Mumbai Court January 2002 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.
Director of Income-tax Vs. Bombay Bullion Association Dharam No Kanto ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)BomCR607; (2002)2BOMLR390; [2002]254ITR709(Bom); 2002(2)MhLj797
V. C. Daga, J.1. These tax appeals have been filed at the instance of the Revenue.2. Heard finally by consent of parties at the stage of admission on the following substantial question of law arising from the impugned orders passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ('the Tribunal' for short) :'1. Whether, on the facts, and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that no part of the income of the trust is taxable under the provisions of Sub-section (4A) of section 11 of the Income-tax Act without appreciating the fact, that after the insertion of Section 11(4A) of the Income-tax Act from the financial year, 1983, that is from April 1, 1984, exemption in respect of profits and gains of business is available to only those institutions whose business is carried on for charitable purpose by the beneficiaries of trust ?'Facts :3. The short facts involved in the present appeals are as under :The respondents herein, the Bombay Bullion Association Dhara...
Sudhakar Vishnupant Bobade Vs. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)ALLMR848; 2002(4)BomCR182
R.S. Mohite, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties.2. Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 3. This writ petition challenges an order dated 27-11-2001 passed by the Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims, Amravati, by which the claim of the petitioner that he belongs to 'Dhanwar' scheduled tribe, has been invalidated. The impugned order mentions that the candidate attended the hearing but did not submit his say on vigilance cell report. He asked for more time and committed to submit his explanation on or before 5-11-2001. However, the Scrutiny Committee did not receive any explanation from the candidate side and hence the Scrutiny Committee was left with no option but to decide his caste claim on the basis of submitted record and vigilance cell report. 4. One of the grievance in the petition is that the petitioner had in fact submitted his reply. The learned Advocate appearing for the Caste Scrutiny Committee makes a statement that in fact suc...
Ganesh Motiram Vichare Vs. M.N. Singh and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ1636
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner-detenu, Ganesh Motiram Vichare, has impugned the order dated 12-10-2001 passed by the 1st Respondent Mr. M. N. Singh, Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai, detaining him under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (No. LV of 1981) (Amendment-1996), (hereinafter referred to as 'MPDA Act').The detention order along with the grounds of detention, which are also dated 12-10-2001, was served on the petitioner-detenu on 15-10-2001 and their true copies are annexed as Annexures A and B respectively to this petition.2. A perusal of the grounds of detention (Annexure 'B') would show that the impugned order is founded on one C. R. viz. C. R. No. 340/2001, under Sections 326, 34, I.P.C. and Sections 4 r/w. 25(I-B)(b), 27 and 35 of Arms Act, registered at Vakola Poli...
Kamlesh Rampalat Kashyap Vs. M.N. Singh and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ858
Vishnu Sahay, J.1. Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner detenu Kamlesh Rampalat Kashyap has impugned the order dated 2-8-2001 passed by the first respondent Mr. M.N. Singh, Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, detaining him under 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) (hereinafter referred to as the M.P.D.A. Act).The detention order along with the grounds of detention which are also dated 2-8-2001 was served on the detenu on 4-8-2001 and their true copies are annexed as Annexure-A and B respectively to this writ petition.2. A perusal of the grounds of detention (Annexure-B) would show that the impugned order is founded on two C.Rs. namely C.R. No. 15 of 2001 under Sections 393,452, 511,34, IPC r/w 37(a)(i) of the Mumbai Police Act registered on the basis of complaint date...
Shri Balaji Automobiles Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALLMR479; 2002(3)BomCR599; (2002)1BOMLR435; 2002LC7(Bombay); 2002(140)ELT367(Bom); 2002(2)MhLj261
V.C. Daga, J. 1. Petitioner has filed this petition claiming refund of the amount on admitted facts. The entitlement of the petitioner was not in dispute. On being noticed, the respondents appeared. The respondents through their Counsel filed an affidavit undertaking to refund the amount to the petitioner as per order of the CEGAT dated 21-5-1997, on or before 21-12-2001. It is not in dispute that the amount has now been paid to the petitioner as per the undertaking given by the respondent.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of the Tribunal was passed on 21-5-1997. It was obligatory on the part of the respondents to refund amount as per the order of the Tribunal. The petitioner was required to move this Court for implementation of the order of the Tribunal. Had this amount been paid well within the reasonable period, he would not have been required to approach this Court. He, therefore, prayed for grant of interest as consequential relief for delayed paym...
Pandit Devu Patil, Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ4865
1. The appellants have been convicted by IIIAdditional Sessions Judge, Thane vide judgmentdated 29-11-1997 for various offences. They havebeen held guilty for the offence of rioting undersection 148 of IPC and sentenced to suffer R.I.for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- eachin default to suffer S.I. for 15 days; they havebeen also held guilty for the offence of murderunder section 302 read with 149 of IPC andsentenced to imprisonment for life as also to paya fine of Rs.. 1000/- each in default to sufferS.I. for three months; they have been also heldguilty for voluntarily causing hurt under section324 read with 149 of IPC and sentenced to sufferR.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- each in default to suffer S.I. for 15days. In addition they have also been heldguilty under section 37 read with 135 of theB.P.Act and sentenced to suffer S.I. for twomonths and also to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- eachin default to suffer S.I. for ten days. All thesentences have been ordered to r...
Shantaram Baburao More and anr. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-2002
Reported in: (2002)104BOMLR471
R.K. Batta, J.1. These two appeals arise out of the same incident for which the appellants were tried in Sessions Case No. 480 of 1996. The appellants were charged for house tress-pass, having made preparations for committing murder of complainant's brother under Section 452 read with 34 of the I.P.C., for committing murder of Ashok Barve under Section 302 read with 34 of the I.P.C. as also for having voluntarily caused hurt to the complainant and her sister Shaila @ Shalini Pawar under Section 323 read with 34 of I.P.C.2. The prosecution had in all examined 14 witnesses in support of the said charges. The defence put forward by the appellants was of total denial. The Trial Court after accepting the testimony of complainant Baby Nanda P.W. 1 and Shalint P.W. 2 who are sisters of the deceased Ashok Barve recorded conviction of the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 410 of 1998 under Section 302 read with 34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced them to suffer R. I. for life as also to pay a fine o...
Shri Balaji Automobiles Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-2002
Reported in: 2002(83)ECC524
V.C. Daga, J.1. The petitioner has filed this petition claiming refund of the amount on admitted facts. The entitlement of the petitioner was not in dispute. On being noticed, the respondents appeared. The respondents through their Counsel filed an affidavit undertaking to refund the amount to the petitioner as per order of the CEGAT dated 21.5.1997, on or before 21.12.2001. It is not in dispute that the amount has now been paid to the petitioner as per the undertaking given by the respondent.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of the Tribunal was passed on 21.5.1997. It was obligatory on the part of the respondents to refund amount as per the order of the Tribunal the petitioner was required to move this Court for implementation of the order of the Tribunal. Had this amount been paid well within the reasonable period, he would not have been required to approach this Court. He, therefore, prayed for grant of interest as consequential relief for delayed pa...
V.S. Joshi Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALLMR882; (2002)104BOMLR262
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the communication dated 14.2.1990 issued by the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Dhule informing that Mrs. Anuradha Shrikrishna Dautkhane, Assistant Teacher was required to be appointed as Head Mistress of the Girls' High School in the pay scale of Rs. 750-1150 w.e.f. 14.11.1983 and her appointment was approved in the said post accordingly.2. The petitioner came to be appointed as Assistant Teacher w.e.f. 12th June, 1961 and he had completed his B.Ed. degree examination prior to his appointment. In the year, 1974, he came to be promoted to the post of Supervisor and thereafter, in the year 1978, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Head Master. Subsequently, the respondent No. 4 - management which was running the High School, decided to bifurcate it into two different schools, one for the boys and the other one for the girls. Accordingly, in 1978, the school was bifurcated in two different schools by name Dr. Kane's...
Nandkumar Nivrutti Baptiwale Vs. Automotive Research Association of In ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALLMR110; 2002(4)BomCR231; (2002)2BOMLR460; 2002(2)MhLj191
R.M. Lodiia, J.1. Heard Mr. Bukhari, learned counsel for the petitioner.2. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed since in our view the first respondent-Automotive Research Association of India cannot be said to be authority or agency or instrumentality of State within the meaning of Article 12 of Constitution of India and therefore, not amenable to writ jurisdiction.3. The petitioner was working as Senior Purchase Officer with the first respondent (for short 'Association'). His services were terminated vide order dated 8-6-1999. The petitioner challenged his termination by filing complaintunder Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short 'MRTU and PULP Act') but the said complaint came to be dismissed as petitioner was not held to be workman. Thereafter the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging his termination,4. The Association is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. Its ...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »