Court : Mumbai
JUDGMENT:( Per A.H.JOSHI, J.) 1. These appeals arise out of judgment and order of conviction and sentence awarded to ten accused persons, who were tried in Sessions Case No.57/2008 in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-II, Nanded, passed on 10th Nov.,2009. 2. Heard Advocate for the respective parties and perused the record. 3. The accused were charged for offences under Sections 302, 120(b), 341, 323, 504, 506, 324, 147, 148, 149 of IPC and Section 4(25) of Indian Arms Act. 4. Prosecution story, in brief, can be narrated as follows: At a location known as Jangamwadi Chowk, the quarrel began over allegation that accused persons have thrown stones on the motor cycle of Nikhil Kurdukar. The incident resulted into quarrel. All accused persons flocked there. Prashant Medpallewar arrived and tried to pacify. Ultimately, the unlawful assembly of accused persons assaulted the deceased and other prosecution witnesses, by use of Khanjar, stick, stones, etc. Prashant Medpallewar suffered seve...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
On this writ petition on 25th November 2011, notice was issued for final disposal of the writ petition at the stage of admission. Hence, Rule. The respondents waive service. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith. 2} By this writ petition under Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are seeking a writ of certiorari or a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside an order dated 16th July 2011 passed by the respondent No.2. 3} It is the case of the petitioners that petitioner No.1 is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at L and T House, Ballard Estate, P.O.Box No.279, Mumbai 400 001 and is engaged in the business inter alia of construction, infrastructure development and real estate. The petitioner No.2 is a company registered under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956. 4} The petitioner No.2 is wholly owned s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
A.B. Chaudhari, J. 1. This is a Criminal Reference Registration No.1/2013 for confirmation of death sentence against accused no.1-Ajay Dayaram Gopnarayan. 2. Both the accused persons Ajay Dayaram Gopnarayan and Nitin Nandkishor Gudadhe have also preferred Criminal Appeal No.225/2013 praying for acquittal against judgment of conviction for offences punishable under section 302 and 392 of I.P.C. and accused no. 1-Ajay is sentenced to death while accused no.2-Nitin Gudadhe is sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. Both the matters are taken up together for hearing and disposal. Hence, this common judgment. FACTS: 3. The prosecution case is that the deceased Vijayatai Vitthalrao Pund aged about 75 years, who was mother of PW1-Sunil Vitthalrao Pund, a practicing lawyer by profession at Amravati was residing in Venus Park area of Kanta Nagar, Amravati. The house was constructed by PW1-Sunil about 67 years befor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1986)18ITD64(Mum.)
1. The assessee is a manufacturer of woollen material from mostly imported wool and exports them. Different grounds of appeal have been raised. These are considered seriatim.2. Disallowance under Section 40(c)/40A(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961: The point relating to the treatment of contribution of a sum of Rs. 1,80,750 to the directors/employees Retirement Benefit Fund Trust as a perquisite is covered by the decision of the Tribunal for the assessment year 1973-74 in the assessee's own case in IT Appeal Nos.1270 and 1271 (Bom.) of 1980 and 576 and 3303 (Bom.) of 1981 against the assessee. The other grounds of appeal relating to reimbursement of medical expenses, disallowance of foreign travel expenses and disallowance of depreciation claimed on assets used for scientific purposes are not pressed.3. Closing stock valuation : The ITO found that the assessee was valuing the closing stock exclusive of customs and other fiscal levies.According to the ITO the customs duty on raw materials...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1998)65ITD73(Mum.)
1. All these appeals by the 20 appellants are against the penalty orders under s. 271(1)(c) and the facts, circumstances and grounds being the same; therefore, all these appeals of 20 appellants which is known as 'Jhunjhunwala Group of cases' are heard and decided by this common order.2. Before the start of the arguments, it was agreed to by the parties that the arguments, counter-arguments and the decisions may be with respect to the decision in the case of Nirmal Kumar P. Jhunjhunwala, in whose case, the loading order has been passed and that decision will govern all these appeals.3. The detailed facts, as are relevant to various submissions made by the parties, through, are mentioned at the relevant place, yet, we would like to extract a brief before we proceed to discuss and decide various solutions. The facts of the case are that as a result of search warrants and subsequent authorisations dt. 19th August, 1986 in the name of 4 individuals-(1) Purshottamdas F. Jhunjhunwala, (2) K...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1985)13ITD830(Mum.)
1. The assessee, a trust, assessed as an AOP, sold 2,400 equity shares of the Standard Mills Co. Ltd. and received a surplus computed at Rs. 26,475. The ITO included this surplus as long-term capital gain in the total income. Before the Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee claimed that the shares of Standard Mills Co. Ltd. sold were bonus shares and so no capital gains should have been assessed on the surplus. A number of decisions were cited before the Commissioner (Appeals) to support the claim that no capital gain arose on the transfer of an asset for which no cost of acquisition can be ascribed. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the assessee's claim and confirmed the ITO's order.It is, thus, that the matter is in appeal before the Tribunal.2. When the matter came up for hearing before the Tribunal, reliance was placed by the department on an earlier decision of the Tribunal in In re. Radhika Trust No. 1 [IT Appeal No. 654 (Bom.) of 1982 dated 28-7-1983], in rejecting the assesse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1986)16ITD458(Mum.)
1. The revenue is aggrieved against the order of the Appellate Controller deleting goodwill of Rs. 4.50 lakhs.2. Shri M.G.R. Aitken died on 21-5-1970. He was seniormost partner of Crawford Bayley & Co., solicitors, Bombay, with share of 19 per cent.The accountable person included in the estate of the deceased only Rs. 60,933 on account of the deceased's interest in the aforesaid firm and claimed that nothing was includible on account of share of goodwill of the deceased in the said firm because in a firm of professionals, the dominant factors were personal skill, integrity, honesty and professional expertise. The Assistant Controller, however, held that the aforesaid firm of solicitors had been in existence for a number of years and the clientele was attracted by the firm's name and not because the said firm had a particular individual as a partner and it was doubtful if many clients knew the names of the partners of the said firm, not to mention the personal skill, integrity, etc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1989)31ITD97(Mum.)
1. These two appeals by the assessee are taken together and disposed of by a common order.2. The assessee is a registered firm which derives income from manufacture and sale of bidis. The business was carried on by Smt.Ujjambai, wife of Shri Hargovind, and Smt. Jadaobai, wife of Shri Mohanlal, under the firm name of Messrs Mohanlal Hargovinddas. Smt.Jadaobai died on 12-4-1961 leaving behind an adopted son, Shri Parmanand Patel. Smt. Jadaobai also left a will executed by her which was registered on 22nd October, 1953. According to the will, all movable and immovable properties were given to Smt. Ujjambai. However, the properties, movable and immovable, given before her death, became the sole properties of the recipient. Shri Parmanand Patel joined the partnership with Smt. Ujjambai under the partnership deed dated 21-6-1961 and was entitled to 50% profit. Thereafter Shri Sravankumar, son of Shri Parmanand Patel, joined the partnership and a fresh partnership deed was drawn on 19-9-1963...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1973MhLJ588
ORDER1. This revision application has been filed by the defendants against the order dated 26th August, 1971 made by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thana, refusing to hear them to show cause against an application made by the plaintiffs for an injunction restraining the defendants from prosecuting an application for restitution under Section 144, C. P. C. in a previous suit filed by the same plaintiffs against the same defendants. It will be necessary to state some of the facts in order to be able to appreciate how the present order came to be passed.2. The defendants were in occupation of certain premises belonging to the plaintiffs. The contention of the plaintiffs was that the defendants were licensees whereas the contention of the defendants was that they were tenants. The plaintiffs further contended that the defendants had committed breach of the terms of the agreement of leave and licence, that the licence had been terminated and that the plaintiffs had become e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Order: 1. This notice has been taken out under the provisions of Order 21 Rule 22 of the CPC. Defendant Nos.4, 5 and 6 have opposed the notice. 2. The plaintiff has obtained the decree in the above summary suit which is sought to be executed. The decree has been obtained from the Court in Thane. The plaintiff has got the decree transferred to this Court for execution under Section 39 of the CPC. Section 39 runs thus: 39. Court by which decree may be executed.- (1) The Court which passed a decree may, on the application of the decree-holder, send it for execution to another Court. (a) if the person against whom the decree is passed actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business, or personally works for gain, within the local limits of the jurisdiction of such other Court, or (b) if such person has not property within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court which passed the decree sufficient to satisfy such decree and has property within the local limits of the ju...
Tag this Judgment!