Mumbai Court July 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.
Laxmibai W/O Vijayrao Darpel Vs. the Returning Officer, Kopargaon, Nag ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)BomCR800; 1999(1)MhLj486
ORDERR.M. Lodha, J. 1. Rule. Returnable forthwith. 2. Mr. Phatake, learned A.G.P. waives service for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 A. As regards other respondents, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the relief against them does not survive but since pure question of law is involved he is pressing the present writ petition. By consent rule is heard finally at this stage. The said question of law is : Where the limitation of an appeal preferred under Rule 15 of Maharashtra Municipalities Election Rules, 1966 expires on holiday and such appeal is filed on next day, can such appeal be treated within time? The said question arises in the facts narrated hereinafter. 3. The election for various wards of Municipal Council, Kopargaon was notified by the State of Maharashtra. According to the declared election programme the last date for nomination form was 13-11-1996. Scrutiny was to be made on 14-11-1996 and withdrawal was permitted upto 23-11-1996. On 24-11-1996 allotment of symbo...
AbdulhusseIn G. Tambawala Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-1998
Reported in: (1998)150CTR(Bom)57; [1998]234ITR258(Bom)
B.P. Saraf, J.1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), at the instance of the assessee, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the 'Tribunal'), has referred the following question of law to this court for opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to deduction of interest of Rs. 76,182 for the assessment year 1977-78, Rs. 95,762 for the assessment year 1978-79 and Rs. 99,309 for the assessment year 1979-80 under Section 80V of the Income-tax Act ?'2. The material facts of the case giving rise to this reference are as follows :The assessee is an individual whose main source of income is remuneration from Hoosein Metal Rolling Mills P. Ltd., income from dividends and director's fees. This reference pertains to the assessment years 1977-78, 1978-79 and 1979-80. The controversy in all these three years is regarding the allowability of interest under Section 80V of the Act on moneys borrowed ...
Shri Pandurang Eknath Khare and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)ALLMR495; 1998(4)BomCR240
ORDERA.V. Savant, J. 1. Heard both the learned Counsel; Dr. Naik for the petitioners and Shri Apte, Addl. Advocate General for respondent Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 & 10.2. This petition is by the members of the Pune Agricultural Produce Market Committee respondent No. 4 - which is a body corporate constituted in accordance with the provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 (for short the Marketing Act') and the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Rules, 1967 (for short 'the Marketing Rules') framed under the said Act. Petitioners have challenged the validity of the order dated 26th March, 1998 superceding the Market Committee, which order has been passed by respondent No. 5, in exercise of his powers under sub-section (1) of section 45 of the said Act. The said provision empowers the State Government to supercede the Market Committee which is either not competent to perform or persistently makes defaults in performing the duties im...
Mrs. Sahebbi Syed QayamuddIn Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)BomCR798
ORDERA.D. Mane, J. 1. The petitioner is an age old widow, who has filed the present writ petition, inter alia, praying to quash the order of the respondent No. 2 dated 31-1-1989 denying family pension to the petitioner and further seeking directions to the respondent No. 2 to sanction and release family pension to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner's husband was serving with the respondent No. 2 at Naldurg prior to 1-8-1984. He however, died on 13-9-1984. It is submitted by the petitioner that he died while he was in service. Therefore, after his death, the petitioner is eligible for family pension. In this context, the petitioner relies upon the Government Resolution dated 16-4-1984 (Exhibit 'A' to the petition paper book), which provides for grant of family pension to widow of the Government Servant who retired/died prior to January, 1964. 3. In this context, the petitioner submits that the petitioner had made an application on 28-9-1998 to the District Judge - respondent No. 2, under...
Shri Cruz Pedro Pacheco Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-1998
Reported in: 1998(5)BomCR521; 1998CriLJ4628
ORDERJ.A. Patil, J.1. This appeal by the original accused is directed against the judgment dated 4th November, 1997, passed in Sessions Case No. 41/95 by the Sessions Judge, South Goa, Margao. The learned Judge acquired the accused of the offence punishable under section 506(ll) of the Indian Penal Code, but convicted him of the offence punishable under section 436 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- in default to suffer further simple imprisonment for one year. The learned Judges further directed that fine, if realized, the same shall be paid to P.W. 2 Joaquim by way of compensation. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the accused has preferred this appeal.2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that the accused and P.W. 2 Joaquim are brothers. P.W. 1 Marcelina is the wife of P.W. 2 Joaquim. According to the prosecution, the relations between the accused and P.W. 2 Joaquim are strained and that the former ...
Murlidhar Bhagwandas Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-1998
Reported in: [1998]234ITR548(Bom)
B.P. Saraf, J. 1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ('the Tribunal'), has referred the following question of law to this court for opinion at the instance of the assessee :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it was open to the assessee to challenge the legality of the supplementary assessments for the assessment years 1956-57, 1957-58 and 1958-59 made by the Income-tax Officer on September 30, 1974, in pursuance of the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner under Section 251 which had become final ?'2. The assessee is a partnership firm. The proceedings relate to its assessment under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), for the assessment years 1956-57, 1957-58, and 1958-59. The assessments for these three years were originally completed under, Section 23(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (for short 'the 1922 Act'), accepting all the hundi loans appearing in the books of t...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›