Mumbai Court August 2002 Judgments
Vrajlal Jinabhai Patel, Since Deceased Through His L.Rs. Smt. Jagrati ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-2002
Reported in: 2003(4)ALLMR299
D.G. Karnik, J.1. The petitioner was the owner of the land bearing S. No. 477 of village Mahrum taluka, District Jalgaon, admeasuring 7 acres and 28 gunthas. The petitioners prepared a lay out of the said land which was sanctioned by the Chief Officer, Jalgaon Borough Municipality on 5th/6th March, 1965, under Section 16 of the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954. According to the lay out, the total land was divided into 42 buildable plots, roads and certain open space meant for common use and enjoyment of the said 42 plots. It appears that out of the said 42 plots, the petitioner has sold some while some plots bearing Nos. 29 to 35, together with some part of the open space, were reserved subsequently for the purpose of primary school and playground under the development plan prepared under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. It is not disputed that the reserved plots and part of the open space, which was reserved, have since been acquired and the award has been passed.2....
Tag this Judgment!Babasaheb Dadasaheb Koli Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-2002
Reported in: (2003)2BOMLR283; 2003(3)MhLj366
J.G. Chitre, J. 1. The petitioner is hereby assailing correctness, propriety and legality of the judgment and order passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 66 of 2000 (Old No. 227 of 1998), by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karhad.2. Some facts need to be mentioned for the purpose of unfolding the controversy and existence of this petition. The petitioner Babasaheb Koli, P.S.I. working in Karhad City Police station at relevant time, received information on 29-4-1997 at about 11 p.m. that some persons were gambling in a public place, when he was in Annapurna hotel along with his staff members, constable Salvi, BK. No. 2106 and constable Katkar Bk. No. 618, driver Shinde Bk. No. 225. Driver Shinde took his meal and others took tea and proceeded towards a tin shed (Tapari) near the place known as Kolhapur Naka. The said place was being used as office by Mathadi Kamgar at Karhad. The Petitioner Koli parked his jeep at some distance from the said tin shed (Tapari) and proceeded towards ...
Tag this Judgment!Deccan Gymkhana Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-2002
Reported in: [2003]262ITR459(Bom)
S. H. Kapadia, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred to this court, the following questions arising out of its order dated February 10, 1988.'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee-club was not a charitable institution within the meaning of Section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income of the assessee was entitled to exemption either under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with Section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act, or under the principle of mutuality ?'Facts :3. Both the above two references raise a common question of law and, therefore, they were heard together and they are disposed of by this common judgment. Income-tax Reference No. 76 of 1995 relates to the accounting year 1972-73 (assessment year 1973-74), whereas Income-tax Reference No. 79 of 1991 relates to the assessment years 1973-74, 1974-75, 1976-77 up to ...
Tag this Judgment!Kautikrao Totaram Thale Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-2002
Reported in: 2003(4)BomCR799
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, prays for following substantial reliefs by issuing writ of mandamus against the respondents No. 1 to 4 :(A) To make the rule in respect of determination of seniority of the Principals of different Colleges run by the same management affiliated to respondent No. 3 University, in accordance with the provisions of section 77-A of the Marathwada University Act, 1974; (B) To shift the petitioner is a Principal of any one of the Colleges run by the respondent No. 4, of which the strength of the students as on 31st December, 1988 was more than 1000 and to pay the salary in the pay scale of Rs. 45,000-150-5700-200-6300/- with effect from 1-1-1986.(C) To make the Statute in respect of determination of seniority of the Principals of different colleges run by the same management affiliated to respondent No. 3 University in accordance with the provisions of section 37 of the Marathwada University Act, 1974; and (D) T...
Tag this Judgment!Sonal Garments Vs. Trimbak Shankar Karve
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)BomCR529; [2003(96)FLR498]
R.J. Kochar, J. 1. The petitioner employer is aggrieved by the Award dated 7th January, 1995 passed by the Labour Court in Reference I.D.A. No. 447 of 1992 in the industrial dispute raised by the respondent workman and referred by the State Government for adjudication to the Labour Court under section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 2. According to the respondent workman, he was employed by the petitioner employer in June 1990. According to him, he was terminated from employment with effect from 23rd April, 1991 orally. It was his case that no retrenchment compensation was given to him and no wages in lieu of one month's notice were also offered at the time of termination. Both the parties appeared before the Labour Court and filed their pleadings. According to the petitioner employer, the respondent workman was never terminated from employment but he remained absent from February 1991. It was further averred in the written statement that as and when he reports for duty,...
Tag this Judgment!Deepak Suresh Ghodeswar Vs. M.N. Singh and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ5062
A.S. Aguiar, J.1. The present Criminal Writ Petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner, who is the detenue himself, has impugned the order dated 9-3-2002 passed by the respondent No. 1 Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay in exercise of powers conferred on 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 (Amendment-1996) (hereinafter referred to as, 'M.P.D.A. Act').2. The detention order and the grounds of detention, both dated 9-3-2002 are annexed as Exhibits 'A' and 'B' to this petition. They were served upon the detenue on 11-3-2002. The detention order is founded on one Crime No. 16 of 2002 for offence under Sections 435, 506(1), 504 read with 34, IPC registered at Chembur Police Station on the complaint of one, Uttam Dashrath Ahire and three in-camera statements of witnesses A, B and C recorded on 17-1-2002 and 18-1-2002 ...
Tag this Judgment!Videocon Narmada Electronics Vs. Cce and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-2002
Reported in: (2006)STR321
1. Delay of 60 days in filing the above appeal is condoned in view of the statement that in order to determine the Service Tax Liability as per the impugned order, it was necessary for the applicant to call for details from various Transport Operators of over India and this took about 1 1/2 months, thus occasioning the delay....
Tag this Judgment!Gemplus Jewellery (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-2002
Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT219Tri(Mum.)bai
1. By these applications the appellants pray that the order passed by us on 5th April, 2002 ( vide Order Nos. Oil/ 1168-85/WZB/2002 ) be modified so that pre-deposit ordered to be paid by the stay order be waived 2. The facts are not in dispute. The question involves in all these appeals are interpretation of certain clauses of Notification 196/87-Cus. The facts have been fully discussed in our earlier order dated 5-4-2002.3. On earlier order also indicates quantum of payment to be made by each of the applicants. The case of the applicants in the modification of application is that our earlier order should deal with undue hardship as well as applicability of Section 28 of the Customs Act.Another major argument made by the Counsel for the appellants is about financial difficulties which appellant is facing and therefore there will be undue hardship for them to pre-deposit the amount. It is also argued that the Tribunal should ensure that even if it was not argued about financial abilit...
Tag this Judgment!R.S. Bhagwat Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-2002
Reported in: (2003)78TTJ(Mum.)641
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)-XVII, Mumbai, dt. 4th Aug., 1995, and the only ground raised is in respect of claim of deduction under Section 80-I As per grounds it is mentioned that the assessee is engaged in the manufacture and production of computer software for general purpose, therefore, qualified as an industrial undertaking to be granted deduction under Section 80-I.2. The assessee individual carried on the profession of preparing software programming named as Devyani Project used for desktop publication. The assessee has claimed the deduction under Section 80-I at 20 per cent of the profit of Section 98,930. It was required by the AO to substantiate the aforesaid claim. In compliance it is stated that the assessee manufactures and assembles software named as Devyani Project by using computerised technology. According to AO this activity could not be considered as manufacturing, industrial activity or production of any article or thing, t...
Tag this Judgment!Shyamlal Narayan Asati and ors. Vs. Agriculture Produce Market Committ ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR248; 2003(2)BomCR172; 2003(1)MhLj337
R.K. Batta, J. 1. The petitioners have approached this Court for quashing and setting aside of order dated 31-5-1988 passed by respondent No. 3 Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies. Interim stay of the recovery of the amount under the said order was granted at the time of issuing of rule. 2. The case of the petitioners is that their father Narayandas Rajaram Asati was doing business of grain; respondent No. 2 was also doing business of grain and is also commission agent. There was some money dispute between the father of the petitioners and the respondent No. 2. The father of the respondent No. 2 was the Vice-Chairman of the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Tiroda. According to the petitioners, the father of the respondent No. 2 taking advantage of his position as Vice-Chairman of Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Tiroda, moved a resolution in the meeting of the market committee on 12-8-1982 by which the market committee resolved to recover the disputed amount between t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »