Mumbai Court June 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.
Baun Foundation Trust and anr. Vs. Faredoon Rustom Tirandaz and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-19-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)BomCR438
F.I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. Learned Counsel for the respondents waive notice. By consent, petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal. Heard forthwith. 2. This petition is directed against an order dated 30th January, 2002, whereby the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court in Appeal No. 490 of 1999 allowed the appeal against an order dated 20th September, 1999 passed by a learned Judge of the Small Causes Court in injunction Notice No. 5749 of 1998 in RAD (ST) No. 2946 of 1998. 3. A few facts may be adverted to in order to correctly appreciate the controversy that arises. Prior to 26th January, 1931, one Ardeshir B. Patel was the tenant in respect of the premises at West Front on the 2nd floor of the building known as 'Mama Chambers' situated at 93, August Kranti Marg, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai 400 006. Ardeshir B. Patel expired leaving behind his widow Mrs. Pirojbai Ardeshir Patel and three sons Behram, Khurshed and Dhunjishaw. The widow of Ardeshir Patel, Pirojbai expired on 5th...
Ashok Vithal Chavan and ors Vs. Baburao Sakharam Bhagat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-19-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR217; 2002(6)BomCR736
A.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1.This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order passed by Vth Additional District Judge, Pune dated 12th April, 1996 in Civil Appeal No. 290 of 1994.2. The petitioners are landlords in respect of one shop premises situated at 936, Shukrawar Peth, Pune. The respondent is a monthly tenant in the suit premises. The petitioners instituted the suit before the Court of Small Causes Court at Pune, being Civil Suit No. 400 of 1989 for possession of the demised premises on the ground of bona fide requirement under section 13(1)(g) as well as non user of the suit premises within the meaning of section 13(1)(k) and the tenant having acquired suitable premises under section 13(1)(I) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 ('Bombay Rent Act' in brief). The trial Court on analysing the materials on record dismissed the suit by order dated 11th August, 1994 and answered all the points against the petitio...
Consolidated Distributors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Economic Development Corporati ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-19-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)BomCR115
V.C. Daga, J.1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of parties, heard finally. 2. This petition is by a Private Limited Company who had an industrial unit at Daman, established in the year 1996, on the borrowings made from respondent No. 1, a State owned Corporation, engaged in the business of industrial financing (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation' for short). 3. The petition is directed against the action of the Corporation, initiated under section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 ('the Act' for short), contending that the action taken is arbitrary and not in good faith and the proposed action to proceed with the sale of their Industrial Unit-is in violation of their fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. BACKDROP FACTS4. The relevant facts to appreciate the case of the petitioners are as under: The petitioners were sanctioned term loan for their industrial unit by the Corporation in the sum of Rs. 2...
Bharart Dagadu Gavate Vs. Mahadu Bala Gavate
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-19-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR196; 2002(6)BomCR756
A.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 12th March, 1990 in Revision Application No. MRT-P/VIII/1/87 (TNC.B. 179/87) by the member of Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune. 2. The petitioner claims to be tenant in respect of the entire Land Bearing Gat No. 2162 admeasuring 16H.26R at village Chakan, District Khed. The respondent is the real paternal uncle of the petitioner. The petitioner's father was enjoying the said land as a tenant of Shankar Narayan Bhagat and Shri Daval Bhagat. Both the landlords had share in half portion of the said land. It is not in dispute that with regard to the land owned by Shri Shankar Narayan Bhagat, which was occupied by the petitioner's father as a tenant, proceedings under section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act ('Act' for brief) were commenced in which it was held that the petitioner's father was tenant and he was declared as deemed purchaser. Thereaf...
Rangrao Laxman Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-19-2002
Reported in: II(2003)DMC285
R.K. Batta, J.1. Appellant was tried for murder of his sister-in-law viz., the wife of his elder brother Tukaram Rathod (P.W. 1) by burning her. The prosecution case is that about one year prior to the incident, legs of Tukaram (P.W. 1) were amputated and he was lame since then. Taking advantage of the situation that Tukaram had become lame, appellant was trying to persuade his wife Purnabai to have illicit relation with him. Appellant is said to have made attempts in that direction and more particularly about a month prior to the incident when he entered the house of his brother at about 11.00 p.m., pulled the legs of Purnabai in order to have sexual relations with her, but since she raised cries and her husband got up, appellant ran away. On 12.6.1990 at about 11.00 a.m. while Tukaram was taking meals and Purnabai was standing near the door, appellant came from outside, poured kerosene on the person of Purnabai and set her on fire. Appellant ran away after setting her on fire. Purnab...
Echjay Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-2002
Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT391Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appeal, at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), dated 11-9-96. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of parts of motor vehicles, tractors, etc., and they were availing exemption of Central Excise duty under the Notification No. 217/86-CE., dated 2-4-86 in respect of forged articles of iron and steel which were captively consumed in the manufacture of parts of motor vehicles and tractors, etc. They were also availing the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 239/86, dated 3-4-86 in respect of their products, parts of vehicles and tractors, etc. Show cause notice dated 20-5-94 was issued to them demanding duty to the extent of Rs. 22,12,197/- on the ground that forged articles of iron and steel falling under Sub-heading 7326.90 were not eligible for exemption under Notification No. 217/86, dated 2-4-86 when the same were removed and captively consumed for the manufacture of parts of motor vehicles and tract...
Plastichemix Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC335Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appeal is posted for consideration of stay application. We are disposing of the appeal itself after hearing both sides.2. Under the impugned order the duty demand of Rs. 74,253/- has been confirmed against the appellant. Penalty of equal amount has also been imposed.3. We have perused the records of the case and in particular the CT 2 certificate issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise having jurisdiction over the recipient unit. A sample Certificate is reproduced below : CERTIFICATE OF PROCUREMENT OF EXCISABLE GOODS UNDER CHAPTER X PROCEDURE M/s. Ambigai Poly sack, 324 Seethapatti, Mooiapatti-639 109, Karur Taluk are registrated under Rule 13 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 (Reg. No. 69/CH 54/92) in Karur Range, Dindigul division of Madurai Collectorate. 2. The said registration certificate holder is authorised to obtain plastic colour master batches organic and Inorganic falling under Sub-heading No. 3204.19 & Sub-heading No. 3206.90 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 198...
Arunkumar Champalal (Huf) Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-2002
Reported in: (2003)86ITD709(Mum.)
1. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dt, 29th Nov., 2002, of CIT(A)-XIV, Mumbai. The first four grounds of appeal pertain to only one issue i.e., confirmation by the CIT(A) of the AO's order passed under Section 154 of the IT Act rectifying the intimation issued under Section 143(1) of the IT Act.2. The relevant facts are that the return of income filed for the asst.yr. 1999-2000 was accepted by the AO under Section 143(1) of the IT Act on 17th July, 2000 on the basis of the returned total income of Rs. 1,17,470. Subsequently, the AO found that the assessee claimed rebate under Section 88 of the IT Act from the income-tax payable in respect of interest of Rs. 35,336 credited to the PPF a/c of the assessee. The AO issued notice under Section 154 on 23rd April, 2001, proposing to withdraw this rebate on the ground that the same was not allowable under Section 88. After considering the submissions made by the assessee, the AO passed the impugned order under ...
Mine Manager, Manganese Ore (India) Ltd. and anr. Vs. Shyam S/O Kunjil ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-2002
Reported in: (2002)3BOMLR874; 2002(3)MhLj917
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The applicant before the Court is a Government Company within the meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956, in which 81.57% of the share capital is stated to be held by the Central Government, whereas, the balance 18.05% has been held by the Governments of the State of Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra. The applicant, it has been stated, was formed for the purpose of taking over a company incorporated in the U.K. by the name of CPMO. CPMO held mining leases which were also taken over by the applicant.2. The dispute in the present case relates to quarter No. 446 situated at Wahitola, Mansar, Tahsil Ramtek, which according to the applicant is in the unauthorised occupation of the respondent. On 29th January, 1982, the applicant moved the Estate Officer, appointed under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 for an order of eviction against the respondent on the ground that he was in unauthorised occupation of the ...
Prabhakar Manoharrao Deshpande Vs. Appropriate Authority
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-2002
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Bom)270; [2004]266ITR292(Bom)
ORDERR.G. Deshpande, J.1. The petitioners have approached this Court challenging the order dt. 24th Feb., 1995 passed in case No. AHD/AA/NAG-241/1994-95 by respondent No. 1, the Appropriate Authority, IT Department under Section 269UD(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (which is hereinafter referred to as 'Act') for the purposes of brevity.2. The facts which are necessary to be narrated for the purposes of this decision, in short are as under :The matter relates to disposal of the disputed property by the petitioners in a manner so as to develop the property in pursuance of an agreement arrived at between the petitioners and a contractor, the details of which can be narrated as under:The property concerned is a Nazul plot No. 34, admeasuring 17,807 sq. ft. together with the existing residential premises bearing house No. 38 (new), situated at Cement Road, Dharampeth Extension, Shivaji Nagar, Nagpur within the municipal limits in Ward No. 73. The petitioners claim to be the owners of the property w...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »