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.
Messrs S.R. Gadre and Co. and Another Vs. Rameshchandraji Kanhailalji ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1998
Reported in: 1999(4)BomCR35
ORDERA.A. Halbe, President.1. These appeals are filed by the original O.P. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., and O.P. No. 2 Gadre Motors which are respectively the Manufacturer and dealer of Mahindra Jeep Model Commander. The District Forum, Akola in Complaint No. 41/95 was pleased to direct these appellants to replace the rear differential housing, Botsh Pump along-with nozals etc, and rear tyres of the vehicle and further pay Rs. 10,000/- to the respondent/complainant Ramchandra Kanhailalji Shraogi. The few facts are that the complainant obtained loan from Bank an amount of Rs. 1,70,000/- and Rs. 70,000/- from his mother for purchase of brand new Mahindra Jeep Commander 650 D12 WD with canvass Hood, from O.P. No. 2. The vehicle was sold for Rs. 2,27,470/- by dealer Gadre Motors and the delivery of the vehicle was given on 18-2-93. It seems that the vehicle developed trouble soon after the delivery and the complainant has been complaining every time in regard to the consumption, alignment of ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Premier General Traders P. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1998
Reported in: [2000]242ITR654(Bom)
1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate 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 Income-tax Appellate Tribunal had rightly held that the assessee is an 'industrial company' and is, therefore, entitled to relief under Section 80J(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The material facts giving rise to this reference are as follows : The assessee is a company engaged in the business of purchase and sale of chloride powder. It also undertakes grinding of soap-stones and minerals on behalf of one Podar Trading Company Private Limited. The assessee claimed deduction under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act (the 'Act'), in respect of the activity of grinding undertaken by it. The Income-tax Officer denied the claim of the assessee on the ground that as a result of the grinding, the assessee had not produced ...
National Health and Education Society Vs. Assistant Director of Income ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1998
Reported in: [2000]70ITD330(Mum)
ORDERR. V. Easiwar, J M. A group of migrants, in the aftermath of partition, led by Mr. Parmanand Deepchand Hinduja came and settled in Bombay. They felt the need for medical care. These persons banded together and on account of their efforts, a small outdoor clinic was opened in December 1951. In February 1953, the clinic was converted into an indoor hospital with 30 beds which was progressively increased to 70. In 1954, the persons who started the clinic in a small way, formed a society which was named the 'National Health and Education Society'. It was registered under the Societies Registration Act on 13-4-1954. In 1963 a new 100 bed hospital was commissioned in the same plot of land. Gradually this 100 bed hospital increased its activities and in 1972 ventured into medical research. The research institution also came to be recognised by the Government of India. The name of the hospital, after the advent of the research centre, was changed from National Hospital to 'P.D. Hinduja Na...
Allanasons Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1998
Reported in: (1999)(63)ECC36
1. These are three appeals filed by the appellants against the decision dated 23/3/1988 made by the Collector of Customs (Preventive), Mumbai in Orders-in-Original No. 2 and 3/1988 whereunder he confiscated the vessel 'AL-GILANI' and imposed penalties on various persons including the appellant M/s. Allana Sons Pvt. Ltd. He also levied fine of Rs. 5 lakhs on the owner of the vessel under Section 74 of the Gold (Control) Act. The appeal is for quashing the penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs and penalty of Rs. 25,000/- each levied under Section 112(a) and (b) of the Customs Act.2. Appellants are the owners of AL-GILANI and other Appellant was employed in the said ship. The vessel arrived at Bombay on 6.3.1986. On 7.3.1986 the Customs officials conducted a rummage. Officials took along with them other employees Pakkiri and Lorudhu along with their CDCs another employee called Saheb. Nothing was found on that day. On 8.3.86 they again conducted a search. They took away Abdul Khadir Mohommed Kapadi, th...
i.C.i. (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1998
Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT723Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These applications are for stay of collection of duty of Rs. 24,16,198-. The impugned order also inflicts penalty of Rs. 20 lakhs on the Thane unit and other penalties namely the Madras unit of the applicant and two other persons. The penalty has been inflicted under Rule 209A of the Rules.2. After hearing Shri V. Lakshmi Kumaran, the learned Counsel and Shri K.L. Ramteke, the ld. DR we feel that the appeals themselves could be disposed of after taking consent of both the parties and waiving pre-deposit.3. The short facts involved in this case are that the appellants namely ICI (India) Ltd. having its factory at Thane, manufacture products known as Agro Emulsifiers -1 and Agro Emulsifiers - 2 and the same were transferred to their Ennore unit at Madras at Tamil Nadu State. At Ennore unit of the assessee the products AE-1 and AE-2 were used for the manufacture of insecticides and pesticides which were wholly exempt from payment of duty. The question involved is whether the value of ...
Jaya S. Shetty Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1998
Reported in: (1999)69ITD336(Mum.)
1. Appellant is an individual. Search operations under s. 132(1) of the IT Act were commenced in his case at various places on 30th October, 1995, and continued upto 20th December, 1995. The assessee filed a return of "undisclosed income" under s. 158BC at Rs. 31,96,963 on 23rd September, 1996. The AO completed the assessment on 31st December, 1996 on a total "undisclosed income" at Rs. 4,52,27,690 and determined the tax payable at Rs. 2,71,36,614. Aggrieved by this order of the AO, the assessee has come in appeal to the Tribunal. The assessee has taken three additional grounds before us. Of these additional grounds, the first one is challenging the legality of the assessment, claiming the order to the time-barred and invalid. Ground Nos. 2 and 3 are stated to be clarificatory in respect of original ground Nos. 16 and 31. Being legally permissible, the learned Departmental Representative had no objection to the admission of the additional grounds of appeal and hence, we proceed to dec...
Smt. Ashabai W/O Shivaji Shiral and Anothers Vs. the Executive Enginee ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)ALLMR442; 1999(2)BomCR194
ORDERA.B. Palkar, J.1. In this revision application the plaintiffs have challenged the order dated 2-1-1998 passed by the learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Parbhani on Exh. 1.2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff Ashabai and Kaushalyabai for recovery of Rs. 2 Lakhs for compensation caused due to the loss of life of deceased Shivaji who died due to electric shock. The claim is made against M.S.E.B. (defendant) by the legal heirs of deceased Shivaji. 2-A. The office raised an objection that no Court fee was paid and, therefore, the learned Advocate for plaintiffs was heard on that point. In the Trial Court notification dated 1-10-1994 in respect of section 46 of the Bombay Court Fees Act was relied upon. The notification dated 1-10-1994 reads as below :'REVENUE AND FORESTS DEPARTMENTMantralaya, Bombay 400 032, dated the 1st Oct. 1994BOMBAY COURT FEES ACT, 1959.No. STP/1094/CR-859/M-1. -Whereas the Government of Maharashtra has recently announced a policy with a view to pro...
Bharati Vidyapeeth Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)ALLMR31; 1998(4)BomCR381
ORDERA.V. Savant, J.1. Heard all the learned Counsel; Shri Anturkar for the petitioner, Smt. Gokhale for respondent No. 1 and Shri Ketkar for respondent No. 2. None appears for respondent No. 3, though served.2. This is a petition by Bharati Vidyapeeth, which is a public charitable trustregistered in accordance with the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. It is also a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The petition relates to the permission to start a morning Law College, at Sangli, which is a District Headquarter in Maharashtra. The petition is for a wit of mandamus directing respondents No. 1 and 2 State of Maharashtra and Shivaji University respectively to grant permission and affiliation to the said Law College in accordance with the provisions of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994. The third respondent Bar Council of India. New Delhi, is a statutory body constituted under section 4 of the Advocates Act, 1961. One of the functions of th...
Baban Girju Bangar Vs. Namdeo Girju Bangar and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Bom46; 1998(4)ALLMR442; 1998(4)BomCR654; (1998)3BOMLR1
ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J. 1. The substantial question of law sought to be raised in this appeal is as to whether the burden of proof relating to the claim of exclusive ownership of the suit property is discharged by the plaintiffs in the civil suit inspite of the failure to produce original sale deed. 2. The facts in brief relevant for the decision of this appeal are that respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 filed Civil Suit No. 102 of 1977 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Jr. Division, against the appellant and other respondents for permanent injunction in respect of the suit property bearing Survey No. 142/1 situated in village Nirgudsar, Taluka Ambegaon. The contention of the plaintiffs was that the property was purchased by a deed dated 3-7-1950 for a sum of Rs. 5,000/- out of the income earned by the plaintiff No. 1 from his hotel business as well as from the commission agency business in onion and potatoes at Manchar during the period from 1938 to 1947. It is their further case that in ...
Devidas Krishna Salunke Vs. Tanubai W/O Vasudeo Ghogare
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)ALLMR294; 1998(4)BomCR650; (1998)3BOMLR12; 1999(1)MhLj616
ORDERR.M.S. Khandepakrar, J. 1. Upon hearing the learned Advocate for the parties and on perusal of records, it is seen that respondent No. 1 filed the suit for restoration of possession of the suit property based on the ground that the same belongs to the appellant and the respondent had been in permissive possession thereof. The claim of the respondent/plaintiff that the suit property is owned by him was neither disputed by the appellant/defendant nor any plea of adverse possession was raised by the defendant. The trial Court held that in view of Article 64 of the Limitation Act the plaintiff cannot succeed unless she makes out not only that she has title, but also she was in possession of it within 12 years next prior to the institution of the suit. The lower Appellate Court having found that the plaintiff's claim for possession was not based on the ground of dispossession but on the ground that she is the owner of the suit land and there was no plea of adverse possession by the def...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »