Mumbai Court June 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.
Jugalkishore Motilal Shiknal Vs. Sakhubai W/O Vithoba Gaikwad Dies Thr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)ALLMR666; 1999(2)BomCR299
ORDERR.G. Deshpande, J.1. Original defendant has come up in Second Appeal challenging the judgment and order dated April 28, 1983, passed by theAssistant Judge, Jalna, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 117/81 arising out of the judgment and order dated November 28, 1979 passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ambad in Regular Civil Suit No. 87/76. Original plaintiff present respondent - Sakhubai initiated the proceedings for possession of the suit land from defendant. In nut shell, the case was, Vithoba Gaikwad i.e. the husband of the plaintiff who expired in the year 1972 was the owner of Survey No. 210 to the extent of 18 acres. He had become the owner in pursuance of the tenancy proceedings by way of conferral ownership on him under section 38-E of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. Naturally, after the death of Vithoba, present lady - Sakhubai became the owner thereof. She cultivated the suit land. However, sometime in the year 1973, the present appellant original de...
Rameshwar Gopikishan Toshniwal Vs. Sakhubai W/O Vithoba Gaikwad Died T ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-1998
Reported in: 1999(3)ALLMR57; 1999(2)BomCR301
ORDERR.G. Deshpande, J.1. Original defendant has come up in Second Appeal challenging the judgment and order dated April 28, 1983, passed by the Assistant Judge, Jalna, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 117/81 arising out of the judgment and order dated November 28, 1979 passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ambad in Regular Civil Suit No. 87/76. Original plaintiff present respondent - Sakhubai initiated the proceedings for possession of the suit land from defendant. In nut shell, the case was, Vithoba Gaikwad i.e. the husband of the plaintiff who expired in the year 1972 was the owner of Survey No. 210 to the extent of 18 acres. He had become the owner in pursuance of the tenancy proceedings by way of conferral ownership on him under section 38-E of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1950. Naturally, after the death of Vithoba, present lady - Sakhubai became the owner thereof. She cultivated the suit land. However, some time in the year 1973, the present appellant original d...
Bhaskar Laxman Rane Vs. Shri Gurudev Nityanand Co-operative Housing So ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)ALLMR502; 1998(4)BomCR247
ORDERA.V. Savant, J.1. Heard all the learned Counsel; Shri Karlekar for the petitioner; Shri Godbole for respondent No. 1 and Shri D'gama, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.2. This is a petition seeking to challenge the two judgments and Orders namely (i) Order dated 11th April, 1989 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai respondent No. 3 and (ii) Order dated 9th March, 1990 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai respondent No. 2 dismissing the petitioner's appeal. Under the first Order passed by the Deputy Registrar, approval has been granted by the Deputy Registrar to the resolution passed by the first respondent Safety in its annual general meeting held on 19th October, 1988, expelling the petitioner from the membership of Shri Gurudev Nityanand Co-operative Society respondent No. 1. The third respondent Deputy Registrar acted in exercise of his powers under section 35 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The...
Abdul Rehman Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-1998
Reported in: 1999(5)BomCR97; 1999BomCR(Cri)97; 1998CriLJ3939a
ORDERN. Arumugham, J.1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the order of detention bearing No. SPL-3(A)/. PSA 0196/57 dated 1-11-1996, passed by the 1st respondent the Principal Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department (Preventive Detention), Mantralaya, Bombay, against the detenu Zahir Abbad Obaid, under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, (For short, the COFEPOSA Act). The grounds of detention, provided by the detaining authority, were found in Annexure 'B' of the detention order in detail.2. The petitioner is the brother of the detenue Zahir Abbas Obaid. On 14-4-1996, the detenue had arrived at Mumbai, Sahar International Airport by Oman Airways Flight No. WY 800 from Dubai via Muscat and he was intercepted near the conveyor belt at the arrival hall, Module I, N.T.P.T., at the Airport, Mumbai. Since he was having an Indian passport issued at Mumbai, h...
Vimalkumar Nathmal Goenka Vs. Vinod Kumar Nathmal Goenka and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Bom51; 1999(1)ALLMR594; 1999(1)MhLj180
ORDERD.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard Shri Shelat, the learned counsel for the applicant (original defendant No. 3) at length. This Court on 5-5-1998 issued rule and the same was made returnable on 15-6-1998. The learned counsel submitted that the non-applicants were served by hamdast. Even otherwise, the note of office of this Court also shows that the non-applicants were served. However, none appears for the non-applicants.2. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the present applicant is the original defendant No. 3 and non-applicant No. 1 Vinod Kumar is the plaintiff. Applicant Vimal Kumar and non-applicant Nos. 1 Vinod Kumar and 3 Vimal Kumar are the real brothers. Non-applicant No. 4 Smt. Gulabdevi is mother of applicant and non-applicant Nos. 1 and 3. It is further submitted that non-applicant No. 1/original plaintiff filed Special Civil No. 284/95 against the present applicant and others for recovery of amount of rupees two lacs and seventy thousand.3. The non-applicant No....
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Western Mechanical Industries P. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-1998
Reported in: [1998]234ITR210(Bom)
B.P. Saraf, J.1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the 'Tribunal') has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court 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 the assessee was entitled to a higher development rebate at the rate of 25 per cent. as the machineries installed for manufacturing heavy duty cranes were covered by the provision of Section 33(1)(b)(B)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. We have heard Mr. R. V. Desai, for the Revenue, who submits that the controversy in this case is covered by the ratio of the decision of this court in the case of the assessee itself in CIT v. Western Mechanical Industries Pvt. Ltd. : [1991]187ITR265(Bom) .3. We have perused the above decision. In that case, the controversy was whether the assessee-company which was engaged in the activity of manuf...
Deoram Atmaram Sankhe Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-1998
Reported in: [1999(81)FLR138]; (1999)IIILLJ890Bom
Ashok Agrawal and R.P. Desai, JJ.1. Rule. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard parties.2. By the present petition, petitioner seeks to impugn an order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal on January 20, 1998 dismissing his Original Application No. 765 of 1995 on the ground that the same is barred by the law oflimitation.3. Petitioner had sought to impugn, before the Tribunal, an order dated March 27, 1995 issued by the third respondent Deputy Director of Civil Supplies, rejecting petitioner's request for granting him deemed date of promotion and for refixation of his pay at par with other officers who are similarly placed. The aforesaid application, being Application No. 765 of 1995, was filed by the petitioner in July, 1995 which is well within the period of limitation. The Tribunal, however, has made a reference to an earlier order passed by the Supply Commissioner on March 24, 1992 whereby the petitioners representation made on July 17, 1989 was rejected...
Hanil Era Textiles Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-1998
Reported in: (1998)LC937Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Application is for waiver of deposit of Rs. 1.36 crores and penalty of Rs. 1,000/- only.2. Duty has been demanded on the ground that for its clearance into the domestic tariff area, the applicant, a 100% Export Oriented (EOU), paid Excise duty wrongly. The Excise duty payable by 100% EOU is equal to 50% of the Import duty payable on such goods. In arriving at these figure applicant had wrongly taken into account the benefit of Notification 88/77 for the purposes of availing duty although it had been rescinded on 9-6-1993. It was, therefore ordered that demand of duty is payable for a period of 16-6-1994 to 16-11-1994. Ld. Advocate for the applicant says that the unit was under physical control and applications for removal and gate passes showing payment of duty were to be countersigned by appropriate officer. The failure to apply correct rate of duty was that of the appropriate officer. It is further contended that applicants collaborator in South Korea and the sole purchaser of th...
Gurajat Machinery Mfg. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-1998
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT513Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is the parties appeal praying for setting aside the impugned order PCJ/28/BRD/92, dated 11-3-1993, and to restore the credit disallowed on Grinding Wheel and Grinding Media inputs under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules.2. The appellant is a manufacturer of glass lined equipments and Industrial machinery falling under Heading No. 84 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, and clearing the goods on payment of appropriate rate of duty. They have opted for availment of Modvat facility under Rule 57A and filing the declaration for inputs on which they intend to take credit and maintain the record as required. They have taken credit on a Grinding Wheel which was received under the GP No. 2684 on 31-5-1989 and 8-7-1989 under RG 23A Part II, E. No. 216/268, dated 22-6-1989 and 8-7-1989 respectively. The grinding wheel is neither an input, nor used in or in relation with the manufacture of the final product, and so the credit taken is not eligible. Show Cause Notice was issued on 1...
Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-1998
Reported in: (1999)69ITD292(Mum.)
1. As all the three appeals arise from a consolidated order passed by CIT(A) and as they involve more or less similar issues, they are being disposed of together, for sake of convenience.2. The assessee-company is India's most important private sector company which manufactures and deals in iron and steel. On 29th January, 1982, it entered into two agreements with Dolomitwerke (later on referred as DOL). The company was located in then what was known as Federal Republic of Germany (FRG). The first agreement was for obtaining technical know-how for manufacture of fluxing materials for steel making and the other for obtaining technical know-how for manufacture of specifical refractories for steel making. As per art. I of both the agreements, the technical know-how is to be provided by DOL comprised of process details including flow sheets, plant layout tender specifications for main process equipment and technical data for remaining equipment. It also contains suggestion of modification...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »