Mumbai Court November 1985 Judgments
Jetha Drum Containers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. S.R. Chanawala and ors. and Sultan ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-1985
Reported in: 1986(2)BomCR139
S.M. Daud, J.1. These petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution take exception to orders of the Labour Court at Bombay granting retrenchment compensation and other benefits to the erstwhile employees of the petitioner.2. The petitioner was in the business of manufacturing drums and containers, and, the respondents were working in the clerical section of its establishment. On November 27, 1981, petitioner gave notice of an intended closure of the establishment, pleading that a prolonged strike and continued interruption of work had disabled the Company to such an extent, that it could no longer continue to function. A trade union to which some of the workers of the petitioner were affiliated, moved a complaint bearing No. (UPL) No. 745 of 1981, and, obtained an interim injunction restraining petitioner from giving effect to the notice aforementioned. On 12th and 13th of January, 1982, respondents addressed what are prima facie letters of resignation. A sample of one such letter gi...
Tag this Judgment!Nag. Vidarbha Chamber of Commerce and anr. and Vs. Administrator and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-1985
Reported in: 1986(2)BomCR398
V.A. Mohta, J.1. In these two petitions validity and legality of Octroi Rules made under section 114(1)(e) read with section 115 of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948 (II of 1950) ('The Act') is challenged. These Rules as sanctioned under the Maharashtra Government Gazette Notification No. NMC-5361-29573-C dated 16th May, 1966 were amended by the Maharashtra Government Gazette Notification No. NMC-2483-363-C-R-50-84-UD-23 dated 26th September, 1984. Undisputed position is that maximum amounts of rates referred to in section 114(3) of the Act have not been specified by any Rules and that 1984 Rules were proposed to the Government under section 115(1) of the Act by the Administrator appointed under section 22-A of the Act and not by the elected body. 2. Following two-fold submissions are made by Shri Bobde, the learned Counsel for the petitioner Nagpur Vidarbha Chamber of Commerce and adopted by Shri Badiye, the learned Counsel for the petitioners in the other petition :(i) Fixatio...
Tag this Judgment!B.D. Dakhane and ors. Vs. Corporation of City of Nagpur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-1985
Reported in: 1986(2)BomCR92
V.A. Mohta, J.1. In these six petitions the only point is---whether Explanations I and II to Rule 10 introduced under the Assessment, Collection and Refund of the Cess (Octroi duty) etc. (Amendment) Rules, 1984, are the ultra vires of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948, ('the Corporation Act'). The petitioners are importers of foreign liquor in the City of Nagpur for sale, consumption or use therein. They are holders of a bond licence under the provisions of the Maharashtra Foreign Liquor (Storage in Bond) Rules, 1964, ('the Bond Rules') framed under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 ('the Prohibition Act'). By that licence they are authorised to import the liquor and to store it in the authorised bond warehouses situated within the City without payment of the excise duty. The petitioners' contention is that excise duty on such goods is neither actually paid nor is the liability to pay incurred till their arrival at the entrance Naka and hence the said duty cannot be legally added...
Tag this Judgment!Surtax Officer Vs. Andhra Valley Power Supply Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-1985
Reported in: [1986]17ITD815(Mum)
ORDERPer Shri B. S. Ahuja, Judicial Member - The first point at issue in whether the dividend income and royalty income to be excluded from the chargeable profits as the clauses (viii) and (ix) of rule 1 of the First Schedule to companies (Profits) surtax Act, 1964 (the Surtax Act) are the gross amounts and not the net amounts. The Commissioner (Appeals) has followed the order of the Tribunal in another case for the proposition that it is the gross amount of dividend and royalty. When his attention was drawn to section 80AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the 1961 Act ) he observed that while section 80AA has been made retrospective with effect from 1-4-1968, a similar amendment of the Surtax Act was made effective from 1-4-1981 only.2. The learned departmental representative relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Distributors (Baroda) (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India : [1985]155ITR120(SC) for the proposition that section 80AA was only clarificatory, that the decision of the petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Veronica Caitaninho D'Souza (Smt.) Vs. Union of India (UOi) and Ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-1985
Reported in: 1986(2)BomCR52
P.S. Shah, J.1. This is a writ petition for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India quashing the detention order of Caitaninho D'Souza @ Caitain son of Jacinto Tome D'Souza dated May 25, 1985, issued by the 3rd respondent, the Administrator of Goa, Daman & Diu, and the subsequent declaration dated August 8, 1985, issued by the 2nd respondent, the Addl. Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi, under the provisions of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter for short referred to as 'the Act'). The petition has been filed by Smt. Veronica Caitaninho D'Souza, the wife of the detenu. The 3rd respondent passed the order dated May 25, 1985 under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Act on being satisfied that it was necessary to detain the petitioner with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods. The grounds of detention were formulated and ...
Tag this Judgment!American Dry Fruit Stores Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1985
Reported in: (1986)(25)ELT775Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the Order-in-Original No. S/10-147/85A dt. 14-6-1985 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay.2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal may be stated as under: The appellants, American Dry Fruit Stores are a small scale industry registered with the Joint Director of Industries of the State of Maharashtra. Among other things they manufacture various types of chutneys and also chewda and barfi and in the manufacture of chutneys and chewda they have been using raw materials such as Almonds and Raisins and in the manufacture of barfi they have been using dry Figs as a raw material. The manufactured products are marketed through their proprietory concern called Natraj Foods (India).3. The appellants were granted REP licence bearing No. 3005290 dt.27-10-1983. The appellants imported from Karachi the following three consignments of dry fruits which according to the appellants are raw materials for Chutneys, ...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendra M. Ajmera (Huf) Vs. Sixth Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1985
Reported in: (1986)15ITD728(Mum.)
1. These three appeals by three brothers representing their respective HUFs raise common question of law and fact and are, therefore, disposed of by this common order, for the sake of convenience.2. The three assessees received the property situated at Ghatkopar, Sl.No. 82, Hissa No. (1) Part of Ghatkopar, 140/42, Mahatma Gandhi Road as a gift from their mother, Smt. Madhubala Maganlal Ajmera, by a gift deed dated 27-9-1979. The gift was of the one-third share to each of these three brothers intended for their respective joint families. The gift was valued at Rs. 99,000.3. On 26-10-1979, the assessees became partners in the firm of Dadhia Mehta Ajmera Associates, and contributed as their capital their shares in this immovable property and their capital accounts were credited by Rs. 33,000 each. On 31-3-1980, the assessees retired from this firm and they were paid Rs. 2,17,000 each, being their share on retirement, in respect of one-third property contributed by each of them to the fir...
Tag this Judgment!Jeewan Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1985
Reported in: (1986)15ITD14(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal by the assessee. One of the grounds involves interpretation of the provisions of Sections 80AA and 80M of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). The assessee's claim in this regard was accepted in the earlier year. The result is that Section 80M(2) has thereby become redundant. The Division Bench which heard this appeal originally felt that the issue was important and required reconsideration by a larger Bench. A Special Bench has, thus, been constituted to hear and dispose of this appeal.2. When the appeal came up for hearing before the Special Bench, it was brought to its notice that a Delhi Bench of the Tribunal had taken a contrary view in the case of Madan Mohan Lall Shriram (P.) Ltd. v. I AC [1985] 12 ITD 21 and that the constitution of a Special Bench to decide this appeal was fully justified.3. For the sake of convenience we take up the grounds relating to this issue first. These are: 4.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Com...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Council Vs. Shantabai Bais (Smt.)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1985
Reported in: 1986(2)BomCR419
H.D. Patel, J.1. The petitioner-Municipal Council, Wardha served a notice dated 3rd August, 1981 terminating the services of the respondent-employee with effect from 5th September, 1981. The respondent Smt. Shantabai was in employment of the Municipal Council as a peon. The respondent challenged the termination by instituting a complaint before the Industrial Court, Nagpur and also obtained an ex parte stay of the said order of termination. This ex parte order was, however, vacated by the Industrial Court, Nagpur on 20th April, 1982 and thereafter on 22nd April, 1982 the respondent was removed from the service. Whereupon the respondent filed a complaint before the Labour Court, Nagpur alleging that the termination of the services of the respondent were illegal and it amounts to unfair labour practices falling under Item No. 1(a), (b), (d), (f) and (g) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, hereinafter referred ...
Tag this Judgment!ignatius Louis Mascaranhas of Bombay Vs. Central Bank Executor and Tru ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-1985
Reported in: 1986(1)BomCR377
Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. One Mrs. Hermione P. D'Mello executed a Deed of Trust dated 15th May, 1956 under which she appointed the 1st defendant-The Central Bank Executor and Trustee Company Limited as Trustees. The 2nd defendant Sydney J. D'Mello is a confirming party to the said Trust. Under the said Trust the settler bequeathed various properties mentioned in the schedule to the said Deed of Trust. The properties so settled upon trust include a property at Andheri which is described in Part 1 of Schedule A to the said Deed of Trust. The said property at Andheri, after the death of the settlor, is to be conveyed to defendants 2 and 3 who are the son and daughter of the settlor, as set out in Clause 2, sub-clause (d) of the said Deed of Trust. Under the said Deed of Trust no power to alter or revoke the trust is reserved in favour of the settlor. 2. It seems that defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are residing abroad for the last several years. According to the plaintiff he looked after the said s...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »