Mumbai Court September 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.
The Maharashtra Girni Kamgar Union Vs. Carona Sahu Co. Pvt. Ltd. and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1984
Reported in: (1994)IIILLJ20Bom
Pendse, J.1. The respondent No. 1 Company is carrying on business at its factory premises situated at Caves Road, Jogeshuari. Bombay, and had employed about 2,800 employees. On April 15, 1981, the petitioner Union informed the Company that they are representing the majority workmen and should be recognised as representative Union and negotiations should be held by the employer only with the petitioner Union.2. The Company chargesheeted two of its employees (1) Mansingh M. Bhonsle, and (2) Shaikh Nassirruddin on the ground that they had along with the other workmen surrounded Acting Foreman of Stitching Department on May 26, 1981 and threatened him with violence. Shri Ghosh, the Production Manager, came on the spot but he was also surrounded and questioned in a harsh and rude manner and threats of violence were given. The petitioner Union claims that the two workmen were active members of the Union. On June 3, 1981, the petitioner Union served notice of strike intimating that the worker...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bharat Lines Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1984
Reported in: (1985)47CTR(Bom)344; [1986]159ITR541(Bom); [1988]29TAXMAN76(Bom)
Deasi, J.1. This is a reference made by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee is a shipping company. The year of assessment is 1968-69, for which the previous year ended on December 31, 1967.2. The question referred to us reads as under :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to the deduction of - (a) Rs. 1,44,000 as devaluation loss on account of the sale of the ship s. s. 'Bharat Bhushan', (b) Rs. 80,640 and Rs. 20,513 paid on account of brokerage in connection with the sale of the ships s. s. 'Bharat Bhushan' and s. s. 'Bharat Kesari' respectively, and (c) Rs. 7,759 on account of travelling expenses for arranging delivery of the ship s. s. 'Bharat Bhushan' in the computation of profits under section 41(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1968-69 ?'3. The assessee is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It owned two ships, namely, s. s. 'Bharat ...
inspecting Assistant Vs. B.i.C.C. Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1984
Reported in: (1985)11ITD364(Mum.)
1. The revenue and the assessee have filed these cross-appeals against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 21-2-1983 in the assessee's appeal for the assessment year 1979-80. In the assessment proceedings before the IAC, the assessee had disclosed income from house property for a period of seven months only up to 31-7-1978. The IAC, however, found that the property was sold and the registration deed of the property was dated 21-12-1978. According to him, the title of the property passed on 21-12-1978 on registration. Therefore, the income from house property had to be included up to 21-12-1978. He accordingly, proceeded to determine the assessee's income from house property up to 21-12-1978.2. The assessee appealed before the Commissioner (Appeals) on one of the grounds being that the income from house property had been computed up to 21-12-1978 on the basis of the registration of the conveyance, though the conveyance for the sale of the property had been executed on 4-8-197...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-iv, Bombay Vs. Hindustan Polym ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1984
Reported in: (1985)45CTR(Bom)165; [1985]156ITR860(Bom)
Desai J.1. The two questions referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the Commissioner are as follows :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to development rebate and depreciation on the amount of Rs. 36,669 being part of the average expenses allocated to the distillery plant ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in holding that the relief under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with rule 19A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, should be worked out by aggregating the values of all the assets as on the first day of the computation period irrespective of the fact whether those assets were used during the accounting period or not ?'2. As far as question No. (2) is concerned, counsel for the Department has very fairly stated that the answer to be given to the said question is concluded, as far as this court...
Anita M. Harretto Vs. Abdul Wahid Sanaullah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Bom98; 1985(1)BomCR130; (1983)86BOMLR485; 1984MhLJ931
ORDER1. The petitioner has challenged decree of eviction passed against him in proceedings arising under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Bombay Rent Act'). Regular Civil Suit No. 289 of 1978 was filed by the respondent in this petition against the petitioner in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, at Ulhasnagar on the ground that the petitioner was in arrears of rent which had not been paid despite the notice issued underS. 12(2) of the Bombay Rent Act. The claim for possession was also included in the suit. Thus the suit was one for recovery of rent with a claim for possession of the premises tenanted by the petitioner.2. In that suit, on behalf of the respondent-landlord an application was made on 4th August 1979 under S. 11(4) of the Bombay Rent Act requesting the Court for a direction that the petitioner should pay all the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.50/- per month forthwith 'failing which his defence may ...
Blossom Compania Naviera S.A. and Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-1984
Reported in: (1985)LC379Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appeal 219/80 arises out of the Order-in-Appeal bearing Nos.377A-378A of 1979, dated 19-12-1978, passed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, by which the Board confirmed the Order-in-Original bearing No. S/14-4-38/78 Pint., dated 24-5-1978 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs (Preventive), Bombay, by which he imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 20,000/- on Shri Fikaris Loannis, the Master of the Vessel M.V. Aegic Stoic and ordered confiscation of the vessel M.V. Aegic Stoic but allowed redemption on payment of a fine of Rs. 1,50,000/-, of which M/s. Blossom Compania Naviera, S.A. were the owners.2. The Appeal 249/80 arises out of the Order-in-Appeal No. 238-A of 1979, dated 28-9-1979 passed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, by which it confirmed the Order-in-original bearing No.S/14-5-5/78 Pint., dated 29-7-1979 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs (Preventive), Bombay, by which he imposed a personal penalty of Rs, 20,000/- on the appellant Shri...
B.K. Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-1984
Reported in: 1984(3)ECC292; 1984(18)ELT701(Bom)
Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. The petitioners manufacture various types of paper at their factory at Vadavali, Kalyan. The petitioners are a small unit with an annual licensed capacity for the manufacture of 1500 m. tonnes of paper, The paper manufactured by the petitioners is liable to excise duty under Tariff Item 17 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 at the rate specified therein.2. Under Notification No. 45/73 dated 1st of March 1973 an exemption from excise duty to the extent specified in the Notification was granted in respect of paper of the types described therein cleared by any manufacturer during any financial year up to the prescribed quantity. The exemption was not applicable to those manufacturing units which had a bamboo pulp making plant attached to the mill.3. Thereafter under Notification No. 128 of 1977 dated 18th June, 1977 the earlier Notification of 1973 was superseded. Under the Notification No. 128 of 1977 certain types of papers was exempt...
Second Wealth-tax Officer Vs. Vijay and Raj Family Trust.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-1984
Reported in: [1986]17ITD965(Mum)
ORDERPer Shri R. L. Sangani, Judicial Member - These two appeals and a cross-objection arise out of the proceedings for the assessment of wealth-tax for the assessment year 1979-80. Out of these two appeals, the first one has been filed by the department while the other has been filed by the assessee. The cross-objection filed by the assessee pertains to the appeal filed by the department.2. The assessee is a private trust represented by the trustees. The trust has been created by the trust deed dated 24-2-1969. According to the trust deed, the income of the trust was to be spent or applied for the benefit of Ajit up to the end of the calendar year 1978. After 1-1-1979 the same had to be spent or applied for the benefit of Mrs. Tara during her lifetime. From and after death of Mrs. Tara, the trust was to be determined and the trust funds were to be distributed to the persons mentioned in clause 3C of the trust deed.3. The property of the trust consisted of the shares of Parle Products ...
A-z (industrial) Premises Vs. Competent Authority, Iac
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-1984
Reported in: (1985)12ITD451(Mum.)
1. These two appeals are filed by A-Z (Industrial) Premises Co-operative Society Ltd. and by Shri N.M. Virwani, against the order of acquisition passed by the competent authority under Section 269F(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), dated 24-2-1984 acquiring property consisting of leasehold land measuring 17,199 sq. yards along with structures constructed thereon bearing C.S. No. 1/265, 267, 439, 440, 2/267 and 3/267 of Lower Parel Division,, Bombay.2. The facts relating to these appeals are that by an indenture of lease dated 21-5-1966, Amrut Banaspati Com. Ltd., a company limited under the Companies Act, 1956, leased to Virwani Construction Co., a proprietary concern of Shri N.M. Virwani ('the lessee'), a piece and parcel of vacant land measuring in the aggregate 17,199 sq. yards equivalent to 14,380 sq. metres situated at Fergusson Road, Parel, Bombay, for a period of 98 years from 21-5-1966 subject to payment of a monthly rental of Rs. 35,258. In pursuance of this lease a...
Pradeepkumar Vanravandas Gosalia Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-1984
Reported in: 1985(2)BomCR58
Qazi, J.1. The Petitioner is the brother-in-law of the detenu Haresh Champaklal Harde, hereinafter referred to as 'the detenu'. By this petitioner, the detenu has challenged the order dt. February 20, 1984, passed by the respondent 1 with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods, under sub-section (1) of S. 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The order was served on the same day and the grounds of detention were also simultaneously formulated and supplied on the same day. The report under S. 3(2) was sent to the Central Government of February 24, 1984. The respondent No. 1 referred the case to the Advisory Board on March 23, 1984. The detenu made representation on April 16, 1984, which came to be rejected on April 26, 1984. The impugned order was confirmed on April 27, 1984 and the same was communicated on April 30, 1984. The incident which gave rise to the impugned order is dt. 20th December, 1983 when the Customs Officers o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »