanatan Dharm High School and Junior College, G.T.B. Nagar, Sion-Koliwada, Mumbai, are seeking a writ of mandamus to quash and set aside the order dated 10th October, 1991 passed by the State of Maharashtra according to the status of a minority educational institution to the said school. They are also seeking a writ of mandamus to prohibit the respondent No. 5 from functioning as Headmaster of the school and to direct the management of the school to prepare a seniority list of teaching staff as well as non-teaching staff in the school in accordance with the provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules. 1981 ('Rules' for short) and to fill up the vacancies in posts of Headmaster, Assistant Headmaster and Supervisors in accordance with the seniority list of the teachers.2. The facts of the case are simple and may be shortly stated. The petitioners are working as Assistant teachers in Shri ...
Chitra Pradeep Deshpande Vs. Pradeep Dattatray Deshpande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-1997
Reported in: (1997)99BOMLR669
M.L. Dudhat, J.1. This Family Court Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 9th July, 1994 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No. 2, Pune. The respondent in this Appeal (Original Petitioner) had filed Matrimonial Petition No. A No. 779 of 1992 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce. The said petition was filed on the grounds of cruelty and desertion on the part of the wife, who is the appellant in this Appeal.2. It is the case of the respondent-husband that he got married with the Appellant-wife in the year 1980. Till the year 1983, the Appellant-wife cohabited with him. However thereafter she left the matrimonial house for delivery of a child and never returned to the matrimonial house till 1990. However somewhere in 1990 she returned to the matrimonial house but without bringing her newly born daughter and continued to stay in the matrimonial house till October 1990. Thereafter she again left the matrimonial house in October 1990. Theref...
Cc Vs. Toshniwal Bros.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-1997
Reported in: (1997)(72)LC235Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the matter relates to the applicability of exemption notification No. 65/88-Cus. dated 1.3.1988 to the goods imported--Transvaginal probe 5MHZ, TV 13 RO50. In the invoice the goods had been described as accessory for the ultrasound scanner, ultra sonography-SDL 300. The importers M/s Toshniwal Bros.Bombay Pvt. Ltd. claimed the classification of the goods under heading No. 9018.30 with the benefit of exemption notification No. 65/88-Cus.the benefit of notification No. 65/88-Cus. was denied by the Assistant Collector of Customs. On an appeal the collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay held that the goods were essential for the functioning of scanners/sonograph. He further observed that the selection of the kind of the probe will depend on the medical specialist who was to utilise the equipment.2. Heard Shri S.N. Ojha, JDR for the appellant Revenue and Shri M.L.Seal authorised representative for the respondent. We have gone through the facts on recor...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-1997
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT311Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In the order impugned in the appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) has held that prior to amendment on 15-4-1987, the provisions of Rule 57E permitted credit on the duty paid on the input to be varied by reason of the fact that no duty was subsequently paid. On this basis he has requested the Assistant Collector to issue a certificate under Trade Notice 17/89.2. The Departmental Representative contends that reliance by the Commissioner on the decision of this Tribunal is misplaced, because there are other decisions to say that Rule 57E, as it stood before its amendment, did not permit credit to be taken on differential duty paid subsequent to clearance of the goods.Tata Locomotive v. C.C.E., Mumbai 1996 (87) E.L.T. 157 has held that Rule 57E is procedural in nature; the amendment introduced in this rule intended to further clarify the position and to indicate the procedure to be followed; the amended provision would apply to all situations of adjustment, recovery for refund which would no...
Plastrulon Process Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-1997
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT804Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The present application is for dispensing with the pre-deposit of Rs. 22,32,245/-. The ld. Counsel Shri R.J. Parakh, contended that the Department had all along classified their product viz. Steel Pipes fitted with Teflon lining material as articles of plastics under Chapter 39 Heading 3917.00 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.Subsequently, the department suddenly sought to change the classification by reviewing the A.C's order of approval from Chapter 39 to Chapter 73. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed review application of the department and held that the goods will be classifiable under Chapter Heading 73.05 and 73.04 CETA as pipe fittings. The differential duty is being demanded.2. The ld. Counsel urged that theirs is a composite product wherein the Teflon lining imparts the essential character to the goods and classification should therefore be as plastic material as correctly done earlier under Chapter 39 CETA. On the other hand, Shri D. Gurnani, JDR, referred to the produc...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Suresh Bhimaji Thorat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-1997
Reported in: 1997BomCR(Cri)393; 1997CriLJ1192
Sahai, J.1. By means of this appeal the Appellant - The State of Maharashtra, has impugned the judgment and Order dated 31-8-1983 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No. 207 of 1983 acquitting the Respondent for offences punishable under Ss. 366 and 376 of the IPC. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case runs as under : The prosecutrix Anita Balu Mandke (PW. 3), aged 5 years, was a resident of Vithalnagar, Shivram Lalvani Road, Gangurchi Chawl, Mulund, Bombay-80. The respondent - Suresh Thorat was a resident of Vithalnagar Zopadpatti, Mulund, Bombay. He was known to the prosecutrix from before the incident. The prosecutrix had three brothers viz : Ashok, Santosh and Arvind. She had one sister Sampada. Sometimes before the incident she started going to Balmandir School, which was near her house. Her brother Ashok also used to go to school and she had seen the said school. There is an open space around the building of Ashok's school. The prosecutrix ...
Akkatai Kaka Devkule and ors. Vs. Bali Rama Devkule
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-1997
Reported in: (1997)99BOMLR556
P.S. Patankar, J.1. The Writ Petition has been fled by the original defendants challenging the order dated 25.8.1995 by which the application filed by the plaintiff therein under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure was allowed.2. Civil Revision Application has been filed by the brother of the deceased plaintiff challenging the order dated 24.7.1995, below Exhibit 14, filed by him under Order XXII Rule 3(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure to bring himself on record as the heir and legal representative of the original plaintiff. Hereafter parties shall be referred to as plaintiff and defendant.3. It is necessary to state a few facts. The original plaintiff- Parsu Rama filed Special Civil Suit No. 27 of 1991 for decree of possession of the suit property after removing the construction made therein. Parsu Rama died on 4.9.1992. But no application for heirs was filed within time and hence suit stood abated. However, application Exhibit 14, came to be filed by Bali Rama, brother of...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »