Mumbai Court October 1985 Judgments
Shyamsunder Son of Hemraj Mundhada Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-28-1985
Reported in: 1986(2)BomCR218
H.D. Patel, J.1. The petitioner by means of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution has prayed for issuance of writ to quash the order dated 28-1-1985 of the Labour Court, Amravati, by which respondent Nos. 2 to 6 were held entitle to recover the amount or retrenchment compensation for the services rendered by them from the petitioner within two from the date of order.2. The brief facts are that respondent Nos. 2 to 6 filed separate applications under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (herein after referred to as 'the Act' for recovery of compensation from the petitioner on the allegation that the petitioner has closed his establishment and has not paid compensation as laid down under section 25FFF of the Act. The petitioner gas offered them compensation equivalent to three months wages, which they did not accept. Accordingly a direction was claimed to pay each of the respondent workmen the compensation as envisaged by section 25FFF of the Act. T...
Tag this Judgment!Jaykisan Jainarayan Agiwal Vs. Vishnu Narayan Shinde
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-28-1985
Reported in: 1986(2)BomCR160
S.M. Daud, J.1. The short question for determination before me is whether an error on the point of jurisdiction of a Court, which has on an appraisal of the subject before it come to a correct finding, should be reversed by the High Court while exercising its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution?2. The petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of unpaid rent and ejectment against the respondent-defendant. That was Regular Civil Suit No. 100 of 1974 in the Court of the Civil Judge, (Junior Division) at Niphad. In pursuance of a compromise between the parties, the trial Court passed a decree on 13-7-79. Shortly stated, the decree was to the effect that the unpaid rent plus damages and costs etc. all ascertained upto July 1979 was to be paid on or before August 30, 1979. On such deposit being made, the defendant was to continue as a tenant in the suit premises on a rental of Rs. 37.50 ps. per month. If the rent was not paid by the stipulated date, plaintiff was to be entitled...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. Savatex (P.) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-28-1985
Reported in: [1986]17ITD20(Mum)
ORDERPer Shri R. L. Sangani, Judicial Member - This appeal by the department relates to the assessment year 1978-79. The total assessed income of the assessee before deduction under section 80K of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was Rs. 1,94,335. The distributable income came to Rs. 99,677. According to the ITO, the assessee was an investment company and, as such, was under an obligation to distribute 90 per cent of distributable income as dividends. The amount liable to be distributed as dividends, according to him, came to Rs. 89,710. As the assessee to declared any dividend, the ITO issued notice calling upon the assessee to show cause why additional tax should not be levied under section 104 of the Act for non-declaration of dividents. The assessee filed reply dated 2-3-1982 in which reasons for non-declaration of dividends were given. The ITO scrutinised those reasons. The first reasons given was about past losses. The ITO found that past losses had been wiped off in the earlie...
Tag this Judgment!Herdillia Chemicals Limited Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-26-1985
Reported in: (1986)(25)ELT693Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The Revision Application filed before the Government of India against the Order-in-Appeal No. S/49-270/82M dated 16-4-1982 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay, statutorily stood transferred to the Tribunal for being heard as an appeal.2. The appellant's claim for refund of duty on shortages was rejected by the Assistant Collector, MCD, as unsubstantiated for non-production of triplicate Bill of Entry, Customs attested invoice and packing specification, BPT's LRC,Customs Examination Report and declaration. On appeal, the Appellate Collector did not go into the question of shortages. He considered the claim as if it was made in pursuance of Section 13 of the Customs Act. From the documents returned to the appellant along with the order of the Appellate Collector, it appears that the invoice, Bill of Entry, BPT certificate were produced before the Appellate Collector.3. Shri Gokhale appearing for the appellant submitted that the consignment in question is a bulk cargo....
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Century Spinning and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-25-1985
Reported in: (1986)(25)ELT829Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The Deputy Collector of Central Excise, Bombay I has filed the present appeal against the Order No. M-1488/BI-477/84 dated 17-7-1984 of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay under which the Collector (Appeals) has held that no interest was payable under Rule 49A on yarn which was used for manufacture of fabrics which were subsequently re-exported without payment of Central Excise duty under Rule 13 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Collector of Central Excise, Bombay I has given the necessary authorisation to the Deputy Collector to file the present appeal. Before the learned Senior Departmental Representative started the submissions on behalf of the 'appellant Collector, I asked him as to whether this matter was within the purview of the Appellate Tribunal or whether the jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal was barred under Section 356(1) proviso of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 and as a consequence of which the application lay to the Central Governmen...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Garware Paints Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-25-1985
Reported in: (1986)(8)LC679Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-II, has authorised the Deputy Collector to file the present appeal against the Order No.C-859/BII-192/83 dated 19.4.83 of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, under which the Collector (Appeals) gave the benefit of Rule 56-A concession to the extent of Rs. 2922.69 to M/s. Garware Paints Ltd. Since the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-II, received the order of the Collector (Appeals) on 21.4.83 and the appeal on his behalf was filed in the Registry on 30.7.83, there was a delay of 9 days which required condonation before the appeal could be taken up on merits. Accordingly, the Departmental Representative was asked to state what reasons the appellant had in favour of the request for condonation of the appeal, which request was contained in the Deputy Collector's letter addressed to the Registry. The Departmental Representative was also informed as to why no application in proper form was filed for condoning the delay. The Depar...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Abhay L. Khatau
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-25-1985
Reported in: (1986)88BOMLR146; (1986)51CTR(Bom)36; [1986]162ITR648(Bom); [1986]24TAXMAN217(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. We are concerned in these references under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with the assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67. The assessee, an individual, had transferred certain shares to his wife. In his assessment order, the Income-tax Officer brought to tax the sums of Rs. 11,700 for the assessment year 1965-66 and Rs. 16,003 for the assessment year 1966-67, received as dividend on these shares, applying section 64(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Income-tax Officer observed that the assessee was entitled to rebate under section 85 of the said Act upon, inter alia, the said dividends, and assessed the assessee's income accordingly.2. The Commissioner of Income-tax issued to the assessee a notice to show cause why the Income-tax Officer should not be directed to withdraw the rebate under section 85 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the basis that could not be considered to be dividends in his hands. After hearing the assessee, the Commissioner of Income-tax...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-25-1985
Reported in: (1986)52CTR(Bom)387; [1986]162ITR662(Bom)
Kania, Actg.C.J.1. These are two references under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and they relate to the assessment years 1963-64 and 1964-65. The questions referred to us for determination in these references are as follows :'(1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether the assessee was entitled to depreciation on the interest and the foreign tour expenses capitalised in earlier years as reduced by the depreciation directed by the Tribunal to be allowed for those years ?(2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether the assessee was entitled to development rebate on the following items :(i) capitalized interest and foreign tour expenses,(ii) cost of telephone lines, and(iii) cost of power transformers ?(3) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether the assessee was entitled to relief under section 90 and/or 91 on the gross amount of foreign dividends ?'2. As far as question No.(1) is concerned, it is agreed between counsel ...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Babu Ghadigaokar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-25-1985
Reported in: [1986(52)FLR55]; (1986)ILLJ329Bom; 1986MhLJ55
1. A simple but substantial question of law that arises in these Writ Petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, is under what circumstances the appropriate Government may refuse to make a reference under S. 12(2) of the Industrial Disputes act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The facts common to all the Writ Petitions, as relevant for the purpose of disposal of these writ petitions, are not in dispute. The petitioners, in all the four writ petitions, were alleged to have committed certain misconduct. They were suspended, charge-sheeted and then proceeded against in what is popularly known as domestic enquiry and thereafter dismissed by their employer M/s. Asian Paints (India) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Respondent No. 3'). On receipt of dismissal order the Petitioners raised industrial disputes and demanded that they be reinstated with back-wages and continuity of service. The Conciliation Officer made efforts to bring about settlement but failed and c...
Tag this Judgment!B.S. Choube Vs. Nagpur Univiersity, Nagpur and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-25-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Bom223; 1986(2)BomCR254; 1986MhLJ804
V.A. Mohta, J.1. Yesterday, this matter was placed before us for admission and stay. Shri Sanyal voluntarily took notice for the respondents. We had thus the advantage of hearing both the sides at the stage of admission. After hearing the matter for quite some time, we indicated our inclination to stay of the Election to the membership of the Executive Council of Nagpur University scheduled for tomorrow. Both the parties submitted that as the facts are undisputed and a pure question of law is almost wholly argued, it would be better that the matter itself is finally decided. Accepting that joint request, we have made the rule returnable forthwith consideration is true import of S. 23(1)(viii) of the Nagpur University Act, 1974 ('the Act').2. Dr. B. S. Choube the petitioner was, in the year 1982, a Professor of Medicine in the Government Medical College and Hospital, Nagpur, which is affiliated to the Nagpur University. He was then duly elected as a member of the Senate of the Universit...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »