Mumbai Court December 1999 Judgments

Bankay Bihari G. Agrawal Vs. M/S. Bhagwanji Meghji and Others

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2000(2)ALLMR10; 2000(3)BomCR302

ORDERT.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. This suit is filed for realisation of an amount of Rs. 66,850/- from the defendant who admittedly executed the suit promissory note Exh. 'O' dated 10th December, 1991 for the amount of Rs. 50,000/- The defendant has filed a reply contesting the plaint claim. Apart from that he disputes the suit claim on the ground that he has already paid all theamount to the plaintiff, defendant has raised a contention that the plaintiff failed to comply with the time frame prescribed under the Rule 227 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Original Side Rules which reads as under:'If the plaintiff does not apply for a decree within six months after the filling of the plaint, the suit shall be set down for dismissal on the board of the Judge in chambers. The Prothonotary and Senior Master shall notify on his notice board the date on which the suit is to be so set down and he shall do so at least eight days before such date. If the plaintiff is appearing in pers...

Mrs. Perviz Sarosh Batliwalla and Another Vs. Mrs. Viloo Plumber and A ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2000Bom189; 2000(2)ALLMR78; 2000(3)BomCR404; 2000(3)MhLj39

ORDERS.S Nijjar J.1. This petition has been filed for revocation of the probate granted in favour of Mrs. Viloo B. Plumber on 21st November, 1997.2. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the Will is forged and fabricated. It is further submitted that the material facts have been concealed from this Court. It is further submitted that the grant of probate suffers from infirmities as set out in section 263 of the Indian Succession Act. The proceedings are said to be defected, in that no citation has been issued to any person. The grant is said to have been obtained fraudulently by making false statement and by concealing from the Court material facts. The grant has been obtained by means of untrue allegations with regard to facts as well as law. It is further submitted that the person to whom the grant has been made has willfully and without reasonable cause omitted to give an inventory for account in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 7 of the Act.3...

Shaikh Rasheed Shaikh Imam and Others Vs. Saheb Begum Gulam Mohamed De ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2000(2)ALLMR298; 2000(4)BomCR190; 2000(4)MhLj177

ORDERB.H. Marlapalle, J.1. Both these petitioners challenge a common order and hence are being disposed of by a common judgment. Smt. Saheb Begum Gulam Mohammad Deshmukh, the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 3052 of 1989, was the owner of agricultural land, admeasuring 17 acres in Survey No. 519 of Village Shendurni. Taluka Jamner, District Jalgaon and she was a widow on the Tiller's day i.e. on 1st April, 1957. One Shaikh Hussain Shaikh Imam (deceased) was a tenant on the said land before the landlady became a widow and on the tiller's day the statutory right accrued to the tenant under section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy 8s Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short, Bombay Tenancy Act).2. On 8th December, 1961 the landlady submitted an application before the Agricultural Land Tribunal and Mamlatdar (A.L.T. for short) at Jamner, stating therein that she was the landlady of the agricultural land in Survey No. 519, admeasuring 17 acres and Survey No. 482, admeasuring 18 acres 20 Gunthas and ...

Cosmo Films Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(127)ELT18(Bom)

ORDER1. We had dismissed Writ Petition No. 719/89 on 29-4-1999 and this is an application for review of the said order filed by the Petitioner. We had held that the so called waste product was sold and no dispute was raised regarding its classification. The Petitioner had classified the subject product by filing classification and we intended to mean that the said classification was done by the Petitioner as it was required to be done and we did not intend to mean that the Petitioner on its own had done the said classification.2. We did not agree with the contentions of the Petitioner that the subject product was covered by the Provisions of Rule 57(d). We have taken a view that the subject product was a final product and we do not find any palpable error in our view. It is also well established that subsequent events cannot be a ground for review. The Petitioner had submitted to the conditions as laid down in the classification list and it cannot now turn back and say that it was not ...

Deepak M. Mehta Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)3STR163

1. This is an application for waiver of pre-deposit for a sum of Rs. 1,33,500/- the penalty levied under Section 77 of Finance Act (2) of 1994, for failing to file return of service tax within the time prescribed therein.2. Shri A.R. Krishnan appearing on behalf of the assessee pleaded that the appellant being stock broker left the matter to the accountant who undertook to file the return under the provisions of Finance Act, 1994.It would appear that the accountant who had been entrusted with the task of filing the return had heart-attack and had By pass surgery and thereafter he also died. Shri Krishnan therefore says that by mistake the appellant thought that the provisions of the service tax are similar to the provisions of Income Tax. Therefore he filed the returns belatedly but he argues that the service tax payable to the department has been paid regularly.3. As against this the ld. DR. Shri Deepak Kumar argues that even assuming that the return has been wrongly taken to be file...

Darjus Jehangir Vs. Lyla Minoo Ghasvalla and Others

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2000Bom372; 2000(2)ALLMR32; 2000(3)BomCR447; (2000)2BOMLR108

ORDERS.S. Nijjar, J. 1. This order will dispose of the report of the Administrator (Justice M.L. Dudhat (Retd.,) dated 8th March, 1999 and Notice of Motion No. 2566 of 1999 in T. & I.J. Petition No. 598 of 1990 and the preliminary objections raised by respondent Nos. 1 and 3 to the maintainability of Misc. Petition No. 50 of 1999 in T. & I.J. Petition No. 598 of 1990.2. The facts as emerging from the pleadings of the parties may be noticed in order to crystalise the various controversies raised by the parties.3. Late Mrs. Piloo Ghaswala (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') who was the maternal grand mother of minor Zenia and the mother of Mrs. Lyla Darius Jehangir, hereinafter referred to as 'respondent No. 1', died leaving her last Will & Testament dated 21st April, 1989. Mr. Justice B. Lentin, Mrs. Roshan Chopra and Mr. Mohan Jaykar were appointed as Executors in the Will. They have obtained probate of the Will in T. & I.J. Petition No. 598 of 1990 by order of this Court dated...

Atul B. Munim Vs. Registrar of Companies and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)102BOMLR288

S.S. Parkar, J.1. This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. for quashing the complaint filed by the Respondent No. 1 - the Registrar of Companies being C.C. No 124/RC/93 in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade, Bombay under the provisions of Sections 73(2B) and (3) of the Companies Act, 1956.2. The allegation in the complaint is that M/s. Murablack India Limited, having its office at Dubash House, 15, J.N. Horodi Marg, Ballard Estate, Bombay 38, had issued prospectus dated 8.4.1994 for issued of its shares which were applied for subscription by the members of the public and though the applications were sent to the Company along with the application money, the allotment letters were not issued nor application money was refunded to them within the prescribed period. The issue was opened on 5.5.1992 and was to be closed on 8.5.1992 but not later than 15.5.1992. It is further alleged that some of the subscribers had received allotment letters but ...

Lalit @ Lallu Vinodchandra Shaha Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)102BOMLR284

Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this appeal, the appellant challenges the Judgment an Order dated 3.6.1991 passed by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Satara, in Sessions Case No. 193 of 1989, convicting and sentencing him in the manner stated hereinafter:-(i) Under Section 307 of the I.P.C. to five years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default to undergo six months R.I. ;(11) Under Section 324 of the I.P.C. to one year R.I. ;(iii) Under Section 504 of the I.P.C. to six months R.I. ; and(iv) Under Section 506 of the I.P.C. to two years R.I.The substantive sentences of the appellant were ordered to run concurrently.2. In short, the prosecution case runs as under:-The two victims of the instant case namely the informant Rajesh Shaha P.W. 3 and Shailaja P.W. 5 are brother and mother of the appellant respectively. Since the appellant was in the habit of committing theft, sometime before the incident, one room which was taken on rent at Phaltan was separately given to him for his resid...

Gulf Oil India Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)75ITD172(Mum.)

1. These four appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.2. These appeals are directed against the consolidated order of the CIT(A), dt. 9th July, 1999, for the asst. yrs. 1995-96 to 1998-99 upholding the orders under ss. 201(1) and 201(1A) of the IT Act holding that the assessee should have deducted tax at source from the payments made to the following eight parties at 20% under the provisions of s.194-I in each of the concerned years : 3. The assessee manufactures and trades in lubricant oils. For this purpose it imports base oil. It is required to store lubricant and base oil during the course of its business. For storing this oil, the assessee has hired certain tanks under contracts with the above-mentioned eight parties and paid them hire charges. The question raised in these appeals is whether tax is to be deducted at source at 20% on the said hire charges under the provisions of s. 194-I of the IT Act. For the sake of convenience, we reproduce below th...

Smt. Lalitha Ramaswamy Vs. V. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. The only dispute in this appeal of the assessee, for asst. yr.1989-90, is relating to assessment of capital gains in respect of sale of bungalow at Bangalore. Rival contentions have been heard and records perused.2. The relevant facts, in this case, are that the assessee had entered into an agreement for sale in regard to a bungalow at Bangalore on 9th of June, 1988. As per the agreement the assessee agreed to sell the aforementioned immovable property in consideration of Rs. 9,60,000 which was to be received as per the schedule of payments given in cl. 2 of the agreement reproduced hereunder : "2. The schedule of payment of the sale consideration by the purchaser to the vendor shall be detailed hereunder, namely : (f) Final payment of Rs. 1,25,000 before the registration of the full property".3. The purchaser of the property is a builder. The bungalow was to be demolished and a new building constructed. As per cl. 3 of the sale agreement the assessee had undertaken to execute the ...