Mumbai Court June 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.
Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Esquire Video Film Services (P.)
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-1999
Reported in: (2000)74ITD57(Mum.)
1. We find it convenient to dispose of these two appeals of the revenue, for assessment years 1986-87 and 1987-88, by this consolidated order. The common hotly contested issue is relating to the claim payable to two banks, viz. Corporation Bank and Indian Overseas Bank.For assessment year 1986-87 the assessee debited a sum of Rs. 53,40,607 on account of interest payable to the two banks referred to above.Similarly for assessment year 1987-88 the assessee debited a sum of Rs. 54,99,305 as accrued interest payable to the banks referred to above.The amount was not credited to the banks but shown as a liability on account of interest. In the Notes to Accounts the auditors have specifically mentioned that the amount of interest provided in the books of account is a contingent liability in view of the dispute between the assessee and the banks. The Assessing Officer accordingly denied the liability on the ground that the contingent liability is not allowable as a deduction. He has further o...
Dinkar S/O Shrawan Barsagade Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ411
A.B. Palkar, J. 1. The appellant, undergoing life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, has challenged the conviction and sentence in this appeal.2. In brief, the prosecution case is as below:--Appellant is nephew of deceased Yadavrao Mendulkar and is resident of the same village, Rajoli. On 11-1-1993, there was initially some quarrel between appellant and the deceased whereafter the appellant having gone to the house of deceased, abused him from in front of the house. The deceased came out and there was further quarrel between them in front of hotel of one Deorao Bhale (P.W. 8). Both were pacified by Deorao and were sent back from the spot. However, after some short interval of time, they came to the same spot where there was quarrel between them. A scuffle ensued in course of which the appellant dealt 7-8 blows with a knife to the deceased which included blows on vital parts of the body, as a result, the deceased fell down and later on di...
Cce Vs. Bombay Dyeing and Mfg. Co.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-1999
Reported in: (1999)(85)LC361Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The Revenue's appeal is against the decision in the impugned order that the appellants are not liable to pay duty at the wadding stage when they manufacture blankets.2. Shri V.M. Udhoji, learned JDR reiterated the points made in the appeal of the Revenue.3. Countering the arguments of the Revenue, learned Counsel Shri M.H.Patil submitted for the respondents that in the manufacturing process carried out by the respondents, a stage of manufacture of wadding does not arise. He explained that polyester fibres are placed in layers on both sides of grey fabric and are needle punched to produce felt. They pay duty on the felt so manufactured and blankets are exempt from duty.He submits that placing of layers of fibres on cloth so as to make them ready for needle punching is no manufacturing process at all. He explained that waddings are manufactured by placing layers of fibre one over the other and compressing them so as to impart to them certain strength. No compressing is carried out in...
Prakash Hemraj JaIn Vs. M/S. Premier Furnances Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)BomCR52
ORDERF.I. REBELLO, J.1. The plaintiff has filed the suit for balance of unpaid amount and also for recovery of Sales Tax dues which he has paid to the Government. On Summons for judgment being taken out the defendants have put in appearance and have filed their reply.2. In the particulars of claim annexed to the plaint, the plaintiff has prayed for the value of excess goods supplied by the plaintiff. Interest thereon at 18% per annum. Further interest by way of penalty at 24% per annum oncertain amount as also the amounts paid by way of Sales Tax. The defendants have filed their reply. It is their contention that the suit as filed does not disclose any cause of action against the defendants nor is maintainable as a Summary Suit under the provisions of Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. The plaintiff contends that the purchase order by the defendants, the Invoices and the acceptance of the material constitute an agreement and consequently the suit as filed is maintainable a...
Capt. Lavji J. Mistry Vs. Mazda Properties Ltd. and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)BomCR60
ORDERG.R. BEDGE, MEMBER 1. This complaint was decided on merit by this Commission on 13-8-98. The O.Ps. went to the National Commission which has remanded the complaint for giving an opportunity to the O.Ps. to submit their written versions & documents, if any, in support of their defence. Accordingly, all the O.Ps. No. 1 to 5 have submitted their written version which are taken on record. The complainant has submitted extract from the Registrar of Companies.2. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant booked Bunglow No. 10 to be constructed by the O.Ps. Ahura Ashish Project at Bordi. The complainant paid Rs. 4,50,000/- on various dates and the last amount of Rs. 1 lakh was paid on 5-6-89. The complainant has contended that although the full amount has been paid by the complainant, the O.Ps. have neglected and failed to construct the bunglow and hand over the possession nor they have refunded the amount paid by the complainant. It is alleged that the O.Ps. had entered i...
Maruti Shankar Magre and Others Vs. Sanjay Kumar Krishna Dolas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)ALLMR430; 2000(1)BomCR316
ORDERD. K. Deshmukh, J.1. By these petitions, the orders passed in the same suit are challenged. Therefore both the petitions are conveniently disposed of by common order.2. The dispute is about one room tenement, which admittedly was occupied by the respondent, who is a medical practitioner by profession. Admitted position appears to be that in 1993 the petitioner had given possession of these premises to the respondent. According to the petitioner, the respondent was a licensee for a period of 5 years. It is the case of the petitioner that in 1998, the respondent voluntarily handed over the possession of the premises to him. And thereafter, the respondent filed a suit in the Small Causes Court. In that suit, he preferred an application for restoration of the possession of the premises to him alleging that he has been illegally evicted from the premises by the landlord. He also claimed temporary Injunction for protecting his possession. The trial Court passed both the orders-in his fa...
i.C.i.C.i. Limited Vs. Sri Durga Bansal Fertilizers Ltd. and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Bom402; 1999(3)ALLMR286; 1999(4)BomCR306; 1999(3)MhLj20
ORDERY.K. Sabharwal, C.J.1. Admit.2. The learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 waives service. Service on other respondents is not necessary for deciding the controversy which is the subject matter of this Appeal.3. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, after hearing their submissions, we proceed to finally decide the Appeal.4. The appellants are the original plaintiffs. They were granted leave to institute the suit in this Court under Clause XII of the Letters Patent in respect of the cause of action which had not arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Respondent No. 1 filed Chamber Summons seeking revocation of leave granted under Clause XII of the Letters Patent on the ground that no part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. The Chamber Summons has been dismissed, inter alia, holding that it cannot positively be held that the Bombay High Court has no jurisdiction. On this finding, the Chamber Summons for revoca...
Babu Dhaku Kharat and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-1999
Reported in: 1999BomCR(Cri)569
ORDERVishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this appeal, the appellants challenge the Judgment and Order dated 30-9-96 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sawantwadi, in Sessions Case No. 8 of 1996 convicting and sentencing them in the manner stated hereinafter :-(i) Under section 147 I.P.C. to suffer two years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each in default to suffer R.I. for 8 days. (ii) Under section 148 I.P.C. to suffer R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each in default to suffer R.I. for 8 days ; and (iii) Under section 302 read with section 149 I.P.C. to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each in default to suffer two months R.I. The substantive sentences of the appellants were ordered to run concurrently. 2. In short, the prosecution case runs as under :-On 12-5-1995, the informant Dilip Kharat P.W. 3 and Sushila Bhosale, P.W. 5, brother and sister respectively of the deceased Babu Kharat, who along with the deceased were residing in Mumbai...
Bank of India Vs. Radhakrishnan Iyer
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)BomCR895
ORDERF.I. Rebello, J.1. The matter was heard yesterday and was adjourned today at the request of the Counsel for the plaintiffs. None present when the matter is called out.2. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for recovery of the amounts from the defendant pursuant to the user of a Credit Card issued by the plaintiffs. There was no amount advanced in terms of any agreement nor is the suit for any liquidated amount. On the Summons for Judgment being taken out the defendant has filed an affidavit in reply and contested that the amount as set out is due and payable. The defendant has set out that only there were purchases amounting to Rs. 80, 680.30 ps. and not the amount as claimed by the plaintiffs. Interest is also denied on use of the card.3. It is also contended that the lending rate of interest is contrary to the notification issued by the Reserve Bank of India under the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act regulating interest of Nationalised Banks.4. Having considered the averm...
Vijaykumar S/O Nagnath Suryavanshi Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-1999
Reported in: 2000(5)BomCR495
ORDERB.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This is a criminal writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and invoking the inherent powers of this Court under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. challenging the legality and validity of the show cause notice issued by the learned Special Judge under section 344 of the Cr.P.C. 1973 for an offence punishable under section 193 of the I.P.C. The facts giving rise, stated in brief, are as under:-2. Case No. 16/94 came to be tried by the learned Special Judge at Latur, at the instance of the State of Maharashtra for offences under section 3 read with section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and in the said proceeding the present petitioner was one of the witnesses. The said case came to be decided by the learned Judge by his judgment and order dated 24-3-1999 and in the said judgment the learned Special Judge noticed that the present petitioner who is a wholesale dealer of Kerosene had given false evidence during the trial of the said case an...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »