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.
Pichumani Mani E. Vs. Mazgaon Docks Ltd. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-10-1999
Reported in: [1999(82)FLR1000]; (1999)IILLJ1265Bom
ORDERA.P. Shah, J.1. The petitioner has entered the services of the 1st respondent company as a store man in the year 1968 and thereafter he was promoted as senior storekeeper from March 1, 1985. On August 5, 1986 the clearance contractor's lorry was sent to offshore yard of the company for loading the rubbish for clearance. It seems that at that time the petitioner alongwith another security man were asked to supervise the loading operation in order to ensure that only rubbish and nothing else was loaded in the truck. A surprise check was carried out at the gate and it was found that M. S. scrap weighing about 1600 kgs (1.6 metric tonne) approximately costing at Rs. 7761/- was hidden in the lorry. The petitioner was found responsible for the same and was charge-sheeted on August 6, 1986. A domestic enquiry was conducted against the petitioner under Standing Order 22(4) and (12) and upon perusal of the report of the enquiry officer who found the petitioner guilty on both counts of misc...
Maruti Narayan Chavan, Since Deceased by His Heirs and Legal Represent ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-09-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)ALLMR409; 2000(1)BomCR153; 1999(3)MhLj530
ORDERD.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard advocate for the petitioner and respondent Nos. 1a, 1b and 1c. respondent Nos. 6 and 7 are supporting the petitioner. 2. The dispute is arising out of the provisions of The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1948')and it is in respect of land Gat No. 44 admeasuring 5 Hectares 24 Are of village Malangaon, Kavathe, Mahankal Tahsil of Sangli District. One Narmadabai was the original landlady and as per the contention of the petitioner one Maruti was the original tenant. Narmadabai died in 1964 and Ramchandra and Laxman Bhau Sutar succeeded to the property left by Narmadabai. Similarly, original tenant Maruti died in 1994 i.e. during the pendency of this petition and his son Namdeo is brought on record as petitioner. Respondent Nos. 5 to 11 were also added to the petition as other heirs of Maruti. It appears from the record i.e. from Exhibit 'A' that the original tenant had initiated proceedings under sect...
Mafatlal Finance Limited Vs. Express Industrial Services Private Limit ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-09-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)ALLMR556; 2000(1)BomCR204
ORDERF.I. Rebell, J.1. The plaintiffs herein have filed this summary suit for recovery of the amount as set out in the particulars of claim. The amounts are Ra. 50 lacs which were given to the defendants as security and an amount of Rs. 10,55,000/- by way of interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from 15th October, 1995 till the filing of the suit i.e. 17th December, 1996. The plaintiffs have also applied for Summons for judgment. The defendants have appeared, shown cause and have filed their affidavit in reply.2. A brief narration of facts may be necessary to deal with the issue which has been raised on behalf of the plaintiffs herein in so far as leave to defend is concerned.The plaintiffs admittedly were occupying certain premises belonging to the defendants between the period 9th June, 1995 to 14th October, 1995. In terms of the agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendants the compensation payable was Rs. 5 lacs per month. The plaintiffs had requested the defendants permission to ...
Shri Sudhakar Lavaji Zende Vs. Shri R.H. Mendonca Commissioner of Poli ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-09-1999
Reported in: 1999(5)BomCR889; 1999CriLJ4233
ORDERVishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner- detenu has impugned the detention order dated 25th June, 1998 passed by the first respondent, Mr. R.H. Mendonca, Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay in exercise of the powers vested in him by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (No. LV of 1981) (Amendment-1996) detaining him under the said provision of the Act. The detention order along with the grounds of detention also dated 25th June, 1998, was contemporaneously served on the petitioner- detenu on 25th June, 1998.2. We have heard Mr. S.R. Gupte with Mr. Prakash Naik for the petitioner- detenu and Ms. A.R. Kamath Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. Since in our view, this petition deserves to be allowed on a purely legal point, we are not adverting to the prejudicial activities of ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S.R. Kirloskar (ind.)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-09-1999
Reported in: (1999)156CTR(Bom)559; [1999]239ITR382(Bom)
B.P. Saraf, J.1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this court for opinion at the instance of the Revenue :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that income derived from intestate self-acquired property received from the assessee's father was taxable in the status of the Hindu undivided family ?'2. The material facts giving rise to this reference are as follows :During the assessment year 1978-79, the assessee derived income from house property and business. The assessee claimed that the above incomeshould be assessed in the hands of the assessee's Hindu undivided family as the above properties had been received by him from his father who died intestate. The Income-tax Officer rejected the assessee's claim for being assessed as a Hindu undivided family in respect of the above income on the ground that the properties we...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mrs. J.R. Lalwani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-09-1999
Reported in: [1999]240ITR750(Bom)
Dr. B.P. Saraf, J. 1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this court for opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, share income in the name of Smt. Jasotiben Ramchand Lalwani from Vapson Products was assessable in the status of individual or a Hindu undivided family ?'2. This reference pertains to the assessment year 1978-79. As is evident from the question itself, the controversy is whether the assessee, Smt. Jasotiben Ramchand Lalwani, was assessable in the status of individual or a Hindu undivided family in respect of the share income from the registered firm, Vapson Products. The material facts giving' rise to this controversy are as follows :3. The assessee is the widow of the late Ramchand H. Lalwani, who was a partner in the partnership firm, Vapson Products along with his two sons, Indru Ramchand Lalwani and...
Shri Bashir Ali Dafedar Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through the Commi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-09-1999
Reported in: (1999)101BOMLR762
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this Petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner Bashir Ali Dafedar, father of the detenu - Mehaboob Ali @ Nawab seeks to challenge the detention order dated 24th June, 1998, passed by the second respondent - Mr. R.H. Mendonca, Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai, in exercise of the powers vested in him by Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (No. LV of 1981) (Amendment - 1996) detaining the detenu under the said provision of the Act. The Detention order dated 24th June, 1998, along with the grounds of detention bearing the said date, was served on the detenu on 29th June, 1998.2. We have heard Mrs. A.M.Z. Ansari for the petitioner and Mr. Rajiv Patil, Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondents. Since in our view, this petition deserves to succeed on a purely legal ground, we are not adverting to...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Ashok
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-09-1999
Reported in: (2000)102BOMLR257
A.B. Palkar, J.1. This is a State appeal against acquittal recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha on 24.12.1992 in Sessions Trial No. 108 of 1992 against respondent for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short, the 'N.D.P.S. Act').2. The respondent was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(i) of the N.D.P.S. Act on the basis of the complaint filed by Constable Subhash Bhoyar who was on escort duty for taking prisoners to the Court premises. When on duty, he noticed the accused loitering in the premises nearby the prisoners and while the accused was trying to hand over packet to one of the prisoners, he was caught red handed and packet in his possession was seized. It appears that the contents of the packet were Ganja. Seizure panchanama was drawn and accused was taken to Police Station and complaint was lodged on the basis of which offence came to be registered.3. During further investi...
Shantinath Silk Industries Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-08-1999
Reported in: (1999)(85)LC390Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Shantinath Silk Industries, the Order-in-Appeal dated 21.2.1992 passed by the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay is under challenge. The matter relates to the duty liability on the Nickel Perforated Rotary Cylinder Screen. The appellants were engaged in the processing of hand made fabrics and were using different printing machines including Rotary Printing Machines.They were receiving duty paid Nickel Perforated Cylinder and were subjecting them to various processes as indicated in the impugned order-in-appeal. The appellants had claimed that as a result of the processes undertaken by them on the Nickel Perforated Cylinders received from outside, no new product emerged and as the goods were captively consumed they were eligible to the benefit of Notification No. 65/86 dated 10.2.1986. The Collector, Central Excise (Appeals) observed that benefit of Notification No. 64/86-CE was only available from 25.7.1991 when the amending Notification No. 67...
Sevantilal Manilal Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-08-1999
Reported in: (2000)74ITD115(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A) for asst. yr. 1986-87 confirming the penalty levied under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act.2. In a search and seizure action on 3rd June, 1988, in the case of the assessee and the firm M/s. Sevantilal Manilal & Co., in which he was a partner, the firm was found to have deposited on 10th May, 1985 a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 in their bank account, but the name of the person or the source thereof was not recorded in their books. By letter dt. 19th September, 1988, the assessee owned up having given cash of Rs. 2,00,000 to the firm on 10th May, 1985, which was deposited by them in their bank accounts. The assessee also claimed that this money was subsequently withdrawn in two lots by him Rs. 1,25,000 on 5th August, 1985 and Rs. 75,000 on 7th June, 1985, and was claimed to have been utilised in purchasing excess jewellery of Rs. 1,90,750 found with the assessee and a deposit of Rs. 11,000 for booking a maruti car. As the assessment...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »