Mumbai Court January 2002 Judgments
Baban Khandu Rajput Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-2002
Reported in: 2002BomCR(Cri)578; (2002)104BOMLR8
S.S. Parkar, J.1. This petition has been filed seeking direction against the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 for holding inquiry against respondent No. 4, who was at the relevant time Incharge of Newasa Police Station and for payment of compensation for the illegal detention of the petitioner between 5.5.1992 to 7.5.1992 and also for taking appropriate action against the respondent No. 4 and respondent No. 5 Executive Magistrate, Newasa, for depriving the petitioner of his personal liberty by abusing the legal process.2. Certain undisputed facts leading to the filing of the present petition are as follows :One Uttam Jaywant Chavan was a witness in criminal case filed against the petitioner by Dhawale at C.R. No. 86 1988 for offence under Sections 324, 504 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The date of the said complaint was 15.5.1988. Criminal case was already pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Newasa, The complaint was lodged by the witness Uttam Chavan that threats were h...
Tag this Judgment!Baby Samuel Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-2002
Reported in: (2003)184CTR(Bom)140; [2003]262ITR385(Bom)
J.P. Devadhar, J. 1. Rule returnable forthwith. The respondent waives service. By consent of the parties, rule is taken up for final hearing. 2. The substantial question sought to be raised in this appeal is as to when an issue was vaguely taken in the grounds of appeal, but argued specifically at the time of the final hearing of the appeal, can the Tribunal refuse to adjudicate upon that issue on the merits on the ground that no such ground has been taken specifically in the grounds of appeal 3. The assessment year relevant for the purpose herein is the block period April 1, 1985, to March 20, 1996. 4. Some time in March, 1996, the assessee's premises were searched under Section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act ('Act' for short) and certain amount of cash and books of account were taken into custody by the income-tax authorities. On the basis of the seized material, the Assessing Officer issued a notice to the assessee under Section 158BC of the Act and after hearing the assessee, passed ...
Tag this Judgment!Shreeprakash Shivram Poddar Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALLMR124; 2002(3)BomCR655
D.B. Bhosale, J.1. The petitioner, by means of this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks direction or order calling upon the respondents to forthwith hand over quite, vacant and peaceful possession of the flats referred to in Exhibit-I to the petition. The petitioner has also sought a declaration that the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, the Bombay Land Requisition Act and the Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) (Amendment) Act, 1996 (the Maharashtra Act XVI of 1997) and/or the Ordinance dated 25th December, 1997, published in the Maharashtra Government Gazette, Extraordinary dated 26th December, 1997, are ultra vires unconstitutional and violative of fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under the Constitution of India. Though the petitioner has prayed for the declaration of the aforesaid provisions unconstitutional, the learned Counsel for the petitioner did not press this prayer. However, we m...
Tag this Judgment!Avadh Transport Service Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-2002
Reported in: (2002)(143)ELT179Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This batch of applications covers a number of manufacturers. The facts of the case and the allegations made in the show cause notices as well as the findings are common. On hearing both the sides, we find that the appeals themselves could be taken up for disposal together in this single order. Both the sides agreeing, this was done after granting waiver of pre-deposit of the duty and penalty indicated against each applicant: 3. Although, the facts are common, we will take one order as illustrative of the facts. That order is Order-in-Original No. 26/2000 made on 26-12-2000 and later shown to have been made on 27-11-2000 but issued on 27-12-2000.4. M/s. JBF Industries Ltd. (M/s. JBF) were engaged in the manufacture of twisted yarn/polyester texturised yarn. They were located at Silvassa. The Director General of Anti-Evasion investigated the intelligence of under-valuation and evasion on the part of M/s. JBF.Enquiries revealed that RG 1 registers maintained by M/s. JBF did not show t...
Tag this Judgment!Gulabrai V. Gandhi Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-2002
Reported in: (2003)84ITD370(Mum.)
1. These cross appeals - one by the assessee and the other by the Revenue arise out of the order dated 25-5-1992 of the Commissioner (Appeals)-VIII, Bombay whereby he sustained the penalty of Rs. 2,68,050 only out of the penalty of Rs. 49,84,434 imposed by the Assessing Officer upon the assessee holding that the assessee was deemed to have concealed his income of Rs. 1 crore under the deeming provisions of Explanation 5 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act of the assessment year 1989-90. These were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. Briefly stated, a search under Section 132(1) was conducted at the residential premises of the assessee on 12-9-1988. In the course of search, cash of Rs. 80,000, gold jewellery valued at Rs. 3,25,000 and diamond jewellery valued at Rs. 1,90,000 (totalling in all Rs. 5,95,000) was found and seized. During the course of his statement recorded under Section 132(4) on 12-9-1988, the assessee was asked to tell the source of his income ...
Tag this Judgment!Rashid Vs. the State of Maharashtra .
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-2002
Reported in: II(2002)DMC601
1. The appellant/original accused No.1(hereinafter referred to as the appellant) and oneMariyam Begum Shaikh Safi (original accused No.2) weretried by the learned 1st Ad-hoc Additional SessionsJudge, Wardha, in Sessions Trial No.151/1998 on thecharge of having committed the offences punishableunder Section 498-A and 306, read with Section 34 ofthe Indian Penal Code. The learned trial judge, videhis judgment and order dated 26.9.2001, acquittedMariyam Begum Shaikh Safi (original accused No.2) ofboth the aforesaid offences. However, he convicted theappellant for the offences punishable under Section498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. For theoffence punishable under Section 498-A of the IndianPenal Code, the appellant has been sentenced to sufferR.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, indefault to suffer R.I. for three months, and for theoffence punishable under Section 306 of the IndianPenal Code, he is sentenced to suffer R.I. for fiveyears and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-,...
Tag this Judgment!Sidagonda Avagonda Sardar Patil and anr. Vs. Bhimgonda Kadgonda Kushap ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)BomCR563; (2002)2BOMLR281; 2002(2)MhLj623
ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.1. The appellants in the above appeal are the original defendants. They are aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order passed by the District Court, Kolhapur on 25-3-1985 in Civil Appeal No. 209 of 1982 allowing the plaintiffs' appeal with costs throughout and ordering the original defendants-Appellants to hand over possession of the suit land to the plaintiff with mesne profits in accordance with Order 20, Rule 12(1)(c) of the Civil Procedure Code. The learned Lower Appellate Court had also observed that the Plaintiff could apply to the Collector or the Competent authorities under the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holding Act, 1947 and seek permission for the division of the suit land from the Consolidation Block No. 1234. The learned Judge also dismissed the cross objections filed by the respondents-present appellants.2. For the sake of convenience the parties will be referred to as the Plaintiff and the defendants as described in the o...
Tag this Judgment!Godrej V. Patel and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-2002
Reported in: [2003]261ITR670(Bom)
1. Heard parties on interim relief. Perused rival affidavits-in-reply including rejoinder and supplementary affidavits.2. This petition is at the instance of two petitioners who are the joint depositors of respondent No. 4-bank, viz., Development Credit Bank Ltd., Mumbai. The petitioners had jointly deposited a sum of Rs. 3,00,000 in fixed deposit with respondent No. 4 in R. I. C. scheme. In lieu thereof, they were holding FDR No. 019464 issued on July 26, 1979. After the maturity of the said fixed deposit, it blossomed to Rs. 4,10,786 which was again renewed on November 18, 1996, for a period of 12 months under fixed deposit receipt No, 01946 issued on November 26, 1996.3. Some time in the month of February, 1997, the petitioners approached respondent No. 4 for premature withdrawal of the above fixed deposit. Respondent No. 4 declined to encash or liquidate the said fixed deposit and refused to pay the proceeds thereof to the petitioners on the ground that the amount has been seized b...
Tag this Judgment!Sohanlal Mijajilal Karotia Vs. Welcome Group Searock Sheraton
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-2002
Reported in: [2002(93)FLR730]; (2002)IVLLJ30Bom
Nishita Mhatre, J. 1. The petitioner challenges the orders of the Industrial Court dated June 13, 2001 and October 30, 2001. The order of the Industrial Court dated June 13, 2001 is an order reviewing its earlier order dated June 16, 1997 passed by the Industrial Court while granting interim relief. The petitioner by that order remained under suspension. However, the enquiry which was instituted by the respondent continued. When the enquiry was completed and the respondent wished to terminate the services of the petitioner, the respondent filed a review application under Section 30(2) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 for reviewing and vacating the earlier order. The Industrial Court vacated the earlier Order granting interim relief. The Industrial Court while doing so, it appears, has acted as if it is a Court of Appeal rather than merely reviewing the order. 2. The review was granted and the earlier interim order was va...
Tag this Judgment!Rajagonda Sakharam Patil Since Deceased by His Heir Vs. Shivappa Babu ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)BomCR632
J.G. Chitre, J.1. The petitioner is taking exception to the judgment and order passed by the M.R.T. in the matter of Revision Application No. M.R.T.-K.P. -166A/86 dated 19-10-1988 by which the learned member of M.R.T. dismissed the revision application filed by the present petitioner challenging the judgment and order which was passed by M.R.T. in revision application by which he had confirmed the judgment passed by S.D.O. Karvir in Tenancy Appeal No. 383/75.2. Shri Nitin Muley, Counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently argued the cause in favour of the petitioner by pointing out that the learned S.D.O. Karvir had committed the error of facts as well as law by coming to the conclusion that there was no evidence to justify the conclusion drawn by Additional Tahsildar and A.L.T. Hatkanangale holding that then present petitioner was in possession of the suit land prior to tillers day i.e. 1-4-1957 and, as such, he was tenant of the said land. It is pertinent to note that the S.D.O. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »