Mumbai Court August 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.
Shri Siddhivinayak Developers Vs. Ravindra Sakharam Gurav
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)BomCR64
ORDERG.R. Bedge, Member1. The appellant Developers are challenging the order of the District Forum, Thane in Complaint No. 180/97. The District Forum has directed the appellants to pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/- by way of damages and on their failure to pay the said amount within a period of 2 months from the receipt of the order, that amount would carry 12% interest. The facts of the case in brief are that on 17-11-92, the appellant agreed to sell Flat No. 302, A Wing on the 3rd floor of a building under construction at Gokuldas Wadi, Khopat, Thane for a consideration of Rs. 1,05,000/- admeasuring 390 sq.ft. The construction started in the year 1991. The appellant completed the B Wing of the Project but delayed the construction of 'A' Wing. The respondent/ complainant offered to supply building material worth Rs. 40,000/- to the appellants for the completion of the work. The appellants have acknowledged the receipt of this building material and promised to hand over the possession on o...
Shri Sangmeshwar Devasthan Haripur, Wahivatdar Devasthan Panch Through ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)BomCR171; 1999(3)MhLj622
ORDERD.G. DESHPANDE, J.1. Heard the advocate for the petitioner and the respondent. 2. The petitioner is a Devasthan and the respondent claims to be its tenant. The petitioner has challenged the Order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (M.R.T.) Kolhapur, dated 18-3-1985 by which the M.R.T. allowed the revision of the respondent and set aside the order of the Sub Divisional Officer (S.D.O.) Miraj, dated 30-6-1982. 3. When the petition came up for hearing, Counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection to the tenability of the petition on the ground that petitioners are challenging an order dated 30-10-1973 passed by the Additional Tahsildar and A.L.T., Miraj, in this petition after 12 years. Therefore, petition is barred by limitation and secondly since order dated 30-10-1973 was not challenged it has achieved finality; which cannot be now reopened by this petition. 4. Before considering this preliminary objection, it is necessary to note certain facts regarding the dispute ...
Hmg Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union Bank of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)ALLMR653; 2000(1)BomCR221; 1999(3)MhLj670
ORDERS. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents. Perused the petition, its exhibits, the impugned Award, an Affidavit in reply of Mr. S.C. Jain as well as an Affidavit in Rejoinder of Mr. C.T. Khubchandani. 2. This petition challenges an Award dated 15th February, 1997. The brief facts pertaining to this case are as under :- It appears that on 26th July, 1986, the petitioner had received a tender form from the 2nd respondent for construction of residential accommodation for staff of DGI at Ghatkopar. Thereafter on 11th November, 1986 the petitioner had submitted its tender which was duly accepted by the 2nd respondent on 9th July, 1988. Based on the aforesaid acceptance of the tender, an agreement (contract) was entered into between the petitioner and the respondents on 20th September, 1988. In the said contract the petitioner is defined as Contractor and the 1st respondent through the 2nd respondent as the Principal....
Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay Vs. M/S. Indian Plastics Ltd., Bomb ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-1999
Reported in: 2000(3)BomCR394; [1999]240ITR528(Bom); 1999(3)MhLj572
ORDERDr. 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 justified in coming to the conclusion that the assessee was entitled to the deduction of Rs. 54,305/-.'2. The material facts giving rise to the question are as under :The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture of plastics. It has its factory at Poiser, Kandivali. It has an office at Bombay, which is situated at Lotus House. The assessee has also offices in Delhi, Calcutta, Bhagwara and Sonipat. During the previous year ended 31st March, 1977, relevant to the assessment year 1977-78, to which the reference pertains, the assessee incurred expenditure of Rs. 59,305/- in its various offices for the purpose of providing tea, coffee, cold drinks, snacks, and at times, meals to it...
Canara Bank Vs. Yusuf AbdulhusseIn Arsiwala (Deceased by Lrs) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-1999
Reported in: 1992(3)MhLj510
ORDERD.G Deshpande, J. 1. Heard advocates for the petitioner/bank and respondents. 2. Three questions are involved in this case viz. (I) whether the suit premises were given to the petitioner/bank for the purpose of doing banking business; (2) whether the petitioner/bank has stopped banking business and are using the premises for godown purpose; and (3) whether there is change of user of the premises by the petitioner. 3. These questions arise because admittedly the petitioner/bank have denied that there was any change of user and the findings of both the trial Courts are against the petitioner/bank. Consequently these questions are required to be decided on the basis of record and arguments advanced by both the advocates. 4. Exhibit 'A' is the notice dated 22nd July 1974 given by the respondents/landlords to the petitioner/bank for vacating the premises on the ground of change of user. In that notice it is contended that the suit premises were let out specifically for the purpose of o...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Indian Plastics Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-1999
Reported in: [2000]107TAXMAN172(Bom)
Saraf, J. By this reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the 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 justified in coming to the conclusion that the assessee was entitled to the deduction of Rs. 54,305.'2. The material facts giving rise to the question are as under :The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture of plastics. it has its factory at Poiser, Kandivali. It has an office at Bombay, which is situated at Lotus House. The assessee has also offices in Delhi, Calcutta, Bhagwara and Sonipat. During the previous year ended 31-3-1977, relevant to the assessment year 1977-78, to which the reference pertains, the assessee incurred expenditure of Rs. 59,305 in its various offices for the purpose of providing tea, coffee, cold drinks, snacks and at times, meals to its customer...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›