Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [2001]248ITR827(Bom)
P.S. Patankar, J.1. Leave to amend.2. The prosecution is launched against these applicants under Sections 276C(1)(i), 277 and 278B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. This is for wilful evasion of tax and making false statements in the verification knowingly. This was done as a director of the company and by the company. In Criminal Application No. 610 of 1999, prosecution is also launched under Section 35B of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, in addition.3. The reassessment orders which are passed in these matters are challenged before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, etc. Those appeals arc pending. The question that arises is whether during the pendency of these appeals the prosecutions in the present cases should proceed or not. The learned Additional C. M. M., Mumbai, has directed to proceed regarding recording of evidence. This is confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai, by order dated October 12, 1998.4. I find that at least four learned single judges of this court ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [2000]248ITR827(Bom)
P.S. Patankar J.Leave to amend.The prosecution is launched against these applicants under sections 276C(1)(i), 277 and 278B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This is for wilful evasion of tax and making false statements in the verification knowingly. This was done as a director of the company and by the company. In Criminal Application No. 610 of 1999, prosecution is also launched under section 35B of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, in addition.The reassessment orders which are passed in these matters are challenged before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, etc. Those appeals are pending. The question that arises is whether during the pendency of these appeals the prosecutions in the present cases should proceed or not. The learned Additional C.M.M., Mumbai, has directed to proceed regarding recording of evidence. This is confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Greater Mumbai, by order dated 12-10-1998.I find that at least four learned Single Judges of this court have taken the view t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2000(2)BomCR217; [1999]239ITR151(Bom); 1999(2)MhLj797
ORDERDr. B.P. Saraf, J.1. By this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, has referred the following two questions of law to this Court for opinion.At the instance of the assessee :1. 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that Municipal taxes of Rs. 15,328/- paid by the assessee during this accounting year ending on 30-6-1978 was not allowable as a statutory deduction while computing its income from house property on the reason that the taxes pertained for a period from 1-4-1976 to 1-4-1977; and the liability had been incurred prior to the accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1979-80?'At the instance of the revenue :2. 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the claim for deduction under section 80-MM made in the revised return filed by the assessee after passing of the draft assessment order un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1999(5)BomCR656; (1999)2BOMLR849
ORDERVishnu Sahai, J.1. Since these connected Criminal Appeals arise out of same set of facts and a common impugned judgement, we are disposing them off by one judgment.2. Through these appeals, the appellants challenge the judgment and order dated 23-10-1997 passed by the Joint District Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri, in Sessions Case No. 6 of 1995, whereby they have been convicted and sentenced in the manner stated hereinafter-(i) Under section 147 I.P.C. to suffer R.I. for one year;(ii) Under section 148 I.P.C. to suffer R.I. for one year;(iii) Under section 302 r/w 149 I.P.C. to suffer imprisonment for life and:(iv) Under section 323 r/w 149 I.P.C. to suffer R.I. for a period of three months.The sentences of the appellants were ordered to run concurrently.The learned trial Judge also directed each of them to pay a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and also directed that the total amount of Rs. 1,00,000/ - would be paid as compensation to the widow of the deceased Pratap ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1999(3)ALLMR504; 1999(4)BomCR566
ORDERB.N. Srikrishna, J.1. The writ petitioners in this case challenge the setting up of a Cryogenic Liquefied Petroleum Gas (L.P.G.) storage and handling facility in close vicinity of their establishments, on several grounds including ground of mala fides on the part of the statutory authorities in granting the requisite licence and clearances and also on the ground that the said facility is hazardous environmentally and violative of the Coastal Region Zone Regulations (C.R.Z.).2. The petitioners are companies registered under the Companies Act, 1956, belonging to the Tata Group of Companies and doing the business of generation, transmission and bulk distribution of electricity in their area of supply in Greater Mumbai under licence granted by the State Government under the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910.3. Respondent No. 1 is the State of Maharashtra; respondent No. 2 is the Bombay Municipal Corporation; respondent Nos. 3 to 7 are different statutory authorities exerc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1999(5)BomCR823; 1999BomCR(Cri)823; 2000CriLJ1014; 1999(3)MhLj905
ORDERA.V. Savant, J. 1. Heard both the learned Counsel. Shri Shirodkar for the petitioner and Smt. Tahilramani, P.P. for the respondents. 2. This petition is filed by Aslam Mohd. Merchant claiming to be the brother of Iqbal Mohammed Memon (for short 'detenu') against whom an order of detention has been passed on 2nd September, 1994 by the Secretary to Government of Maharashtra in exercise of his powers under section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (for short, 'P.I.T. N.D.P.S Act'). Admittedly the order of detention is not yet served on the detenu who is abroad and is not prepared to come to this country and have the order of detention served on him. The petitioner has prayed for two reliefs (i) quashing of the order of detention dated 2nd September, 1994 issued against the detenu Iqbal Mohd. Memon and (ii) quashing of all proceedings taken under section 8 of the said P.I.T.-N.D.P.S. Act read with sections 82 and 83 of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1999(3)ALLMR241; 1999(3)BomCR808
ORDERS.S. Nijjar, J.1. This petition has been filed under sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act with a prayer that the Company be ordered to be wound up as it is unable to pay its debts.2. The petitioners had granted to the Company a packing credit facility in foreign currency upto the limit of U.S. $ 15 lakhs. The aforesaid facility was sanctioned on 10th October, 1995. The terms and conditions for the sanction of the packing credit facility are mentioned therein. It is the case of the petitioner that in respect of the credit facility there is due and payable by the Company to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 3,20,91,096.02 towards the principal and a sum of Rs. 37,34,234.27 ps. towards interest upto 31st March, 1997. The Company was called upon to clear the dues from time to time. The petitioner received from the Company Cheque No. 473600 dated 29th March, 1997, for the sum of Rs. 3,37,65,064 drawn in favour of the petitioners to the Company account with Punjab National Bank, Bhosari ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1999(5)BomCR650; 1999BomCR(Cri)650
ORDERVishnu Sahaj, J.1. The appellants aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 13-9-1994 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No. 155 of 1993 and Sessions Case No. 746 of 1993, convicting and sentencing them to undergo a sentence of imprisonment for life for the offence under section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C., have come up in appeal before us :-- 2. In short, the prosecution case runs as under :-- The deceased Ramsingare, the informant Rajeshwar Nisar P.W. 2, Ram Achal Nisar P.W. 1 and Pramod Vishwakarma P.W. 3 resided in the same hut in Radhakrishna Chawl, Gautam nagar, Kandivli (East) Bombay at the time of the incident. The appellants resided in a contiguous hut. It is alleged that sometimes before November, 1992 the informant and others had raised the height of their hut resulting in monsoon water falling from the roof of their hut on that of the appellants. On that score, relations between the informant and others on one hand and the appellants on the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1999(2)ALLMR615; 1999(3)BomCR787
ORDERH.L. Gokhale, J.1. All these three petitions raise a common question with respect to interpretation of the State Government's Notification dated 1-10-1994. Mr. Milind Vasudeo has appeared in support of Petition No. 280 of 1998. Mr. Bandivadekar has appeared in connection with Petition (Lodging) No. 222 of 1999 and Mr. M.S. D'Mello appeared in support of Petition (Lodging) No. 88 of 1999.2. In Petition No. 280 of 1998, the petitioner is the grand mother of a male child and the petitioner seeks Letters of Administration to the property assets and credits of late Smita Patil for the benefits of her son Pratik. The petitioner, being a lady, seeks an exemption from payment of Court fees under the concerned Government Notification. Second Petition (Lodging) No. 222 of 1999 is filed by two sons and two daughters seeking letters of administration to the property of their father who has died leaving behind only his heirs. The third Petition (Lodging) No. 88 of 1999 is filed by two brothers...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1999(4)ALLMR25; 2000(1)BomCR897; 1999(3)MhLj966
ORDERS.H. Kapadia, J.1. By this writ petition, petitioners seek to challenge the judgement and decision of the Collector dated 17-7-1984 in Case No. 83/ Atiyat/A/I. 2. The facts giving rise to this writ petition, briefly, are as follows :---3. The forefathers of the petitioners were Inamdars in respect of a Mosque known as Mohammadi Masjid Kinara of Bori, Taluka Tulzapur, District Osmanabad. The land bearing Survey No. 368, admeasuring 23 acres 27 gunthas and Survey No. 369, admeasuring 25 acres and 14 gunthas along with mango and other trees situated at Naldurg, Taluka Tulzapur, was dedicated for the performance of service to the above Mosque. Accordingly, the said lands are service Inam lands. The lands were granted under Muntakhab No. 20 of 1295 Fasli (1887 A.D.). The father of the petitioners died in 1960. On his demise, the present petitioners have been recognised as Inamdars in respect of the above lands. The petitioners presented the suit under section 28(2) of the Hyderabad Ten...
Tag this Judgment!