Mumbai Court March 1997 Judgments
M.M. Ratnam Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1997
Reported in: (1997)62ITD21(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A) dt. 28th November, 1995, in which the assessee has taken 9 grounds. The first ground is of general nature and requires no comments. The rest of the grounds are decided as per the subsequent discussion.2. The assessee has taken the ground against the validity of initiation of proceedings under s. 147 as under : "The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the invoking of the provisions of s. 147 of the Act in the case of the appellant by the AO and further erred in confirming the assessment made under s. 143(3) r/w s. 147 of the IT Act by adding a sum of Rs. 32,34,000 wrongly treating the same as perquisite".3. We have heard the learned counsel for the assessee as well as the learned Departmental Representative. The counsel for the assessee submitted that the proceedings initiated under s. 147 were bad in law because there was no material or information with the AO on the basis of which it could be said that he had reason ...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Sadanand Shantwan Salvi and ors. Vs. the Nasik Diocesan Council R ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1997
Reported in: 1997(4)BomCR39
R.G. Vaidyanatha, J.1. All these 10 appeals are interconnected and pertain to one and the same dispute. They arise out of a common order dated 23-10-1996 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Nasik. Common arguments were heard addressed by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and respondents. Hence all the 10 appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. First appeals numbers, corresponding case numbers of the District Judge and corresponding case numbers of the Asst. Charity Commissioner are as follows:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Appeal in High Civil Misc. Application Scheme Application beforeCourt before District Judge the Asst. Charity Commis- sioner------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ F.A. C.M.C. S.C.A. 1. 1587/96 167/92 11/962. 1628/96 164/92 11/903. 1629/96 166/92 12/914. 1630/96 168/92 2/895. 1631/96 204/92 12/916. 1686/96 166/92 12/917. 1687...
Tag this Judgment!Kayyumkhan @ Shankar S/O Yusuf Khan and Others Vs. the State of Mahara ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1997
Reported in: 1998BomCR(Cri)41; 1997CriLJ3137
ORDERVishnu Sahai, J.1. Vide Judgment and order dated 1-10-1984, passed in Sessions Case No. 587 of 1983, the Additional Sessions Judge, Gr. Bombay, convicted and sentenced Kayyumkhan @ Shankar s/o Yusuf Khan and Salim @ Munna s/o Mohammed Shaikh, in the manner stated hereinafter :---i) Kayyumkhan @ Shankar under section 392 r/w 397 I.RC. to seven years RI; ii) Salim @ Munna under section 392 to five years Rl. Kayyumkhan @ Shankar challenged his conviction and sentence by preferring Criminal Appeal No. 820 of 1984 and Salim @ Munna challenged his conviction and sentence by preferring Criminal Appeal No. 854 of 1984.Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 1985 has been preferred by the State of Maharashtra under section 377 Cr.P.C. with a prayer that the sentence awarded to Salim @ Munna be enhanced.2. Since all the three appeals arise out of the same set of facts and a common judgment, we are disposing them off by a common judgment.3. Briefly stated the prosecution case runs as under :-P.W. 1 Rajendr...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Brijbihari Shivdarshan Shukla Vs. Shri R.H. Mendonca, Commissione ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1997
Reported in: 1998BomCR(Cri)10
ORDERS.S. Parkar, J. 1. This writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the order of detention dated 25th March 1996 issued by the respondent No. 1, the Commissioner of Police, Thane under the provisions of section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980. The impugned order is annexed as Annexure 'A' to the petition. The said order of detention was served on the petitioner-detenu on 30th March 1996. At the time of detention of the petitioner on 30th March 1996 the petitioner was served along with the aforesaid order of detention the grounds of detention dated 25th March 1996 which are annexed as Annexure 'B' to this petition. The said order mentions that the Respondent No. 1, the then Commissioner of Police, Thane was satisfied that with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order it was necessary to make an order directing the petitioner to be detained under the National Security Act and, t...
Tag this Judgment!M. M. Ratnam Vs. Income Tax Officer.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1997
Reported in: (1997)59TTJ(Mumbai)181
ORDERI. S. VERMA, J.M. : May, 1996This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A) dt. 28th November, 1995, in which the assessee has taken 9 grounds. The first ground is of general nature and requires no comments. The rest of the grounds are decided as per the subsequent discussion.Ground No. 22. The assessee has taken the ground against the validity of initiation of proceedings under s. 147 as under :'The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the invoking of the provisions of s. 147 of the Act in the case of the appellant by the AO and further erred in confirming the assessment made under s. 143(3) r/w s. 147 of the IT Act by adding a sum of Rs. 32,34,000 wrongly treating the same as perquisite'.3. We have heard the learned counsel for the assessee as well as the learned Departmental Representative. The counsel for the assessee submitted that the proceedings initiated under s. 147 were bad in law because there was no material or information with the AO on the basis of w...
Tag this Judgment!Oto-motive Products (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1997
Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT195Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal against the order-in-original passed on 18-7-1996 by Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-III in No. 165/96-Commr. on File V/Adj.(SCN) 15-183/94 whereby the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of Rs. 2,40,355.45 under proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act read with Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules and imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under Rules 9(2) and 173Q of the Central Excise Rules. He also ordered the appellant to pay interest at 20% under Section 11AA of the Central Excise Act.2. Facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of miscellaneous edible preparations falling under Chapter 21 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 viz. Alprovit Granules 200 gms, Alprovit Granules 100 gms etc. falling under sub-heading 2107.91 for and on behalf of Loan .licence i.e. M/s. Cachet Pharmaceuticals out of and under the brand name of M/s. Cachet's raw materials, packing materials and in accordance with the loan lic...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Brijbihari Shivdarshan Shukla Vs. Shri R.H. Mendonca, Commissione ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)BomCR144
ORDERS.S. Parkar, J.1. This writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the order of detention dated 25th March 1996 issued by the respondent No. 1, the Commissioner of Police, Thane under the provisions of section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980. The impugned order is annexed as Annexure 'A' to the petition. The said order of detention was served on the petitioner-detenu on 30th March 1996. At the time of detention of the petitioner on 30th March 1996 the petitioner was served along with the aforesaid order of detention the grounds of detention dated 25th March 1996 which are annexed as Annexure 'B' to this petition. The said order mentions that the Respondent No. 1, the then Commissioner of Police, Thane was satisfied that with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order it was necessary to make an order directing the petitioner to be detained under the National Security Act and, th...
Tag this Judgment!Backbay Premises Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1997
Reported in: (1999)ILLJ589Bom
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. By this Writ Petition, Backbay Premises Co-operative Society Limited seeks to challenge order passed by Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (RPFC) dated June 3, 1992 seeking to cover and apply the provisions of Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter, for the sake of brevity, referred to as 'the said Act, 1952') to the premises owned by the Society on the ground that the Society provides services to its members on payment, as contemplated by Appendix-I to the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter, for the sake of brevity, referred to as 'the said Scheme, 1952') vide Item 16(2). 2. Petitioner is a Society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Housing Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter, for the sake of brevity, referred to as 'the said Act, 1960'). It is registered on December 6, 1977 to manage and maintain the building known as Jolly Maker, situate at Nariman Point, Bombay - 400 021. The management of the So...
Tag this Judgment!Biochem Pharmaceutical Industries and anr. Vs. Biochem Synergy Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1997
Reported in: (1997)99BOMLR538
A.P. Shah, J.1. The plaintiffs have filed a suit for perpetual injunction alleging infringement of their registered trade mark and passing off and have also prayed for decree for rendition of accounts against the defendants. Along with this suit the present Notice of Motion has also been filed for an interim injunction against the defendants for restraining them from committing acts of infringement of the said mark and passing off.2. Facts, relevant for the disposal of the Notice of Motion, may first be noticed. The first plaintiff Biochem Pharmaceutical Industries is a registered partnership firm and the second plaintiff Biochem Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., is a private limited company promoted by the first plaintiff. Both the plaintiffs are engaged in manufacture and sale of pharmaceutical and medicinal preparations and drugs. The plaintiff No. 1 is engaged in the said business since 1961 and as far as plaintiff No. 2 is concerned, from 1976 as a licensee of the plaintiff No. 1. The pl...
Tag this Judgment!State of Maharashtra Vs. Lakhmichand Suganchand Agarwal and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1997
Reported in: (1998)100BOMLR540
R.P. Desai, J.1. The Respondents were tried in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune, in Criminal Case No. 5/82 for the contravention of Section 7(1) punishable under Section 16 r/w Section 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. By his Judgment and Order dated 30/6/1984, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted the accused of the said charges. In the present appeal the State of Maharashtra has impugned the said Judgment and Order of acquittal.2. Briefly stated the prosecution story runs as under:The complainant Shri Sayed, Food Inspector Pune, is duly appointed under Section 9 of The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, by the State Government. His appointment has been duly notified. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are the partners of the firm Kripal Sales Corporation located at Nanapeth, Pune and Kripal Sales Corporation is accused No. 3.According to the prosecution Accused No. 1 was present and in charge of the shop at the time of the visi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »