Mumbai Court July 1979 Judgments
Gateway Auto Services, Bombay Vs. Regional Director, E.S.i.C. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1979
Reported in: [1981(42)FLR116]; (1980)IILLJ255Bom; 1980MhLJ339
1. In this first appeal an interesting question of law has been raised by the appellant. 2. M/s. Gateway Auto Services is a firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act having its office at Apollo Pier Road, Bombay-1. The said firm is hereinafter referred to as the appellant. The appellant supplies petroleum products such as fuel and lubricants to its customers and undertakes lubrication service of motor vehicles. The establishment was purchased by the appellant with effect from June 15, 1968 from its then owners M/s. Bombay Garage Private Limited, Chowpaty, Bombay. It is also no more in dispute that the appellant-establishment is also registered under the provisions of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948. 3. The officer of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation visited the establishment of the appellant and found that the total number of employees working under the direct control and supervision of the appellant exceeds 20. According to the officer of the Corporation...
Tag this Judgment!Arunkumar Surajmal JaIn Vs. Chandanbai Rupchandsa JaIn and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1979
Reported in: 1980CriLJ601
ORDERWaikar, J.1. This Criminal Revision Application filed by the original opponent (husband) is directed against an order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Malkapur, allowing the application of the present non-applicant No. 1 (wife) filed under Section 125 Cr. P. C. 1973 (called hereinafter as the Code) and granting her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month.2. Opponent No. 1 (wife) filed the said application under Section 125 of the Code claiming herself to be the legally wedded wife of the present applicant. She alleged that she was married sometime in the month of April 1971, but within a fortnight thereafter her husband started ill-treating her and she was brought back by her brother to Malkapur. It was alleged that her husband started ill-treating her as an Ambassador car promised by her parents during marriage was not given to her husband. After she was reached back after one year in the month of Aug. 1972, her husband refused to accept her. It was also sub...
Tag this Judgment!Dwarkadas and Co. (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1979
Reported in: (1982)1ITD303(Mum.)
1. This appeal by the assessee relating to its assessment for the assessment year 1975-76 involves, amongst others, the question of the Commissioner's jurisdiction to revise the order of assessment passed by the ITO which has been the subject-matter of appeal. It is pertinent that, in the appeal memo originally filed on 13-10-1977, the ground questioning the Commissioner's jurisdiction under Section 263 was not taken. It was raised as an additional ground only by means of an application filed on 19-2-1979.2.1 Shri Harish, the learned counsel for the assessee, submitted that the adjudication of the additional ground did not involve investigation of facts and that it was a pure question of law and should, therefore, be admitted in view of the Bombay High Court decision in the case of CIT v. Gilbert Barker Mfg. Co. [1978] 111 ITR 529. In particular, he stated, this ground was raised, considered by the Commissioner and, therefore, arises out of his order.2.2 Shri Shastri, the senior depar...
Tag this Judgment!Mansukhlal Raichand Shah Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-1979
Reported in: 1989(22)LC570(Bombay); 1989(42)ELT378(Bom)
1. The petitioner is a person of Indian origin and prior to January 1973, he was a permanent resident of Kenya. The petitioner was working as a partner in the firm of M/s. Raichand Khimji & Company of Kenya from October 24, 1968. The firm, which was duly registered under the laws governing partnership in Kenya purchased a Mercedez Benz Car on July 23, 1970, for a price of 30,000/- shillings. The car was purchased in the name of the firm and was used till December 1970, by all the partners of the firm. It is the claim of the petitioner that he was exclusively using the car from January 1971 onwards. The petitioner claims that by an agreement dated 25th December 1971, the petitioner retired from the partnership concern and his retirement was to be effective from December 31, 1971. The petitioner claims that under this agreement the car was allotted to the share of the petitioner. The petitioner further claims that in fact he used the car from January 1972 onwards and paid the repair bill...
Tag this Judgment!Transmissions P. Ltd. and anr. Vs. C.V. Bapat and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-1979
Reported in: AIR1981Bom83; (1980)ILLJ476Bom
1. The Petitioner No. 1 is a private limited company registered under the Companies Act and the factory is situated at L. B. Shastri Marg, Bhandup, Bombay 400 078. The Petitioner No. 2, is a shareholder and Managing Director of the petitioner No. 1 Company. The Company had employed about 215 workmen including supervisory staff in the said factory. The petitioners manufacture cutting tools and supply to the ordnance factories and other private industries, but the supply is mainly to the defence establishments. The petitioner Company was doing fairly well at all the material time. Accuracy is of prime essence in manufacturing of tools and that demands total concentration and discipline in the process of manufacturing of tools. Prior to 5th August, 1977, the petitioners were engaged in the manufacture of chains only, and on that day another company known as M/s. Repetition Parts Pvt. Ltd., engaged in the manufacture of special cutting tools was amalgamated with the petitioner company. The...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Tulsidas Kailachand and ors. Vs. Collector of Bombay and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1979
Reported in: (1980)IILLJ81Bom
1. This petition raises an interesting question as to whether the Directors of a Public Limited Company are principal employers within the meaning of S. 2(17) of the Employees ' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). 2. The facts which have given rise to this petition are not in dispute and are briefly as follows : The petitioners were Directors of Digvijay Spinning and Weaving Company Ltd., a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1913 (hereinafter referred to as the 'company'). The petitioners ceased to be directors from July 9, 1969 onwards. The company owned a textile mill and as required by the Act, the company was required to contribute an amount of Rs. 3,95,112.53 towards the employees' contribution for the quarter ending June 30, 1968 and September 30, 1968. The company was also required to make contribution towards employer's contribution of an amount of Rs. 3,33,403 for the quarter ending December 31, 1968 to March 31, 1970. The responde...
Tag this Judgment!State of Maharashtra Vs. Sewaram Aaildas Aamesar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1979
Reported in: 1979CriLJ1463
Pratap, J.1 This appeal by the State is directed against the order of acquittal dated 11th March 1977 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thane, in Criminal Case No. 192 of 1973 which was instituted against the accused under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the article of food being ice candy, sample whereof had been taken on 7th August 1972.2. After obtaining the sample of ice candy on 7th August, 1972, the Food Inspector completed the usual formalities connected therewith and after receipt of Public Analyst's report dated 30th Sept. 1972, the present prosecution was instituted against the accused on the charge that the article in question was adulterated within the meaning of the Act. Defence was one of denial. The learned trial Magistrate acquitted the accused on two grounds viz., (1) that the sanction to prosecute was not legal and valid and (2) that there was non-compliance of Rule 20 of the Rules under the Act which rule in the view of the l...
Tag this Judgment!S.S. Muley Vs. J.R.D. Tata and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-1979
Reported in: (1980)IILLJ1Bom
ORDER1. By this petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the validity of the order dated the 3rd September 1957, terminating his services under Regulation 48(a) of the Air-India Employees' Service Regulations. The relevant facts leading to the petition are as follows : 2. The petitioner joined the service of the 4th respondent-Air India Corporation as an Assistant Superintendent (Stores) in 1954. He was promoted as Deputy Superintendent (Purchase) in 1960. In 1964, he was given a further promotion as a Senior Deputy Superintendent (Purchase), and the last promotion he earned was in the year 1968 when he was posted as Purchase Manager. During this period, the petitioner also earned as cash award of Rs. 500 and was often associated with important decisions of technical nature. 3. One the 30th December, 1974, respondent No. 3 the Controller of Stores and Purchases, wrote a letter to the petitioner stating that further to the discussion he had with the petitioner, he was happy to inform ...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Vijaysinh Virchand Vs. S.K. Bhardwaj, Asstt. Collector of Central ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-1979
Reported in: 1980CENCUS422D
M.L. Pendse, J.1. The question which falls for determination in this petition is whether the articles 'Heat Sealing Tape' manufactured by the petitioner is liable to excise duty under item No. 15-A (2) and under item No. 59 of the Central Excise Act. Few facts which have given rise to the present petition are as follows:The petitioner carries on business in the name and style of M/s. Deepak and Company, and the factory situates at Plot No. No/20, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane. The factory is in the category of small scale industry i.e. a unit with capital investment of nor more than Rs. 7.5 lakhs and is so registered with the Director of Industries, Government of Maharashtra. The petitioner manufactures 'Heat Sealing Tape' and the said tape is excluded from flexible polyvinyl cloride (PVC) i.e. plastic. The tape is mainly used for the purpose of insulation from heat and electricity. In or about the year 1970, there was a dispute between the petitioner and Excise Department as to wheth...
Tag this Judgment!Vijaysinh Virchand Vs. S.K. Bhardwaj, Assistant Collector of Central E ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-1979
Reported in: 1989(22)LC477(Bombay)
M.L. Pendse, J.1. The question which falls for determination in this petition is whether the articles 'Heat Sealing Tape' manufactured by the petitioner is liable to excise duty under item No. 15-A(2) and under item No. 59 of the Central Excise Act. Few facts which have given rise to the present petition are as follows:The petitioner carries on business in the name and style of M/s. Deepak and Company, and the factory is situated at Plot No. No/20, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane. The factory is in the category of small scale industry i.e. a unit with capital investment of not more than Rs. 7.5 lakhs and is so registered with the Director of Industries, Government of Maharashtra. The petitioner manufactures 'Heat Sealing Tape' and the said tape is extruded from flexible poly vinyl chloride (PVC) i.e. plastic. The tape is mainly used for the purpose of insulation from heat and electricity. In or about the year 1970, there was a dispute between the petitioner and Excise Department as to w...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »