Mumbai Court November 1998 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.
Sadashiv Anandrao Ghadge and Another Vs. Sampat Jotiram Godse and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-1998
Reported in: 1998(5)BomCR848; (1999)1BOMLR564; 1999(1)MhLj178
ORDERT.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. This application is filed by the petitioners to set aside the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Satara in Criminal Revision Application No. 66/87. The short facts relevant to the purpose of disposal of the case are as under.2. The first petitioner is a Talathi and the second petitioner is a Circle Officer. A complaint has been filed by the respondent No. 1 against them before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Waduj in Regular Criminal Complaint No. 142/86 that the petitioners have committed an offence under sections 167, 464, 466, 468, 420, 194 read with section 34 of the I.P.C., while discharging their duties. It is alleged that, white making the entries in the Revenue record, they played defraud. Firstly, the said complaint was dismissed under section 203 Cr.P.C., on prima facie opinion formed by the Magistrate that no sufficient ground was made out to proceed with the proceedings. That order has been challenged at the inst...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Paresh S. Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-1998
Reported in: [1999]238ITR254(Bom)
B.P. saraf, J. 1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this court for opinion at the instance of the Revenue : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that extra shift depreciation allowance be allowed on computers in view of entry IIIC (3) of the Table of rates of depreciation in appendix I of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ?' 2. As is evident from the question, the only dispute in this case whether extra shift depreciation allowance is allowable on computers. The Income-tax Officer did not allow the claim of the assessee for extra shift allowance in respect of computers in view of the specific prohibition contained in the depreciation table in Appendix I, Part I of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, ' by inscription of the letters 'N.E.S.A.' against 'computers'. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the claim of t...
Hindustan Cocoa Products Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-1998
Reported in: (1999)154CTR(Bom)462; [1999]236ITR140(Bom)
Dr. B.P. Saraf, J.1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions of law to this court for opinion at the instance of the assessee : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the interest paid on borrowed monies by way of public deposits is allowable only in computing income from business and thereby holding that the provisions of Section 40A(8) are applicable to such interest payments ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the liability for the payment of surtax is not an admissible deduction in the computation of income under the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The second question is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Smith Kline and French (India) Ltd. v. CIT : [1996]219ITR581(SC) , in favour of the Revenue. Following the same, question No. 2 is answered in the...
Tabasahib Patilbha Gawali and anr. Vs. the State of Maharashtra and an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-1998
Reported in: (1999)101BOMLR818
T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. This application arises out of a complaint filed by the second respondent against the petitioners before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ballard Pier Court, Bombay in Case No. 114/S/91 alleged to have been committed an offence under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C.2. I heard the counsel for the petitioner. None represented for the respondent No. 2 though notice was served on them. Ms. Usha Kejariwal appeared for the respondent No. 1, State of Maharashtra. I also examined the complaint filed before the Metropolitan Magistrate by the respondent No. 2. On a close reading of the complaint, it can be seen that the matter relates to a clear commercial transaction. It is stated in the complaint that the petitioners placed orders with the second respondent for supply of electric motors which were manufactured by them. It also can be seen from the statement made in the complaint that the petitioners used to place orders of electric moto...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Paresh S. Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-1998
Reported in: (1999)153CTR(Bom)452
DR. BY. SARAF, J.By this reference under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this Court for opinion at the instance of the Revenue.'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that extra-shift depreciation allowance be allowed on computers in view of Entry 11IC(3) of the table of rates of depreciation in Appendix I of the IT Rules, 1962?'2. As is evident from the question, the only dispute in this case whether extra shift depreciation allowance is allowable on computers. The ITO did not allow the claim of the assessee for extra-shift allowance in respect of computers in view of the specific prohibition contained in the depreciation table in Appendix I, Part I of the IT Rules, 1962 by inscription of the letters 'N.E.S.A.' against 11 computers'. The CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee on the ground that the computer constituted plant in the hands of the assessee and hence p...
Rini Engineers Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-1998
Reported in: (1999)(106)ELT110Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants manufactured Sand Filters and Screen Filters which they classified under subheading 8324.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act and claimed exemption under Notification No. 46/94 applicable to mechanical appliances used in agriculture or horticulture. Show cause notice was issued to them proposing classification of the goods under sub-heading 8421.00 CETA as the filtering and purifying machinery and parts thereof, and consequentially to deny exemption under Notification No. 46/94. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise adjudicated the matter confirming the proposed classification and denying the exemption. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune upheld the Assistant Commissioner's order.2. Shri Mayur Shroff the ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellants manufacture sand filter and screen filters to be used for agricultural purposes for sprinkler irrigation system for a clean irrigation water accordingly the goods are classified under su...
Golden Iron and Steel Forging Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-1998
Reported in: (1999)(82)LC88Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appeal is directed against the impugned order captioned above passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai. The Appellant imported a consignment of second-hand single spindle automats from U.K.and declared a value for assessment @ Sterling 9850 CIF. The goods being second-hand were examined before assessing to duty and it would appear that the Shed Appraiser who examined the goods was of the opinion that the machines have to be assessed at an enhanced value which he fixed at Rs. 5,90,563/- as against the value declared by the Appellant as Rs. 4,64,991/-. After paying duty on such enhanced value the Appellant preferred an appeal against the assessment made on the Bill of Entry before the Collector (Appeals) who has passed the impugned order holding that the Appellant ought to have obtained speaking order for the enhanced assessable value from the Assistant Collector of Customs and in the absence of any contention as to how the value determined by the Custom House is not ...
Ravindra Vasantrao Bhingarkar Vs. Bank of Maharashtra, Through Its Bra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-1998
Reported in: 1999(3)BomCR30
ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.1. Heard both the learned Advocates at length. Since the present civil revision applications can be disposed of at this stage itself, by consent of both the learned Advocates I am disposing of the same finally. Since the issues involved in all these civil revision applications are common, the same are disposed of by this common judgment.2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith.3. The petitioner is the original defendant in the special suit filed by the respondent Bank against the petitioner for recovery of loan amount. The suit was filed on 11-3-1991 by the respondent Bank. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent Bank moved an application dated 9-1-1997 for amendment of the plaint and sought to amend the plaint by adding the following paragraph:'Plaintiff submits without prejudice to what is stated above that the defendant wrote a letter dated 12-7-1988 to the plaintiff Bank under his signature and in the said letter defendant has in most clear terms admitted...
Om Prakash Srivastava and anr. Vs. Bhor Industries Ltd. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-1998
Reported in: (1999)101BOMLR638
T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. This is an application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. arises out of the complaint filed by Respondent No. 1 against the petitioners in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 5th Court at Dadar bearing Case No. 23/P of 1990 alleging that the petitioners have committed offence punishable under Section 120(B) read with Sections 406 and 411 of I.P.C. The complaint was taken on file by the learned Magistrate and directed an enquiry under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The Police has submitted a report that no offence has been committed in the State of Maharashtra. After that Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint made by the first respondent and this is sought to be quashed in this application.2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. V.C. Gupte and Mrs. Kejriwal, A.P.P. for Respondent No. 2 State of Maharashtra. None appeared for Respondent No. 1.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Gupte has taken me to the averments made in the complain...
Anant Rejendralal Thakore and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-1998
Reported in: (1999)101BOMLR604
T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. This application is filed to quash and set aside four Criminal Complaints bearing Nos. 165/S, 166/S, 167/S and 168/S of 1978 pending before Metropolitan Magistrate, 28th Court, Esplanade, Bombay.2. This case has a checkered history. The petitioners were distributors of drugs manufactured by M/s. Wyeth Laboratories engaged in manufacturing of bulk drugs, inter alia including Hydrocortisone, Hydrocortisone Acetate and Prednisolone. While so, on complaint received from the Sales Tax Department on 11.1.1973, the Drug Inspector enquired into the allegation that the petitioner had obtained bogus Havala bills for drugs which covered smuggled items like prednisolone and Hydrocortisone. During the enquiry it was revealed that these items of drugs were sold to M/s. Glaxo Lab (1) Ltd. by the petitioners and Indo Pharmaceuticals Works Pvt. Ltd. It is also revealed that the petitioner firm had sold misbranded drugs as if they were manufactured by M/s. Wyeth Laboratori...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »