Mumbai Court December 1985 Judgments
Union of India and Another Vs. Ajay Cotton Limited and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1985
Reported in: 1988(19)LC419(Bombay); 1986(26)ELT549(Bom)
Kania, Ag. C.J.1. This is an appeal by the Union of India and others against a judgment of Shah J. allowing the writ petition filed by respondent No. 1, who was the Petitioner in the Writ Petition being Miscellaneous Petition No. 1828 of 1979, and directing the Union of India to give a certain cash subsidy to respondent No. 1. For the sake of convenience we propose to refer to the parties before us by their original description in the petition. The appellants were respondents 21 to 3 in the Writ Petition and respondent No. 2 was respondent No. 4 in the Writ Petition.2. The relevant facts necessary for the appreciation of the controversy raised in the appeal are fairly brief. The petitioners are a Public Limited Company manufacturing, inter alia 'absorbent cotton wool' which was an export commodity. In or about 1969 the Union of India formulated a Scheme of cash subsidy whereby, inter alia, exporters of absorbent cotton wool were to be granted a cash subsidy by way of cash compensatory ...
Tag this Judgment!Pradeep Bhupatrai Vasa Vs. Bombay Builders Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1985
Reported in: 1987(1)BomCR327
D.N. Mehta, J.1. The petitioner herein Pradeep Bhupatrai Vasa has filed this Criminal Revision Application impugning the Order dated 29-3-1984 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 40th Court, Girgaum, Bombay, whereunder the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was pleased to discharge the accused.2. Respondent No. 1 is a Private Limited Company carrying on business as Builders and Promoters of Co-operative Societies and building. Respondent No. 1 Company carried on the business of construction and sale of residential flats on ownership basis under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of Promotion, Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ownership Flats Act'). Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 were the Directors of respondent No. 1 Company at all relevant times and were incharge of and responsible for the management of respondent No. 1 Company.3. By an agreement dated 23-6-1978 between respondent No. 1 an...
Tag this Judgment!T.C. Kanabar and anr. Vs. Assistant Collector of Customs, Preventive ( ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1985
Reported in: 1986(10)ECC308
D.N. Mehta, J.1. The two petitioners herein T.C. Kanabar and V.V. Nanavathi have filed this criminal writ petition, praying that the order dated 24-4-1985 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court, Esplanade, Bombay, under which charges under Section 135(1)(a)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 and under Section 7 read with Sections 13 and 20 of the Dangerous Drugs Act, be set aside and the proceedings in Case No. 107/CW/ 1982 be quashed. 2. The facts leading to the prosecution of the two petitioners herein, briefly stated, are that one B.J. Sharma along with his family left India for London via Nairobi on 23-5-1976. Sharma and his family flew by the East African Airlines. Sharma had left certain unaccompanied baggage which was to be flown to London later on. As per the procedure, a departure certificate was obtained from the East African Airlines by petitioner-accused No. 1 on 8-7-1976. The Departure Certificate certified the fact that B. J. Sharma and his fa...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Farmers Fertilizer Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-1985
Reported in: (1986)(26)ELT778Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The Revision Application filed before the Government of India against the Order bearing No. 37 of 1980 dated 17-1-1980 passed by the Central Board of Excise & Customs, statutorily stood transferred to the Tribunal for being heard as an appeal.The appellants, M/s Indian Farmers Fertilizer Co-operative Ltd., imported 3 packages containing 3 coils of inconel strips valued at Rs. 2,36,858/- and sought clearance against their licence dated 23-8-1977.The Customs however, objected to the clearance on the ground that the strips imported were neither cut to shape and size nor intended to be cut to size to form parts of machine, and therefore, the imported strips could not be considered as spare parts of machine in terms of para 52 read with para 53 of the Policy AM-78. The Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay, held the enquiry. On behalf of the appellants it was contended before the Additional Collector that the imported materials were required for the use of the imported machinery i...
Tag this Judgment!India United Mills Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-1985
Reported in: (1986)(25)ELT993Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This application under Section 35-G(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 is by the Respondent in Appeal No. ED 65 of 1984. By this application, the applicant requires the Tribunal to refer the questions of law set out in Annexure B to the application by drawing up a statement of the case. We heard Shri Biradar, Advocate and Shri N.K.Pattekar, JDR.2. During the hearing, Shri Biradar conceded that the questions at serial Nos. 3, 4 and 5 do not arise from the order of the tribunal. So far as question No. 6 is concerned, his submission was that the Bench may, if it deemed fit, modify the question. He, however, contented that the questions at serial Nos. 1 and 2 arise out of the order-in-appeal No. 65/84. In support of his contention, he urged the very grounds which he had urged at the time of hearing of the appeal.3. Shri Pattekar, appearing for the Respondent Collector, contended that no question of law as such arises and therefore question of reference to the High Court would...
Tag this Judgment!Ambabai Manjunath AmIn Vs. P.L. Majumdar Presiding Officer First Labou ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-1985
Reported in: (1987)ILLJ36Bom
Desai, J.1. In this Writ Petition, Petitioner who is the widow of one M. B. Amin has impugned the decisions given by the Presiding Officer, First Labour Court, on 12th September, 1984 and thereafter on 26th July, 1985. In order to appreciate the controversy, a few fact may be stated. We may add that, to our mind, the position is abundantly clear and the decisions require to be quashed. However, we are writing an elaborate judgment for the guidance of Labour and Industrial Courts in the city.2. One M. B. Amin (hereinafter referred to as 'the employee') was in the employment of the 2nd Respondent Company. The 2nd Respondent will hereinafter be referred to as 'the employer'. The employee commenced employment with the employer as a Peon from 1954 and was promoted as an Overseer in the year 1963. Ultimately, his emoluments increased and, according to the Petitioner, his last drawn wages were Rs. 1,211.73 per month. On 25th April, 1976, the said employee was served with an order of transfer ...
Tag this Judgment!Arvinder Singh Kocher Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-1985
Reported in: (1986)(8)LC669Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is directed against the Order bearing No.VIII(b)-10/29/Cus/80/32334 dt. 9.11.1982 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs (P) Bombay.2. As the appellant had challenged the confiscation of 24 T-shirts and 29 half shirts and the levy of penalty of Rs.250/- and had not challenged the confiscation of other goods, it would not be necessary to set out in detail the facts of the case.On 26.3.1980 on information that goods of foreign origin are being sold in Flat No. l2-B of Sun & Sea Co-op Housing Society, the officers of the Customs proceeded to that flat and they found a person by name Omkar L. Verma coming down the staircase of that building. On information that he had purchased certain materials of foreign. origin from the flat in question the officers went and knocked at the door of that flat, but none opened it. Thereafter, the assistance of the police was sought. On arrival of the police the present appellant opened the door. The search was carried out. During...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Ratilal Vs. Second Wealth-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-1985
Reported in: (1986)15ITD61(Mum.)
1. This appeal by the assessee, an individual, arises out of wealth-tax proceedings and relates to the assessment year 1975-76. The assessee is a partner in a firm, Jayendra Brothers. This firm bought kerosene from Bharat Petroleum and in due course sold the same to licensed dealers.The firm owned, amongst other assets, tanker lorries for transporting the kerosene. In substance, the firm functioned as agents, stockists and distributors of kerosene. In the wealth-tax return, as filed, there was no claim for exemption of the interest of the assessee in the assets belonging to the firm. The WTO, therefore, completed the assessment on the net wealth as returned save for a small addition in the value of jewellery.2. The assessee appealed and before the AAC claimed exemption of the assessee's interest in the assets of the firm under the provisions of Section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act'). The claim of the assessee was that the firm was engaged in the business of distri...
Tag this Judgment!inspecting Assistant Commissioner Vs. Chemaux Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-1985
Reported in: [1986]16ITD89(Mum)
ORDERPer Shri B. S. Ahuja, Judicial Member - These appeals and cross-objections by the department and the assessees pertain to the assessment years 1976-77 to 1980-81. For the sake of convenience, they are being disposed by this common order.1976-77 :2. The first ground in the departments appeal pertains to the technical know-how fees paid by the assessee-company, which the assessee claimed was a revenue expenditure and this point has been accepted by the Commissioner (Appeals), though the ITO had rejected the assessees claim.3. The fact, in brief, are that the assessee has been manufacturing chemicals and auxiliaries which are mainly supplied to the textile mills. The companys Blanden Cole Division manufactures chemical machinery and equipment and Ajit Investment Division deals in investments. The assessee-company paid technical know-how fees as follows :Rs.1. Arthur White Process Plant Ltd., England, paid on 20-10-1975 91,967 2. Rosenblads, Sweden, on 6-6-1975 1,36,020 2,27,987 The ...
Tag this Judgment!Patel Aluminium Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Miss K.M. Tawadia, Income-tax Officer an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-1985
Reported in: (1985)87BOMLR697; (1986)51CTR(Bom)322; [1987]165ITR99(Bom); [1986]25TAXMAN248(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. The income-tax assessment of the petitioner for the assessment year 1977-78 was completed on April 19, 1978, and it was determined that the income was nil. For the assessment year 1979-80, the petitioners' previous year ended on June 30, 1978. The petitioners did not file a statement of, or pay any, advance tax on June 15, 1978, when the first instalment thereof became due because their income for the previous assessment year had been determined as nil. On June 29, 1979, the petitioners filed a return of income for the assessment year 1979-80 in the sum of Rs. 2,88,360. They filed a revised return on September 11, 1981, declaring their total income at Rs. 5,47,710. They paid tax on self-assessment basis on June 28, 1979 and again on the revised return on September 7, 1981. The petitioners' assessment for the assessment year was completed on December 11, 1981, and the total income was determined at Rs. 5,54,010. The assessment order concluded thus :'Interest under section...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »