Mumbai Court August 1999 Judgments

Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This appeal is directed against the order of the CIT(A) dated 21st October, 1991, for the asst. yr. 1988-89. "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the Supreme Court decision in the case of Jamna Prasad Kanhaiyalal vs. CIT (1981) 130 ITR 244 (SC) is not applicable to the cases of return filed under the Amnesty Scheme, 1985. (2) Without prejudice to the above, the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the declarants could not have held the jewellery alleged to have been sold to the firm during May, 1987, to June 1987 when during the search action by the IT Department in September, 1982 the jewellery under reference was neither found at their premises, nor was it mentioned in their depositions. The CIT(A) has thus clearly erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,53,02,266 made on accounts of alleged purchase consideration credited to the accounts of the partners and their family members." 3. The assessee in th...

Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)74ITD92(Mum.)

1. This appeal is directed against the order of the CIT(A) dated 21-10-1991 for the assessment year 1988-89. 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the Supreme Court decision in the case of Jamnadas Kanahaiyalal 130 ITR 244 is not applicable to the cases of return filed under the Amnesty Scheme, 1985. 2. Without prejudice to the above, the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the declarants could not have held the jewellery alleged to have been sold to the firm during May 1987 to June 1987 when during the search action by the IT. Department in September 1982 the jewellery under reference was neither found at their premises, nor was it mentioned in their depositions. The CIT(A) has thus clearly erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,53,02,266 made on account of alleged purchase consideration credited to the accounts of the partners and their family members.3. The assessee in this case is a partnership firm wit...

Shailesh Harinarayan Bajaj Vs. Creative Garments Limited and Another

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2000(1)BomCR146

ORDERSmt. K.K. Baam, J.1. This Notice of Motion has been taken out on behalf of the applicant/Judgment Debtor praying that it may be held that the applicant has not committed any act of insolvency in Notice No. N/55 of 1998; in the alternative and without prejudice to prayer (a), in terms of prayer b(i) to condone the delay made by the applicant in making payment of Rs. 10 lacs to respondent No. 1, (ii) extend the time for making payment of Rs. 10 lacs from 2-9-1998 to 14-10-1998 and condone delay in taking out this Notice of Motion.2. In the Notice of Motion as taken out, the applicant/judgment debtor has also prayed that the Insolvency Notice No. N/55 of 1998 be set aside and Insolvency Petition No. 54 of 1998 taken out by respondent No. 1 (judgment creditor in Notice No. N/55 of 1998) against the applicant be dismissed and also for dismissal of Insolvency Petition No. 65 of 1998 taken out by respondent No. 2 herein (petitioning creditors in Petition No. 65 of 1998) against the appli...

Keith Allams and others Vs. IrwIn D'silva and others

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2000Bom182; 1999(4)ALLMR209; 2000(1)BomCR788; 2000(1)MhLj409

ORDERY.K. Sabharwal, C.J.1. A learned Single Judge has referred for decision by a larger Bench the following question:'Whether in the Chartered High Court a suit in which evidence is partly recorded by one Judge can be heard on change of assignment by another Judge from the stage at which the suit was at the time of change of assignment without being released by the Judge who has partly heard the evidence and without the consent of the parties?'In the Order of Reference, it has been observed that all matters were taken up together, as a common procedure aspect had arisen in different and distinct suits. Number of suits, where evidence had been partly recorded by one Judge or the other, came up for trial before the learned Judge who made the reference. The Order of Reference states that the question cropped up whether, on change of assignment the learned Judge could proceed with the trial from the stage left by the earlier Judge. It further states that divergent views were expressed bef...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Datta V. Gaitonde

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2000]241ITR241(Bom)

Ranjana Desai, 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 Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that even income from profession or salary earned on employment is assessable in the hands of the members of the communion in the ratio of 50 : 50, notwithstanding the fact that such income is attributable to personal exertion being earned by the individual and not the communion ?'The assessee is a practising doctor at Mapusa. He is also a partner in Mapusa Ployclinic. He follows the accounting year ending on March 31. The assessee declared 50 per cent. of the income from salary/profession/house property, business and-other sources in the, individual return filed as the spouses were governed by the Portuguese Civil Code according to which husban...

Yashwant Jagannath Ingawale and ors. Vs. Snowcem India Ltd. and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2000(84)FLR467]; (2001)IIILLJ549Bom

A.P. Shah, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated July 9, 1999 passed by the Industrial Court Bombay dismissing Complaint (ULP) Nos. 90 to 101, 111 to 113, 118 and 119 of 1998 filed by the petitioners-workmen under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The 1st respondent Snowcem India Limited is a public limited company engaged in manufacture of cement based paints and other accessories. The 1st respondent is having manufacturing units all over India including a unit at Chandivali. In Chandivali Unit of the 1st respondent around 160 workers, including the petitioners, were employed by the 1st respondent. It seems that the company wanted to expand its activities at Chandivali and therefore it sought permission of the Government of Maharashtra for necessary expansion. However, the State Government declined to give such perm...

Shri Atmaram Shivling Duple Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2000(5)BomCR715

ORDERS.S. Parkar, J.1. By this writ petition the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the Ld. J.M.F.C. Radhanagari on 31st December 1988 in Summary Case No. 175 of 1985 and confirmed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Kolhapur in Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 1989 by judgment and order dated 5-8-1990 is under challenge.2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this petition are as follows :The petitioner, who was serving as Police Head Constable under Buckle No. 2/1400 was attached to Radhanagari Police Station in Kolhapur District on the date of incident which is 2nd April 1983. On that day he was suspected of having consumed alcohol, and therefore he was sent to the Medical Officer on the same day. He was examined by the doctor under Medical Case No. 138/83. His blood was taken. The C.A. report is at Exhibit 30 according to which the blood of the petitioner-accused contained 0.14% ethyl alcohol. His blood was collected under the panchanama and there is no procedural lacuna pointed o...

Sharda Shantaram Prabhale Vs. Narendra Shantaram Prabhale and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2000(1)ALLMR446; I(2001)DMC524

H.L. Gokhale, J.1. This case unfolds the story of an unfortunate village woman who was first deceived by her husband by not disclosing his prior relationship with another woman and subsequently leaving her with a daughter and denying a roof over her head. What is worse is that her difficulties are accentuated by a Civil Judge throwing away her case at the threshold by taking a technical view totally unsustainable at law.2. This appeal seeks to challenge the judgment and order of a learned Judge of the City Civil Court dated 8th January, 1999 in Suit No. 811 of 1980 rejecting the plaint on the ground that the dispute therein is entertainable only by the Family Court in view of Section 7(1), Explanation (c) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.3. The facts leading to this appeal and as narrated in the plaint are as follows:The appellant claims to be the lawfully wedded wife of one Shantaram Laxman Prabhale. Both hail from Wai Taluka of District Satara. At the time of their marriage the appella...

Babinanda Vs. Vijaykumar

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: I(2000)DMC549

J.N. Patel, J. 1. Heard Mr. P.A. Deshmukh, learned Counsel for the applicant.None for the non-applicant.The applicant/wife has impugned the order dated 12th July, 1996 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, in Criminal Revision Application No. 1837 of 1995 filed by the non-applicant/husband, under which the learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate granting maintenance to the applicant/wife.2. The applicant was married to the non-applicant on 15.5.1991. For some time, they lived happily together, but due to the fact that the applicant was treated with cruelty and assaulted by her husband (non-applicant herein), she was required to eave the matrimonial home on 19.10.1991 and went to reside with her parents. The applicant lodged a report with the police against the non-applicant/husband in respect of cruelty meted out to her, as she and her parents were not able to fulfil the demands made by the non-applicant/husband to bring c...

Madhusadan Shankar Rajwade Vs. Smt. Neela Purushootam Rajawade and ors ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1999)101BOMLR504

S.S. Parkar, J.1. By these two petitions the orders of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No. 4, Pune passed on 2.2.1998 in Criminal Case No. 925 of 1983 and in Criminal Case No. 212 of 1983, confirmed by the Additional Session Judge, Pune by his orders dated 29.4.1992 passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 237 of 1988 and Criminal Revision Application No. 236 of 1988 respectively, have been challenged.2. The brief facts giving rise to the present petitions are as follows:-The parties are inter related. Originally one brother of the petitioner by name Rajaram Shankar Rajawade had filed two separate complaints against his brother, who is petitioner in both these petitions. One complaint is filed for offence under Sections 323 and 504 of the I.P.C. and another for the offence under Section 500 of the I.P.C. The said complaints were filed on 12th August, 1983 and 25th February, 1983 in the Trial Court i.e. J.M.F.C., Court No. 4, Pune. After filing the complaints, the...