Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-08-1995
Reported in : 1996CriLJ805; 1996(2)MhLj1068
ORDER1. The State of Maharashtra has moved this Court for quashing orders dated April 19, 1995 and November 29, 1995 passed in N.D.P.S. Special Case No. 128 of 1994. 2. A brief reference to the relevant facts is necessary for disposing of this application. On March 24, 1994 Shri Daljitsingh Darshansingh Parmar, Assistant Police Inspector attached to Narcotics Cell, Kandivali Unit, Bombay received a secret information that on March 24, 1994 at above 13.00 Hrs. three persons viz. (i) Raju Kamdar, (ii) Vinod Loke and (iii) Maksoom Shaikh who are dealing in narcotic drugs are likely to visit near Asiad S.T. Bus Stand, Dr. B.A. Road, Dadar, Bombay, in order to deliver mandrax tablets to some drug peddlers. The informant had also given the description of these persons. The A.P.I. recorded the information in the information book and passed on the same to his superiors. As per the directions of the superiors, a trap was arranged, a pre-paid panchanama was drawn and the raiding party along with...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-06-1995
Reported in : 1996(5)BomCR52
A.C. Agarwal, J.1. The appellant is the original defendant. He has preferred the present appeal seeking to impugn the judgment and decree passed on October 6, 1987 by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Quepem, in Special Suit No. 43 of 1986. Under the decree the defendant has been directed to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 71, 432/- with interest at 18% per annum from the date of the suit till actual payment. He has also been directed to pay the costs of the suit.2. The suit was filed on December 18, 1986 under the provisions of Order XXXVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure which provides for filing of summary suits. After the suit summons was served the defendant caused his appearance to be filed on March 23, 1987. The plaintiff on April 14, 1987 filed an application for summons for judgment. On August 10, 1987 the defendant filed an application for leave to defend. By the impugned judgment and decree leave to defend is refused and the decree prayed for in the suit is pas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-23-1995
Reported in : (1996)56ITD26(Mum.)
1. These two appeals by the assessee are directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XIII, Bombay, and pertain to the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86. Since the issue involved is identical, for the sake of convenience these appeals are consolidated and disposed of by a common order.2. Briefly the facts : The assessee is a charitable trust. Originally, it was registered with the Registrar of Companies, Bombay, on 20th July, 1934. Thereafter in 1953 and 1957, there were amendments in the objects of the Trust. It is registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1980, vide registration No. F. 4491 (Bombay). It is also registered under Section 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The objects of the trust as described in the Rules and Regulations as amended up to 23rd July, 1967 are as under : To start and maintain for institutions and charitable purposes, viz., relief of the poor, education, medical relief, cultural activit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-28-1995
Reported in : (1998)60TTJ(Mumbai)308
ORDERM. K. CHATURVEDI, J.M. :This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A), Central IV, Bombay, and pertains to the asst. yr. 1985-86.2. The assessment was completed under s. 143(3) r/w s. 145(2) of the IT Act, 1961. The accounting year of the assessee ended on 30th June, 1984. The assessee is a company in which public are substantially interested. The assessee-company is following the mercantile system of accounting. It filed its return of income for the relevant year of assessment on 28th June, 1985, reflecting therein income of Rs. 3,84,14,220. The AO made an addition of Rs. 26,20,51,000 in the total income of the assessee under the head 'premium on sale of cigarettes'. The AO deducted the amount of commission and trading income alleged to be reintroduced by means of havala entries, and advertisement expenses alleged to be used out of secret bank accounts. The assessee being aggrieved of the assessment order, preferred appeal there against before the CIT(A)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-24-1995
Reported in : 1995(4)BomCR565; (1996)ILLJ101Bom
R.M. Lodha, J.1. Constitutional validity of Section 31(2)(a) of the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966 and Rule 31(1) of the Maharashtra Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Rules, 1968 amended vide Maharashtra Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Amendment Rules, 1977 are the principal common questions involved in this group of six writ petitions and therefore, all these writ petitions have been heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. To appreciate the contentions raised in these writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the aforesaid provisions, facts of writ petition No. 15 of 1989, which are in narrow compass, may be adverted to firsts. Smt. Fulwantabai w/o. Ishwardas Meshram (for short, the 'worker') in the said writ petition filed an appeal under Section 31(2) of the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966 (for short, the 'Beedi Workers Act, 1966') before the Assistan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jun-20-1995
Reported in : (1997)IIILLJ754Bom
1. This appeal under Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (the Act for short) is directed against the decision of the Employees' State Insurance Court, Bombay in Application ESI No. 84/1984 by which that Court has held that the establishment of the Respondent is not liable to be covered under Section 1(5) of the Act with effect from November 12, 1978 to December 31, 1979 and hence it is not liable to pay the amount of the contribution of Rs. 7,022.64 and the interest thereon as asked by the Appellant authority vide its order dated October 20, 1983. The Appellant proposed to cover the establishment of the Respondent under the Act with effect from November 12, 1978 and for that purpose addressed to the Respondent a communication some time in June 1982. It may be mentioned here that the establishment of the Respondent has been covered under the Act with effect from January 1, 1980 and against that the Respondent has no objection. When the Appellant proposed to cover the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jun-20-1995
Reported in : [1995(71)FLR969]
K.G. Shah, J. 1. This appeal under Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 ('the Act' for short) is directed against the decision of the Employees' State Insurance Court, Bombay in Application ESI No. 84/1984 by which that Court has held that the establishment of the Respondent is not liable to be covered under Section 1(5) of the Act with effect from 12th November 1978 to 31st December 1979 and hence it is not liable to pay the amount of the contribution of Rs. 7,022.64 and the interest thereon as asked by the Appellant authority vide its order dated 20th October 1983. The Appellant proposed to cover the establishment of the Respondent under the Act with effect from 12th November 1978 and for that purpose addressed to the Respondent a communication some time in June 1982. It may be mentioned here that the establishment of the Respondent has been covered under the Act with effect from 1st January 1980 and against that the Respondent has no objection. When the Appellant p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-28-1995
Reported in : [1995]55ITD408(Mum)
ORDERPer M.K. Chaturvedi (JM) - These two appeals by the assessee are directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XIII, Bombay, and pertain to the assessment years 1989-90 and 1990-91. Since the issues involved are identical, for the sake of convenience, these appeals are consolidated and disposed of by a common order.2. Briefly the facts:The assessee-company was incorporated on the 28th day of April, 1948 under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, in the name and style of 'Audit Bureau of Circulation Limited'. The name of the assessee-company was changed to 'Audit Bureau of Circulation' as per approval of the Government vide letter No. Rd.(25)N/4/88/8191 dated 25-11-1988. The assessee was registered as a company under section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956. The objects of the assessee-company as listed in the Memorandum of Association includes, inter alia, the following:(a) To secure accurate circulation figures and data relating to all periodicals and media that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-25-1995
Reported in : 1996(5)BomCR425
T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. Rule. By consent to be heard forthwith.2. An obstructer in Execution Application No. 19/90 filed Civil Misc. Application No. 305/93 before the Civil Judge, S.D., Margao is the petitioner herein. The aforesaid application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the Executing Court by its order dated 11-10-1993. He filed an appeal against that order before the learned Addl. District Judge, South Goa, Margao as Misc. Civil Appeal No. 129/93 which was also dismissed by the Addl. District Judge by judgment dated 30th April, 1994. The petitioner herein challenges this order in this Revision Application.3. The petitioner in brief contends that the respondent No. 1 Sadanand Ladu Borkar (since deceased) filed a suit as Special Civil Suit No. 155/82 against one Luis Vaz and the suit was decreed. Thereupon the aforesaid Sadanand Ladu Borkar filed execution application and the petitioner intervened as third party to obstruct the execution and this is how the im...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-20-1995
Reported in : 1996(5)BomCR564
S.N. Variava, J.1. This Court has been functioning since June 1992. Now so far as two Notified Parties are concerned, viz., the Harshad Mehta Group and Fairgrowth Financial Services Ltd., the time is approaching for distribution of their assets under section 11 of the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 (hereinafter for brevity's referred to as 'the Special Court Act'). For this purpose, the Court has already appointed Auditors who are looking into and preparing accounts including list of assets and liabilities of these parties. In case of Fairgrowth Financial Services Ltd., under directions of Court, the Custodian has also issued a Public Notice calling upon the parties to lodge their claims, if any. The Custodian has also received claims, from some parties.2. In the meantime, the Income Tax Department has filed before this Court a large number of applications, for payment in priority, of tax, interest and penalty. There are approximately...
Tag this Judgment!