Mumbai Court May 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.
inspecting Assistant Vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd. Tata
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-08-1998
Reported in: (1999)68ITD205(Mum.)
1. This group of 16 appeals consists of 10 appeals filed by the Revenue against a common order of the learned CIT(A) for the five assessment years mentioned above. By that common order the learned CIT(A) has decided five appeals filed by the assessee against the orders of the IAC (Asstt) under s. 201(1) r/w s. 221(1) of the IT Act. Five other appeals were decided by him against the orders of the IAC (Asstt) for the above-mentioned assessment years for charging interest under s.201(1A) of the Act. While the learned CIT(A) allowed all the appeals against penalty orders under s. 201/221(1), he gave only partial relief so far as appeals of the assessee against order under s. 201(1A) were concerned. That is how, assessee is in appeal in five of its appeals before us. The sixth appeal filed by the assessee i.e. ITA No.4442/Bom/1987 is for the asst. yr. 1983-84 pertaining to AO's order under s. 221 r/w s. 201(1) in as far as the AO has directed the assessee to pay the amount of tax deductibl...
State of Maharashtra, Through P.S.O., Arvi Vs. Suresh S/O Motiram Masr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-08-1998
Reported in: 1999(5)BomCR184
ORDERJ.A. Patil, J.1. This common judgment will dispose of both the Criminal Confirmation Case which is referred to under section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha, for confirming the death sentence awarded to the accused in Sessions Trial No. 53 of 1996 as also the Criminal Appeal filed under section 374(2) of theCriminal Procedure Code by the accused, challenging the order of his conviction and sentence in the same case. The learned Judge, by his judgment, dated 30-8-1997, convicted the accused of the offences punishable under sections 363, 376 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him on the first count, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years; on the second count, to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and on the third count, to death.2. The prosecution case is that P.W. 1-Laxmibai Panchaghade is a resident of Arvi, District Wardha and that she resides along with her four sons, namely, Rameshwar (P.W. 5), Sanja...
Shri Bablo F. Ghadi and Others Vs. State of Goa, Through Its Chief Sec ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)BomCR379
ORDERR.K. Batta, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Service of Rule waived by the parties. With their consent heard forthwith.2. The petitioners are working as Peons in the Directorate of Agriculture and on 20th January, 1990 they were granted time bound pay scale of Rs. 950-1400 with effect from 1-6-89. Subsequently, the Government realising its mistake in fixation of time bound pay scale, by Order dated 15-1-91 granted time bound scale of Rs. 775-1025 instead of Rs. 950-1400 with effect from 1-6-89. By the same order, recovery of excess payment was ordered to be made from the petitioners in six equal instalments. The directions therein were to Zonal Officers of Valpoi, Bicholim and Mapusa. The petitioners made representations to the authorities and, in the meantime, continued to be paid the time bound scale of Rs. 950-1400. By Order dated 12-1-98, once again it was reiterated that the time bound scale to be given to the petitioners is Rs. 775-1025 instead of Rs. 950-1400 and...
Shankar S/O. Dattu Dhangar Vs. Dhondopant Narayan Kulkarni, Deceased b ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)BomCR764
ORDERD.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard Advocates for the petitioner and the respondents.2. This is a dispute between the tenant and the landlord and the petitioners in both the petitions are the tenants and respondent No. 1 is the landlord.The disputed lands are as under :Survey No.Area324/23 Acres & 12 Gunthas,3083 Acres & 20 Gunthas,7110 Gunthas,752 Acres & 20 Gunthas,32314 Acres & 10 Gunthas,30914 Acres3196 Acres & 30 Gunthas,77/21 Acre & 29 Gunthas,742 Acres & 9 Gunthas.Total :-- 49 AcresAll these lands were owned by one Dhondopant s/o, Narayan Kulkarni, who died during the pendency of the proceedings and in his place, respondent Nos. i) and ii) Smt. Dwarkabai and Vithal i.e. widow and son were brought on record.3. Both the petitions arise out of two proceedings namely, proceeding initialed by the original landlord under section 44 and under section 32(2) of the Hyderabad Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, and another proceedings initiated by the tenant under section 32(1) of the Hyd...
Ramesh Ramnarayan Dangare Vs. Vithabai W/O Bhausaheb Wakchaure and Ano ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)BomCR761
ORDERD.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard the advocate lor the petitioner and the respondents.2. Ail these petitions have been filed by the tenant and respondents are the legal heirs of the original owner, Bala Landge Landge of the land Survey Nos. 36/8, 36/9, 27/5 situated at village Indori, Tq. Akole, District Ahmednagar. Bala Landge died in the year 1980. Respondent No. 2 Shewanta is the wife of Bala Landge and respondent No. 1 Vithabai is the daughter of Bala. The three petitions arise out of 3 proceedings started separately in respect of above 3 lands.3. Admittedly all the lands were owned by Balaji on 7-3-69, he leased out Survey No. 36/8 to the petitioner Ramesh. Secondly, on the same day i.e. on 7-3-69, land Survey No. 36/9 was leased by Bala Landge to Ramesh the petitioner and on 7-3-75, Survey No. 27/5 was teased to Ramesh. In addition to these lands, one more Survey No. 47/2 was sold by Bala to Ramesh on 27-11-1970.4. It appears from the record that the legality of the sale deed of Su...
Dr. Devidas Lotu Bhirud and Others Vs. Pachora Municipal Council and O ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)BomCR748
ORDERR.G. Deshpande, J.1. Regular Civil Suit No. 9 of 1998 was filed in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pachora, by the present petitioners who are the original plaintiffs, the suit was filed in the representative capacity, challenging the validity, legality and propriety of the assessment done by the present respondent/original defendant/Municipal Council, Pachora for the year 1995-96. The main challenge in the said suit was that the annual letting value of the properly should have been determined by the Municipal Council on the basis of the recognised methods as contemplated under section 114 of the Maharashtra Municipal Council, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (which is hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for the purposes of brevity).2. It was the case of the petitioners that the Municipal Council should have fixed the rateable value of the properties on the basis of annual letting value at which the building or the property is reasonably expe...
All India State Bank Officers Federation and anr. and All India Reserv ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-1998
Reported in: [2000]245ITR122(Bom)
M.B. Shah, C.J.1. In these matters despite service of notice, affidavit in reply is not filed by the respondents.2. The question involved in these petitions is whether the amount of reimbursement of medical expenses is taxable under the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act', for short). The petitioners, who are employees of the Reserve Bank of India as well as the State Bank of India, have filed these petitionschallenging' the constitutional validity of proviso (v) to Clause (2) of Section 17 of the Act, which reads as under :'any sum paid by the employer in respect of any expenditure actually incurred by the employee on his medical treatment or treatment of any member of his family other than the treatment referred to in Clauses (i) and (ii); so, however, that such sum does not exceed ten thousand rupees in the previous year.'3. The underlined (italics) portion is challenged by the petitioners in these petitions.4. In Writ Petition No. 1411 of 1992, the facts were that one Subhash Banhatti,...
Smt. Shakuntala Bhagwat Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ3773
A.Y. Sakhare, J.1. By an order dated 5th December, 1997, the learned Single Judge has made a reference to the Division Bench for deciding the following question :Whether the provisions of Section 37(1)(b) of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 would be applicable with regard to the grant of bail in respect of offence alleged to have been committed under Section 20(b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985?2. On 12th May, 1997 at about 8.15 p.m. the petitioner was arrested for being found in possession of 1.5 Kg. of Ganja. The petitioner is prosecuted for offence punishable under Section 20(b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for sake of brevity), in Crime Register No. 153 of 1997 registered by the police of Chatushringi Police Station, Pune. The petitioner's bail application came to be rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune by his order dated 18th August, 1997. Thereafter...
Bindersing Nirmalsing Kaili and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-1998
Reported in: (1999)101BOMLR607
J.A. Patil, J.1. This appeal by original accused Nos. 1 and 2 is directed against the judgment dated 20.1.1997 passed in N.D.P.S. Case No. 2/96 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon. The learned Judge tried both the accused along with other two accused for the offences punishable under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the NDPS Act' for short) and under Section 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. The learned Judge acquitted the remaining two accused but held accused Nos. 1 and 2 guilty of the above-mentioned offences and sentenced each of them on the first count to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years with a fine of Rupees One Lakh, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three years and on the second count to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. Feeling aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence, accused Nos. 1 and 2 have preferred this appeal.2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 12.5...
Castrol India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. (Appeals)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-05-1998
Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT545Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants are manufacturing Central Excise goods and are also availing of Modvat credit on inputs used in the manufacture of their final product under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules. They manufacture Lubricating Oils and Greases falling under Chapter 27 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the period January/February, 1989 and December, 1989 and January, 1990, the appellants had received and taken credit on certain inputs which were subsequently cleared by them as such without being used in the manufacture of the final product under Rule 57F(1)(ii) of Central Excise Rules lays down that input in respect of which credit of duty has been allowed under Rule 57A may be removed from the factory for home consumption on payment of appropriate duty as if such inputs have been manufactured in the said factory. Proceedings were initiated against the appellant to say that rate of duty on such inputs removed as such shall be the rate in force on the date of their removal a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »