Mumbai Court January 1984 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Shrinivas Krishna Surve Vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-1984
Reported in: 1985(1)BomCR337
S.P. Bharuch, J.1. Does the Labour Court have appellate powers under section 78 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 This is the question to be answered in this writ petition.2. The petitioner was employed as an Assistant Fitter in the Bombay Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking of the first respondent. On 6th June, 1974 he was served with a charge-sheet which alleged theft. An enquiry was held pursuant to which the petitioner was served with an order of dismissal dated 23rd August, 1974. The petitioner approached the Labour Court under the said Act. On 30th March, 1977 the Labour Court, after reappraisal of the evidence led in the enquiry proceedings, set aside the order of dismissal. The first respondent thereafter led evidence before the Labour Court. Upon consideration of this evidence the Labour Court held that the charge was not proved and directed the first respondent to reinstate the petitioner. 3. The first respondent appealed to the Industrial Court. On 11th Octo...
Fifth Wealth-tax Officer Vs. Madhav L. Apte, Trustees of V. S. Apte.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-1984
Reported in: [1984]8ITD806(Mum)
ORDERPer Shri K. S. Viswanathan, Accountant Member - We find it convenient to dispose of this batch of 14 appeals together. Both the assessee and the department have come on appeal against the consolidated order of the AAC in respect of the assessments for the years 1961-62 to 1967-68.2. The assessments have been made in respect of the assets of a trust. The settlor of the trust was the late V. S. Apte. He made a declaration on trust on 15-5-1945 settling certain land and building in trust for the benefit of his grandsons Madhav and Arvind for their life. The settlor himself was a trustee. He reserved for himself absolute discretion of the amount payable to the beneficiaries. Nothing was stated in the trust deed as to know the corpus of the trust was to be divided later. Madhav and Arvind, the grandsons, were only entitled to the income. In 1949, a declaration was made that the beneficiaries would be entitled to equal shares in the income. In this declaration also, nothing was stated a...
First Income-tax Officer Vs. Daxa A. Patel (P.) Rel. Trust.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-05-1984
Reported in: [1986]17ITD263(Mum)
ORDER1. This appeal has been filed by the department against the order dated 24-5-1983 of the AAC relating to the assessment year 1980-81, the previous year which ended on 31-3-1980.2. The assessee is a trust assessed through its trustees in the status of an AOP. The income of the assessee is assessable under section 164(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and that is why the status has been taken by the ITO as an AOP.3. The assessee claimed before the ITO that it should be allowed relief under section 80L of the Act because it came under section 80L (1) (c). The ITO did not allow the relief on the ground that the AOP stated under section 80L (1) (c) refers only to an AOP of Dadra, Nagar Haveli, Goa, Daman and Diu only. As the assessee apparently did not belong to those territories, the ITO declined to give relief under section 80L to the assessee.4. The assessee appealed to the AAC and contended that its status should have been individual because the word individual is wide enoug...
Colour Chem Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-03-1984
Reported in: (1984)(18)ELT109Tri(Mum.)bai
1.These appeals arise out of the Orders No. S/49-121/80 DBK dated 24-7-1980 and No. S/49-158/80 DBK dated 25-9-1980 passed by the Appellate Collector by which he rejected the appellants claim for drawback. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants preferred a revision application before the Central Government which stood statutorily transferred to the Tribunal for being heard as an appeal. When the matter came up before this Bench on 12-9-1983 it was noticed that the appellants ought to have preferred two revision applications as there were two orders passed against them. The appellants were therefore given an option to file one more appeal before the Tribunal after fulfilling the formalities including an application for condonation of delay. Accordingly, the appellants preferred another appeal No. 1318 of 1984. It was admitted.2. As common questions of facts and law are involved in both the appeals, they were taken up for consideration together and hence this common order.3. The appellants c...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›