Mumbai Court September 1981 Judgments
Balwantrai Maganlal Mehta Vs. M.C. Satyawadi and Two Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1981
Reported in: 1982(10)ELT168(Bom)
1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the legality of the order passed by the Under Secretary to the Government of India declining to interfere with the order of the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports forfeiting the bond executed by the petitioner. The under Secretary conveyed the decision to the petitioner by letter dated December 22, 1997.2. The facts which have given rise to this petition are as follows :On November 20, 1972, the general trade arrangement was arrived at between the Government of India and the Government of Afghanistan, under which imports of certain goods from Afghanistan were contemplated against exports of specified goods from India. In pursuance of this arrangement, the Central Government issued a Public Notice No. 93/72 on June 30, 1972. By the said Notice the Government laid down the policy regarding the imports from Afghanistan against corresponding exports from India to that country,...
Tag this Judgment!A. Raman and Another Vs. K.N. Vani and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1981
Reported in: (1982)IILLJ1Bom
1. By this petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner union is challenging the legality of the Award dated November 9, 1977 passed by the Industrial Tribunal in a reference made by the Government of Maharashtra, under S. 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The dispute referred for adjudications was between the respondent mills and five other associations and companies and their workers who were not allowed to resume duty. Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 are Private Limited Companies and form group with common directors and shareholders. The factories of this group of companies are situated at Saki Vihar Road, Powai, Bombay. The head offices of the companies are in Thakarsi House, Ballard Estate, Bombay. The companies have employed 700 workers in the factory, while the staff, both at Powai and the Head Offices consisted of about 170 workers. The dispute, which was referred for adjudication, was in respect of 57 employees...
Tag this Judgment!Apar Private Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-1981
Reported in: 1989(24)LC749(Bombay); 1982(10)ELT364(Bom)
1. The petitioner is a Private Limited Company and is carrying on business of manufacturing of aluminium rods, aluminium wires, aluminium conductors etc. The factory of petitioner No. 1 consists of two Divisions : (1) manufacturing aluminium rods which are excisable goods falling under Tariff Item No. 27 and (2) manufacturing aluminium cables excisable under Tariff Item No. 33B.2. The petitioners addressed a letter dated November 24, 1971 to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise claiming advantage of proforma credit of the duty paid paid under Rule 56-A of the Central Excise Rules. The petitioners claimed that the scrap obtained from the processing of aluminium rods into conductors of cables will be re-used in the manufacture of aluminium rods and as duty has already been paid under Item No. 27-A(2), the advantage of Rule 56-A is available.3. The Assistant Collector, by his order dated November 13, 1972 turned down the claim of the petitioners and that order was confirmed in appeal...
Tag this Judgment!Ramasamuz Narsing Upadhyaya Vs. Vinubhai M. Mitra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-1981
Reported in: [1982(44)FLR406]; (1982)IILLJ186Bom
1. By this petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the legality of the order dated September 27, 1977 passed by the Presiding Officer, 4th Labour Court, Bombay whereby the application filed by the workmen under S. 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') was dismissed.2. The petitioner was in the employment of respondent No. 1 mills between January, 1945 and April, 1975 and was drawing daily wages at the rate of Rs. 18. The petitioner tendered resignation in the month of April, 1975 under Voluntary Retirement Scheme. On retirement, the Company paid the petitioner an amount of Rs. 3,260 towards the retrenchment compensation. The petitioner claims that he was entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 8,100 and to recover the balance amount, the petitioner filed the application under S. 33-C(2) of the Act before the Labour Court. The petitioner claimed that he is entitled to retrenchment compensation as per...
Tag this Judgment!Khandesh Roller Flour Mills, Through Its Partner Mrs. Sheela W/O Kanti ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-1981
Reported in: 1982(2)BomCR299
R.S. Bhonsale, J.1. This petition filed by petitioners Khandesh Roller Flour Mills under Article 226 of the Constitution of India pray for a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of an order against the respondent No. 2 who is the Deputy Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies Department of the State of Maharashtra and is also the Licensing Authority under the Wheat Roller Flour Mills (Licensing and Control) Order, 1957 to grant a milling license as per the application made by the petitioners on September 16, 1980 in favour of the petitioners as expeditiously as possible.2. This petition raises an important question as to whether an authority which is vested with the discretion to exercise certain powers should act under the direction of any other authority, in this case the Government of India, for disposing of the application for granting a milling license under the said order.3. In order to appreciate the contentions raised by Shri V.R. Manohar, the...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Maharashtra Vs. Chandrakant Krishna Bankar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-1981
Reported in: (1982)84BOMLR26
V. Masodkar, J.1. Paras 1 to 32 xxx. 33. Turning to the question of sentence and the reference, we have already made a reference in the beginning to the statement at Ex. 3B filed in this Court by the accused. In the light of the evidence, we have already excluded the turn possibility of any scuffle or there being any immediate provocation for use of the 1930 gun. The statement merely shows what a is the age of the accused and who are the persons dependent on him. That does not necessarily throw light on the state with which we are concerned and which alone has to be kept in view for the in purpose of imposing adequate legal punishment.34. The ultimate question in all such matters is what punishment would, be. legally just and fair To impose adequate the punishment according to law, is not only cats the duty of the Court, but it is the social obligation clearly enjoined upon it. A far-reaching question is always asked in such matters, as to whether a giver, punishment deters Juridical q...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Balapur Sugar and Allied Industries Ltd ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-1981
Reported in: (1982)26CTR(Bom)271; [1983]141ITR404(Bom)
S.K. Desai, J.1. This is a reference at the instance of the Commr. by the IT Appellate Tribunal, Bombay Bench 'D'. The reference is u/s 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961.2. The following two questions stand referred to us :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the assessee to raise the additional grounds of appeal which were not raised by the assessee earlier for the asst. yrs. 1962-63 to 1964-65 ? (2) If the answer to the above is in the affirmative, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the notices u/s 148 and u/s 163 for the asst. yrs. 1962-63 to 1964-65 were void in law ?'3. A few facts may be stated. The assessee is a limited company and for the asst. yrs. 1962-63 to 1964-65 it has been treated as the agent of the non-resident M/s. C.A.I.L. of France. The assessee entered into an agreement dt. 24-8-1956 with a non-resident French company known as M/s. Societe Francais...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Poona Vs. Khosla Plastics Pvt. Ltd
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-1981
Reported in: (1982)27CTR(Bom)202; [1982]138ITR455(Bom)
Rege, J.1. This is a reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Poona Bench, Poona, under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Poona, referring to us the following questions for our opinion :Assessment years 1966-67 and 1967-68 : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and having regard to the nature of the electrical accessories manufactured by the assessee-company, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee-company was entitled to the deduction under section 80E of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1966-67 and 1967-68 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the nature of the electrical accessories manufactured by the assessee-company, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee-company was entitled to higher rate of development rebate prescribed under section 33(1)(iii)(c)(A)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Pune Vs. Abdul Hamid Shah Mohamed
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-1981
Reported in: (1982)27CTR(Bom)201; [1983]141ITR413(Bom); [1982]10TAXMAN312(Bom)
1. The question referred to us, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, by the Appellate Tribunal, Bombay Bench C, is as follows : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee had failed to furnish the return of his total income with in the time allowed by sub-section (1) of section 139 of the I.T. Act, 1961 ?" 2. In this case the return was due according to the ITO by August 30, 1962, but was field on November 27, 1964. No explanation was given by the assessee on what account the delay has occurred. However, the plea of the assessee was that he had voluntarily filed the return under s. 139(4) and hence he had not committed any default under s. 271(1)(a). The ITO declined to accept this plea and levied penalty of Rs. 11,326 at 50 per cent. of the amount of tax. 3. Before the AAC an additional contention was raised by the assessee, namely, that he had been charged interest in terms of prov. (iii) to s. 139(1) but no penalty is leviable. This conte...
Tag this Judgment!Udhavdas Kewalram Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-1981
Reported in: [1982]8TAXMAN185(Bom)
Rege, J.1. This reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is made at the instance of the Supreme Court under their judgment dated April 14, 1967, in Civil Appeal No. 668 of 1966 ( : [1967]66ITR462(SC) ), referring the following questions for our opinion:' (1) Whether there was evidence before the Tribunal to hold that the credit of Rs. 55,293 in the account of the wife of the assessee did not represent the sale proceeds of her gold ornaments ?(2) If the answer to question No. (1) is in the affirmative, whether the sum of Rs. 55,293 could be held as the 'undisclosed income' of the assessee himself ?'2. Since the assessee died during the proceedings, his widow, Ishwaribai, has been brought on record with the permission of the court.3. The assessee migrated to India from Pakistan in 1947 and was doing money-leaning business. The assessee's first wife died on February 19, 1950. Thereafter on July 26, 1950, he married his second wife, Ishwaribai, who has now been brought on record, on ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »