Mumbai Court December 1999 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.
Saroj W/O Maical @ Babasaheb Patole Vs. Maical @ Babasaheb Sadanana Pa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-07-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)ALLMR615; 2000(4)BomCR532; 2000(2)MhLj512
ORDERV.K. Barde, J.1. This is reference under section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (For short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The learned Judge of the Family Court, Aurangabad, has passed the decree for dissolution of marriage under section 10 of the Act, in Petition A. 182/97.2. The petitioner, Smt. Saroj, filed the petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground of ill-treatment and desertion. She also contended that the respondent Maical @ Babasaheb was already married with a woman prior to his marriage with the petitioner and on that ground also, dissolution of marriage was prayed.3. The respondent Maical, by his written statement, denied all the allegations.4. The learned Judge of the Family Court recorded the evidence of both sides and then came to the conclusion that the petitioner failed to prove that the respondent was already married before his marriage with the petitioner. However, the learned Judge held that the petitioner proved that the petitioner was bei...
Elizabeth Vs. Abraham
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-07-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Bom276; 2000(2)MhLj414
Barde, J.1. The IInd Additional District Judge, Jalna, in Regular Civil Suit No. 2/96, has passed decree nisi under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (For short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Hence, the matter has come up before this Bench, for confirmation of decree as per the provisions of Section 17 of the said Act.2. The parties filed a compromise in the said proceedings before the learned Judge. The learned Judge recorded the compromise and then passed the decree. So, a very short point is to be considered in this matter, as to whether a decree for dissolution of marriage can be passed on the basis of compromise between the parties in the proceedings under the Act.3. The learned Judge has referred to the ruling in the matter between Mrs. B. v. Mr. V., 1989 Bom LR 448. However, he lost sight of the important circumstance, that in the said matter, the decree for dissolution of marriage was prayed under the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act. The provisions of the Act...
Khandelwal Industrial Gases Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1999
Reported in: (2000)75ITD70(Mum.)
1. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-V, Mumbai and pertains to asst. yr. 1986-87. Penalty levied by the AO under s. 140A(3) of the Act is the subject-matter of dispute.2. For the year under consideration, the assessee filed its return declaring 'nil' income. As per the return, self-assessment tax is not payable. However, the AO was of the opinion that the assessee avoided payment of self-assessment tax by not taking into consideration the provisions of s. 80VVA of the IT Act. Admittedly, the gross income of the assessee before set off of unabsorbed investment allowance of earlier years is Rs. 3,17,679. Sec. 80VVA was introduced by Finance Act, 1983 and was operative from the asst. yr. 1984-85 onwards. As per the said section, the assessee-company is not entitled to claim set off of the unabsorbed depreciation fully. The set off of unabsorbed depreciation can be limited to 70 per cent of the gross income of the assessee. In the instant case, ...
Blue Dart Express Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1999
Reported in: (2000)75ITD414(Mum.)
1. These appeals by the assessee are directed against consolidated order dated 19-3-1991 of the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, for the assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96.2. The assessee is a company engaged in the integrated air and ground transportation of time sensitive packages to various destinations in the domestic and international sectors. To undertake its international operations the assessee entered into a global service partnership agreement with Federal Express Incorporation USA. The assessee filed its return for the assessment year 1994-95 on 31-11-1994 declaring total income at Rs. 54,42,074. In its return the assessee claimed deduction at Rs. 4,55,57,524 under section 80-O of the Act. Since the said deduction was claimed on gross basis, prima facie adjustment was made in intimation under section 143(1)(a) and deduction was reduced to Rs. 3,55,30,981 under section 80-O.3. Return for assessment year 1995-96 was filed on 30-11-1995 dec...
The Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay and Anothers Vs. Vijay Rat ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)ALLMR199; 2000(2)BomCR453; (2000)1BOMLR892; (2000)IILLJ613Bom; 2000(4)MhLj48
ORDERDr. Pratibha Upasani, J.1. These four appeals, arising from four writ petitions, as numbered above, arise out of the common judgment dated 27th January, 1995, delivered by the Single Judge of this Court. By theimpugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge quashed and set aside the order dated 19th June, 1989, passed by respondent No. 2 in the above mentioned writ petitions, namely, Acting Chairman of the Bombay Port Trust and the order dated 30th January, 1990 passed by the Government, rejecting the appeals preferred by the petitioners, so also the order dated 16th April, 1991 passed by the reviewing authority and directing the respondents in the writ petitions, to reinstate all the original petitioners with full back-wages.2. The facts leading to the filing of the original writ petitions, have to be briefly narrated, which are as follows :Some cartons of polyester filament yarn, which were smuggled and which were seized by the Director of Revenue Intelligence, were stored...
Vasanta Alias Kallu Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ4864
S.D. Gundewar, J.1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant/accused being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 15-2-99 passed by the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No. 390/98, whereby the appellant/accused has been convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R. I. for five years with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of fine, to undergo further R. I. for 3 months.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the prosecution case are that In the year 1998, the victim Shivchand alias Shivcharan Shyamji Latkar (P. W. 1) was in the employment of one Sharma Kahar on daily wages and used to work as a watchman at Water Tank, Kandri Mines. On 15-4-98 at about 7.00 or 7.15 p.m., when the victim Shivcharan was standing on a hillock in front of the house of one Mohan Yadav, the accused went there and demanded fish from the victim Shivcharan. The victim told the accused that he did not have fish. Thereupon the accused asked...
Khandelwal Industrial Gases Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1999
Reported in: [2001]75ITD70(Mum)
ORDERD. Maninohan, J.M.This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)-V, Mumbai and pertains to assessment year 1986-87. Penalty levied by the assessing officer under section 140A(3) of the Act is the subject-matter of dispute.2. For the year under consideration, the assessee filed its return declaring 'nil' income. As per the return, self-assessment tax is not payable. However, the assessing officer was of the opinion that the assessee avoided payment of self -assessment tax by not taking into consideration the provisions of section 80VVA of the Income Tax Act. Admittedly, the gross income of the assessee before set off of unabsorbed investment allowance of earlier years is Rs. 3,17,679. Section 80VVA was introduced by Finance Act, 1983 and was operative from the assessment year 1984-85) onwards. As per the said section, the assessee-company is not entitled to claim set off of the unabsorbed depreciation fully. The set off of unabsorbed d...
Blue Dart Express Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1999
Reported in: [2001]75ITD414(Mum)
ORDERAssessing officer's order was passed after due application of mindCatch Note:On scrutiny of the assessment records of the assessee for the assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96 the Commissioner found that the assessing officer had allowed the claim of deduction under section 80-O without examining whether the conditions of eligibility had been fulfilled, viz., whether the assessee, who was in courier business had rendered any technical or professional services to a foreign enterprise outside India in consideration of which the assessee had received income in convertible foreign exchange--As there was non application of mind by the assessing officer on the basic question of eligibility of the claim under section 80-O, the assessment of both the years were considered to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue--The Commissioner was of the opinion that assessment order should have been written more elaborately--Not justified--If an assessing officer, acting in accordanc...
Arun Construction Co. Vs. the Bombay Housing and Area Development Boar ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)ALLMR3; 2000(2)BomCR450; (2000)1BOMLR509; 2000(2)MhLj239
ORDERD.K. Deshmukh, J.1. Both the suits are filed by the same plaintiffs, defendants are also common, the question that arises for decision is also the same. Therefore, both the suits can be conveniently disposed of by a common order.2. In both the suits, issue of limitation has been framed i.e. Issue No. 7 which reads as under :-'Whether the suit filed by the plaintiffs is within limitation?' Both the parties have agreed to try this issue as preliminary issue. The learned Counsel for the defendants made a statement that he accepts for the purpose of decision of this issue, averments in paragraph 16 of the plaint in both the suits. Both the suits have been filed by the plaintiffs for a decree of damages against the defendant No. 1. According to the plaintiffs, tenders were Invited by the defendants for some work to be carried out. The plaintiffs submitted the tender. According to the plaintiffs, tender of the plaintiffs was accepted. However, the work was not commenced. According to th...
Nanasaheb Kisan Mali Vs. Kashinath Dasharath Mali Since Deceased Throu ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-1999
Reported in: 2000(4)BomCR99; 2000(2)MhLj713
ORDERB.H. Marlapalle, J. 1. Agricultural land in the following S. Nos. admeasuring to the extent shown respectively originally belonged to one Dashrath Nana Mali, who died on 24-4-1945 leaving behind him his widow and a minor son by name Kashinath. The said lands were given on tenancy basis to one Kisan Mali in the agricultural year 1956-57 and as on the tiller's day i.e. 1-4-1957 Kisan was the tenant of the lands:??? IMAGE COMES HERE 2. As required under section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, (Bombay Tenancy Act for short) the Tahsildar (Agricultural Lands Tribunal) had instituted suo-motu proceedings and no notice was given to the land owners though, a specific notice was issued to the tenant Kisan Mali. The tenant's statement was recorded before the Tahsildar some time in July 1960 and subsequently by order dated 8-10-1960 the proceedings under section 32-G came to be dropped by the Tahsildar on the ground that the landlord was a minor. It is further cl...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »