Mumbai Court January 2000 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.
Pandit Dattatraya Kulkarni Vs. Laxmibai Pandit Kulkarni and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-2000
Reported in: (2000)102BOMLR75
S.S. Parkar, J.1. This writ petition filed by the husband challenges the concurrent orders passed by the two Courts below granting application for maintenance filed by the respondent No. 1 - wife under Section 125 of Cr. P.C.2. The brief facts are that the parties were married on 6.6.1964 and a son by name Sudhir was given birth to by the respondent-wife on 2.7.1965. Subsequently wife left the matrimonial house and started living with her parents and, therefore, the petitioner husband filed a matrimonial petition in the Civil Court for restitution of conjugal rights on 27.2.1969. The said petition was decreed against the wife by the Trial Court on 22nd March, 1972 holding that the respondent-wife had withdrawn from the society of the husband without reasonable cause. Wife then filed an application under Section 125 of Cr. P.C. for maintenance in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Panhala on 28th March, 1990 on the ground that the husband had contracted marriage with another woman by nam...
Sou. Sangita Vivek Mane Vs. Vivek Jagannath Mane and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-2000
Reported in: (2000)102BOMLR187a
D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Nobody is present for the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Learned A.P.P. for the State - Respondent No. 4 present.2. The petitioner had filed a complaint before the J.M.F.C. Kolhapur against the respondents for offence under Section 406 r.w. 34 of the I.P.C. It was alleged that in her marriage certain ornaments, as described in the complaint, were given to her by her relatives and it was her Stridhan, over which none of the respondents had any right. After the marriage the petitioner went to reside with the accused at Nanded where the respondents No. 1 to 3 took custody of those ornaments. Thereafter, according to the petitioner, she was ill treated and she therefore went to reside at Kolhapur. Her father lodged the complaint to DSP Kolhapur and offence was registered. According to her all the accused had come to Kolhapur in connection with the said offence registered against them when the petitioner demanded the ornaments taut the respondents refused an...
Babulal C. Borana Vs. Third Ito
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-2000
Reported in: [2005]144TAXMAN674(Bom)
J.P. Devadhar, J. This appeal is filed by the appellant ('the assessee') under section 260A of the Income Tax Act against the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 3-8-2000.2. The assessment order relevant for the purpose herein is assessment year 1988-89.3. Short point of law required to be considered in this appeal is:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT was right in law in directing the assessing officer to make additions of the value of 400 bags of HDPE powder as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 when the same is a part of the purchases and part of the closing stock recorded in the books of account maintained by the assessee and the nature and source of the investment has been duly explained by the assessee?'4. The assessee is a dealer in HDPE plastic powder.5. On 29-1-1987 search action under section 132 of the Income Tax Act was carried out at the godown belonging to Wak Bros. situated at Andheri (E), ...
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mrs. Zita Welinkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-2000
Reported in: (2000)68TTJ(Mumbai)492
ORDERD. Manmohan, J.M.These two appeals filed by the revenue pertain to the assessment years 1990-91 and 1991-92. The facts necessary for disposal of these appeals are as under :2. The assessee is a non-resident Indian settled in England. She inherited from the estate of her husband, Late Shri Subodh Welinkar certain shares which were purchased by him by utilising convertible foreign exchange money. The assessee's husband expired on 16-1-1983 and the permission to transfer the shares in the name of the assessee was given somewhere in the year 1989. During the previous year relevant to the assessment years under consideration, the assessee sold some equity shares of Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizer Ltd. Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. and Grasim Industries Ltd. In the returns filed, the assessee claimed taxability of capital gains as per proviso to section 48(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act read with rule 115A of the Income Tax Rules.3. The assessing officer denied the benefit of pr...
Amritlal Chemaux Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-2000
Reported in: (2000)(69)ECC337
1. The applicants held a dealers registration. They purchased chrome pigments, dyes, fast bases and napthols. Chrome pigments were packed in gunny bags. The applicants removed the original markings, names etc.from the packings and stenciled their name on the bags. The other goods were repacked by them in smaller packings. These bore slips showing generic names. These goods were classifiable under Chapter 29 and 32 of the CETA, 1985. The chapter notes to both the chapters ruled that in relation to products falling under those chapters, labelling or re-labelling of containers, repacking from bulk backs to retail packs, or the adoption of any other treatment to render the product marketable to the consumer, shall amount to manufacture.2. This note was introduced in the respective chapter w.e.f. 1.3.1997.Vide show cause notice dated 6.6.1998 allegations were made that in terms of the chapter notes, the activities of the applicants amounted to manufacturing the goods. Duty short paid was d...
Shri Maruti Krishna Matale and Another Vs. Shri Mohan Keshav Deshpande ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)ALLMR277; 2000(2)BomCR515
ORDERD.K. Trivedi, J.1. In this petition, the heirs of tenant have challenged thejudgment and order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune dated 29th October 1985 wherein the tribunal has rejected the Revision Application of the petitioners and confirmed the order passed by the learned Assistant Collector, Haveli Sub-Division, Pune, dated 7th February 1983 in an appeal filed by the tenant being TNC Appeal No. 140 of 1981 and inturn, even the learned Assistant Collector has also while dealing with the appeal of the tenant, while dismissing the appeal, confirmed the order of A.L.T. and Additional Tahsildar Haveli dated 18th October 1975 passed in Tenancy Case No. 173 filed by the respondent-tenant while deciding the application made by the respondent-Landlord under sections 29 and 31 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act'), wherein the Revenue Authority has granted possession of the land in favour of landlord out of Sur...
H.S.T. Hedge Vs. the Premier Automobiles Ltd. and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)BomCR64; (2000)2BOMLR92; [2000(86)FLR43]; 2000(3)MhLj198
ORDERR.M. Lodha, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Shetty, Advocate waives service for respondents. 2. By consent, writ petition is heard finally at this stage. 3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the two orders passed by the Industrial Court,Mumbai on 7-12-99 whereby the said Court has ordered Complaint (U.L.P) No. 322 of 1992 and an Application (ID-A) No. 292 of 1992 to be transferred from Judge, 4th Labour Court, Mumbai to Judge 6th Labour Court, Mumbai. 4. The two orders dated 7-12-99 impugned in the present writ petition suffered from gross arbitrariness which if not set aside may demoralise the Presiding Officers of Labour Court that the cases ripe for disposal at their fag end on the application of party feeling inconvenient may be got transferred from one Labour Court to the other without valid and justifiable reasons. It is true that Industrial Court is empowered under section 45 of the Maharashtra Recogni...
Anandrao Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ2930
J.N. Patel, J.1. In Sessions Trial No. 2/90, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pusad by his judgment and order dated 28-1-1994 found the appellant guilty of having committed offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. and convicted and sentenced him to undergo default of payment of fine to suffer R.I. for six months. The Court also found the appellant guilty of having committed offence under Section 201 and convicted him to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer R.I. for three months. The substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. The trial Court however, acquitted the accused No. 2 Sau. Anusuyabai wife of Anandrao Falke of having committed the offence under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. The appellant Anandrao Dhondba Falke has appealed against the conviction.2. The facts were these : On 28-4-1984 at about 7.00 a.m. one Ganpatgir Vishwanath Giri P.W. 1 who is resident of Marsul a...
Madhu Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-2000
Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT76Tri(Mum.)bai
1. When this application seeking stay came up for hearing, it appeared that the issue being settled, the main appeal itself could be taken up for disposal. Both sides agreeing, this was done, after granting waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 15 lakhs.2. The appellants imported old and used automobile diesel engines, filing three bills of entry for their clearance on 16-10-1999.Examination of the goods indicated that along with diesel engines 145 gear boxes, 5 gears and 21 self-starters all old and used were also found. The value was declared to be Rs. 13,38,616/-. The value of the goods was accepted. Show cause notice was issued alleging liability of the goods to confiscation under section lll(d), (1) & (m) of the Act and alleging that the importers were liable to penalty. In the impugned order the Commissioner accepted the valuation, confiscated the goods but permitted them to be redeemed on payment of fine of Rs. 30 lakhs.He directed loading to be done in the valuation for ...
Acme Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-2000
Reported in: (2000)(69)ECC327
1. These two applications for stay have been filed seeking the indulgence of the Tribunal for waiving the pre-deposit of a sum of Rs. 36,316.96 and Rs. 13,944. In these matters the Range Supdt. issued a letter on 26.5.1995 calling upon the appellant assessee to reverse immediately the Modvat credit on the strength of invoices received by them. No show cause notice has been given. Against the said communication, the assessees went on appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals), who by the impugned order held that the communication from the Supdt. stating that the Supdt. was not competent to allow or disallow Modvat credit and a show cause notice should have been issued, principles of natural justice should have been served besides the merits of the grounds taken for denial of Modvat credit. The copies of these letters were also sent to AC, CCE, Bombay-I, CCE, Bombay-II, and principal Collector. Pursuant to the said order, the Superintendent had sent further communication calling upon the asse...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »