Mumbai Court September 1998 Judgments
Indian Machine Tools Mfrs.' Vs. Assistant Director Of Income-Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1998
Reported in: (1999)70ITD304(Mum.)
1. The assessee in this case is a company registered under section 25 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, and hence it was not required to put the words "Limited" after its name. The company was incorporated for the protection of the industries for the manufacture of and the trade and commerce in, machine tools, small tools, cutting tools, foundry, furnace and moulding equipments and machine tools accessories in India and to consider all questions connected with such manufacture, trade and commerce. This is the main object given in the Articles of Association and thereafter supplementary objects and ancillary objects have been given. The incidental or ancillary objects include organising exhibitions in India or abroad on behalf of the Association or in cooperation with others. The assessee is registered u/s. 12A of the Income-tax Act. In this background the assessee filed its return of income at Nil. The Assessing Officer noted that out of its total receipts, receipts to the tune of Rs...
Tag this Judgment!Dhanwantrai R. Joshi and Others Vs. Satish J. Dave and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)ALLMR509; 1999(1)BomCR97
ORDERM.B. Shah, C.J. 1. The learned Single Judge by his order dated 10th November, 1997 has referred the matter to a Division Bench for deciding question 'whether a decree passed in the absence of the defendant and his Counsel is a decree passed under Order IX, Rule 6 or is it a decree passed under Order VIII, Rule 5 if the same is also passed on the ground that the written statement has not been filed.' 2. Main controversy is that whether a decree passed under Order VIII, Rule 5 or 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure) (C.P.C., for short) can be set aside by filing an application under Order IX, Rule 13 of C.P.C. The learned Judge has referred to various decision of this Court, wherein justice Lodha Vyas, as he then was, Justice Palshikar and Justice Lodha have taken the view that a decree under Order VIII,Rule 5 can only be passed in presence of the defendant, on account of failure to file Written Statement. Justice Kapadia has held that a decree under Order VIII, Rule 5 can be passed e...
Tag this Judgment!Ananda Vithu Shinde Since Deceased by His Heirs and Others Vs. Kashina ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)BomCR776
ORDERP.S. Patankar, J.1. This petition arises out of the proceedings which were initiated by the petitioners under sections 37, 39 read with section 29 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereafter referred to as the Tenancy Act). Land bearing Survey No. 325 admeasuring about 17 acres 20 gunthas situated at village Dahiwadi, Taluka Man, District Satara was owned by respondent No. 5 Shivaram Gopal Kashid. The father of the petitioner by name Vithu Manyaba Shinde was the tenant thereof from 1948. About 4 acres and 10 gunthas of land was sold by respondent No. 5 to the sonsof Vithu Manyaba (some of the petitioners herein) by sale deed dated 18th January, 1951. The said land is given Survey No. 325/1 and the remaining land is given Survey No 325/2. The respondent No. 5 has filed an application under section 29 read with section 31 of the Tenancy Act. In those proceedings, a direction was given that half of the total land i.e. 17 acres and 20 gunthas be restored to respo...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Ishwar V. Parab and Another Vs. the State of Goa Through Chief Se ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)BomCR581
ORDERJ.A. Patil, J. 1. Both the petitioners are working as Lower Division Clerks (LDC) in the office of the Inspector General of Police, State of Goa (respondent No. 2). The petitioner No. 1 is holding the said post since 30-12-87 and in the seniority list he was placed at Sr. No. 16. The petitioner No. 2 is holding the said post since 1-7-86 and in the seniority list she was placed at Sr. No. 15. As per the Recruitment Rules, the next promotional post for LDC is Upper Division Clerk (UDC) and the same is required to be filled up by promotion on selection basis. The Office Memorandum dated 26-9-90 prescribes the procedure to be followed by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for effecting promotion for selection post. Paragraph 6.3.1 of the said Memorandum provides as follows:'The list of candidates considered by the DPC and the overall grading assigned to each candidate, would form the basis for preparation of the panel for promotion by the DPC. The following principles should ...
Tag this Judgment!Raju Ghanasekaran Vs. C.D. Singh and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ416
N. Arumugham, J.1. By filing this writ of habeas corpus petition, the detenu by name Raju Ghanasekaran who was detained by an order of detention passed by the 1st respondent vide detention order No. SPL. 3(A)/PSA 1296/90, dated 13-11-1996 detaining him by virtue of Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as COFEPOSA) has challenged the detention order along with the grounds of detention which was contemporaneously served on the detenu on the date of his arrest i.e. on 1-7-1997, and prayed for quashing and setting aside the same.2. On 15-12-1995 the officers of the Kalamboli Police Station interrogated five persons namely, (1) Kamaluddin Kikan Shaikh, (2) Nazir Abdul Hamid Tungekar, (3) Pappu alias Jethanand Lekhmichand Tolani, (4) Shabbir Ahmed Mohammed Akbar Qureshi, and (5) Nasim Khan Nasir Khan on suspicion at Panvel Thane Road, near the Kalamboli Fire Brigade. It was also stated that some persons...
Tag this Judgment!Aroon Purie Vs. H.L. Varma and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ983
ORDERT.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J. 1. This petition arises out of process that was issued by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 5th Court at Dadar, Bombay in case No. 64/S/91 against the petitioner. This process was issued by the Magistrate on a complaint filed by the first respondent alleging that the petitioner has committed an offence under Section 153 read with 114 of the IPC.2. The complainant before the Magistrate is a practising advocate in Bombay. It is alleged in the complaint that he is a worshipper of Chhatrapati Shivaji, who was considered as an incarnation of God, sent to the earth to preserve, protect and propagate the Sanatah Hindu Dharma. It is alleged that the magazine INDIA TODAY has organized a debate on the subject of 'secularism' in 1991. In the said debate prominent personalities of different walks of life M/s. M. J. Akbar, Bipan Chandra, Sitaram Ycchuri, Jawed Habeeb. Swapan Dasgupta, Girilal Jain, Arun Jaitley. Ashis Nandy, Khushwant Singh, Jaswant Sin...
Tag this Judgment!Hamid and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ4885
B.B. Vagyani, J.1. This Criminal Appeal has been directed against the order of conviction and sentence dt. 19th Feb., 1994, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amalner, district Jalgaon.2. The appellants-original accused Nos. 1 to 4, are prosecuted for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 read with 34 of IPC. The Additional Sessions Judge convicted appellants Nos. 1 to 4 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years. The appellant Nos. 1 and 2 are also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. The appellant Nos. 3 and 4 are, however, acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 307 and Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC.3. It is said that when passions are aroused and mind is ...
Tag this Judgment!Shri K.L. Mansukhani Vs. the Commissioner of Police and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1998
Reported in: (1999)101BOMLR5
T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. This petitioner challenges the criminal proceedings initiated as L.A.C. No. 2194/91 on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate, 11th Court, Kurla, Bombay on the allegation that the provisions of Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act has been violated by the petitioner. It is averred in the petition that the petitioner was conducting a video game parlour at Akash Galli. Kurla. There are several video game machines kept and displayed at his parlour which are used by the members of the public for the purpose of amusement. He has been conducting the shop for the last five years. Those machines are being used only for amusement and will not come under the purview of Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act. The learned Counsel for the petitioner Shri Chitnis in this context brought to my notice a decision of this Court rendered in Criminal Writ Petition No. 580/88 wherein it has been declared by the learned Single Judge of this Court that the video game as conducted by the p...
Tag this Judgment!Sudhkar Laxmanrao Jadhav Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)BomCR215; 1999(1)MhLj740
ORDERA.D. Mane, J.1. Heard Shri Potbhare, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.L. Kulkarni, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 insurance company.2. Rule. On request of learned Counsel for the respective parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith.3. The petitioner's father was working in the office of the respondent No. 3. He expired on 14-3-1989. After his death his widow applied for appointment on compassionate ground on 20-11-1989. She was however, informed that her claim cannot be granted. Thereafter, present petitioner, her son, applied for appointment on the compassionate ground in class IV cadre. On scrutiny of his application, the respondent No. 3 found that the petitioner's elder brother is in employment and therefore, his application was rejected on the ground that when his elder brother was gainfully employed, his claim cannot be considered.4. Shri Kulkarni, learned Counsel or the respondent No. 3 invites our attention to the decision in case of Life Insurance ...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Cipriano Agnelo Ribeiro Vs. the Directorate of Health Services, G ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)BomCR575
ORDERR.K. Batta, J.1. Rule. By consent Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the parties Rule is heard forthwith. 2. Learned Government Advocate Shri V.P. Thaly submitted before us that the respondents do not wish to file any affidavit-in-reply since the facts which are stated in the petition are not disputed by the respondents. 3. The petitioner was appointed as Laboratory Assistant in the Department of Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Services and was transferred to the Public Health Laboratory under the control of Public Health Department with effect from 12-3-1993 by Order dated 12-3-1993 consequent upon closure of Vaccine Institute where the petitioner was working. The petitioner along with the post was transferred from the Department of Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Services to the Public Health Laboratory under the control of Public Health Department. In September, 1995 the Public Health Laboratory was closed and the petiti...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »