Mumbai Court June 1985 Judgments
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Goodlass Nerolac Paints Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-11-1985
Reported in: (1986)(8)LC639Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-I. It arises out of and is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. M.1617/ BI-556-558/84 dated 15-8-1984.2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal lie in a small compass. They are undisputed also. M/s. Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd., Bombay (for short 'Paints Ltd') are the manufacturers of paints and varnishes falling under T.I. 68. Paints Ltd. used V.N.E. Oils falling under T.I. 12. They were working under SRP. They were allowed proforma credit facilities. During the period from 13-11-1979 to 8-4-1981 Paints Ltd had availed the proforma credit of the duty paid on V.N.E. Oils received and used in the manufacture of Paints and varnishes. The jurisdicational Superintendent of Central Excise on noticing that Paints Ltd. were invariably receiving the raw materials viz. V.N.E.Oils not directly from the manufacturers namely, M/s. Allana Oils Mills, but through their distributors, M/s. Allana Sons Pvt. Ltd., issued a no...
Tag this Judgment!Nagraj Pukhraj Sheth Vs. Tahsildar, Uran Dist., Raigad and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-11-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Bom132; 1985(2)BomCR717; (1985)87BOMLR309; 1985MhLJ576
Dharmadhikari, J.1. The petitioner is the Councillor of the Municipal Council, Uran in Raigad District elected in the general elections held on 25th April 1985. After the general elections were held and the names of the Councillors were duly notified in the Official Gazette on 27th April 1985, respondent 2 the Collector of Raigad issued a notice on 3rd May 1985 informing the Councillors that a special meeting will be held on 15th May 1985 at 11a.m. in the office of the Municipal Council for electing the President and for co-opting Councillors on the Council, as per the provisions of section 51 of the Act. It is this notice issued by the Collector which is challenged in this writ petition by the petitioner.2. While admitting the Writ Petition and issuing the Rule, Kotwal J. passed the following order:-'Heard ld, Counsel for petitioner and the respondents. Rule. To be heard on 11-5-1985. Parties agree. High on board. Regarding the interim relief, Heard parties. It is not necessary to adj...
Tag this Judgment!Baikrao Nayasnsingh Rajput Vs. Bandu Ana Bhill and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-11-1985
Reported in: 1987(2)BomCR261; (1985)87BOMLR342; 1985MhLJ525
P.B. Sawant, J.1. This letter patent appeal is directed against the decision of the learned Single Judge given on January 15, 1985 in two writ petitions being Special Civil Applications Nos. 2607 of 1977 and 1756 of 1973 . The short facts are that the appellant who is non-tribal had in the year 1962-63 purchased three pieces of land from respondents No. 1 who is a tribal. Those lands are comprised in Survey Nos. 9/1, 9/2 and 53. After the purchase, the appellant mortgaged two pieces of land namely Survey Nos. 9/1 and 9/2 with the Maharashtra state Co-operative Land Development Bank on the 30th May, 1968. The mortgage was possessory and the appellant was thereafter placed in possession of the mortgaged lands as a tenant of the Bank. On the May 28, 1975 the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) came into force and proceedings were initiated against the appellant under the said Act for restoration of the lands to responden...
Tag this Judgment!Saurashtra Trust Vs. Seventh Income-tax Officer.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-11-1985
Reported in: [1986]17ITD9(Mum)
ORDERPer Shri A. V. Balasubramanyan, Judicial Member - The assessee, a trust, has brought these appeals from a consolidated order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of appeals for the assessment years 1975-76 to 1978-79.2. The principal point common to all these appeals pertains to exemption claimed under section 11, read with section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The facts relevant to this issue are in this way.3. A trust by name Saurashtra Trust was founded sometime in 1931. On 16-6-1942, the trustees made a declaration by means of an indenture to specify the details. There was some confusion in regard to certain aspects of the trust and, therefore, the same trustees, by another declaration made on 11-2-1945, clarified things, inter alia, the purpose of the trust, one of such being to publish newspapers. The trust has been publishing several newspapers and other periodicals which have earned income and this has been brought to tax by the authorities below r...
Tag this Judgment!Gannon Dunkerley and Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. Central Board of Direct ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-10-1985
Reported in: (1986)53CTR(Bom)1; [1986]159ITR162(Bom); [1986]24TAXMAN460(Bom)
Pratap, J.1. The central issue in this petition in this petition relates to the interpretation of section 80-O of the Income-Tax Act, 1961.2. The 1st petitioner is a public limited company (hereinafter 'the company'), petitioner No. 2 one of its directors and shareholders. The company is engaged in civil and mechanical engineering, construction work, export, rendering technical consultancy services in India and abroad. One Engineering Project (India) Limited (hereinafter 'EPI'), a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, is wholly owned by respondent No. 4 - Union of India. The object of this latter company are, inter alia, to undertake engineering construction and projects both in India and abroad. As part of its foreign business and enterprise, in this case at Kuwait, where EPI has an office, it entered into an agreement or contract with the Government of Kuwait for setting up what is known as the 35th Brigade Camp at Alsadd in Kuwait. It was known as the 35th Brigade...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Ramachandra Katkar and ors. Vs. Arjun Bhimrao Gore and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-10-1985
Reported in: AIR1985Bom122; 1985(2)BomCR247; (1985)87BOMLR680
1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for partition filed by the sons of defendant 1 and their mother, challenging the alienation made by defendant 1. These alienations are challenged on the ground that there was no legal necessity and that they were for immoral purposes. The alienation was effected in favour of defendant 5 on 24-6-1953, in favour of defendant 4 on 11-5-1955, in favour of defendant 7 on 4-6-1955, in favour of defendant 3 on 12-9-1960. The suit was filed on 6-2-1972 and by the date, both plaintiffs 1 and 4 had attained majority more than 3 years prior to the institution of the suit. The 2nd plaintiff however, had attained majority within two years of the institution of the suit while plaintiff 3 was still a minor. The defendants pleaded that the alienations where fore legal necessity and where not for immoral purposes and that they were for the benefit of the family.2. The trial Court held that the alienations were not proved to be for immoral purpose and dismissed...
Tag this Judgment!Sitaram Eknath Galate Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-10-1985
Reported in: 1986(2)BomCR178
Sharad Manohar, J.1. This revision application is filed by the original accused against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad confirming the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.2. A few facts necessary for the purpose of appreciating the question of law urged by Mr. Savant for the petitioner (hereinafter, the accused) may be stated as follows :---On 17-5-1979, at about 5.00 p.m., the Food Inspector visited the establishment known as 'Lok Vijay Dairy' along with panchas and other staff. A bucket filed with milk was there in the shop. The inspector purchased 750 mls. of milk and paid Rs. 1.50 in that behalf to the accused, who was there in the shop at that time. Since the visit was with the intention of verifying whether milk sold in the shop conformed to the statutory requirement or not, the necessary sample was taken by him from the milk by purchasing...
Tag this Judgment!Prabhakar S/O Tatyarao Mangulkar Vs. Suresh S/O Kishanrao Takalkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-10-1985
Reported in: 1985(2)BomCR293; 1986MhLJ101
S.J. Deshpande, J.1. The short question that arises for consideration in this revision application relates to the scope of section 15(2)(v) of the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954, ('the Act' for short).2. The facts may be briefly stated :The landlord respondent herein made an application to the Rent Controller under the provisions of the Act for eviction of the petitioner-tenant of a shop situated in Saraf area at Aurangabad. The area of the shop occupied by the petitioner is admittedly 8 x 18 feet. The petitioner carries on his business of photography. The rent of the shop is Rs. 60/- per month. The landlord sought the eviction of the tenant on different grounds such as willful default, bona fide requirement, misuse and damage to the property. The other ground, are not relevant at all as the proceedings in this matter reached the High Court at Bombay at the earlier stage and the High Court disallowed all the grounds and remanded the matter to the lower Ap...
Tag this Judgment!Sangeeta Prints Vs. Hemal Prints and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-06-1985
Reported in: 1985MhLJ413
Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. The petitioners are a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act. The petitioner firm is a member of Sidhpura Co-operative Industrial Society. This co-operative society owns, inter alia, premises on the first floor of 37 Sidhpura Co-operative Industrial Estate, S.V. Road, Goregaon, Bombay 400 062. The petitioner firm, by virtue of its membership of the said society, is put in possession of the said premises as an 'owner' thereof.2. It is the case of the petitioners that under an agreement dated 17th November, 1977 they gave their business which was carried on in the said premises as well as the said premises to the respondents for the purpose of conducting the said business on the terms and conditions which are recorded in the said agreement. It was agreed between the parties under the said agreement that royalty at the rate of Rs. 1400/- per month would be paid by the respondents to the petitioners. This agreement was renewed by an agreement d...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India and Another Vs. Arvind N. Mafatlal, Trustee of Seth Hem ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-03-1985
Reported in: 1986(3)BomCR50; (1985)87BOMLR305; (1986)51CTR(Bom)362; [1986]160ITR420(Bom)
Kania, J.1. This is an appeal against a judgment of Bharucha J., making absolute the writ petition aforesaid filed by the respondents herein who were the petitioners before Bharucha J., in the aforesaid writ petition. The appellants before us are the respondents to the original writ petition.2. The appeal is on the Board before us for admission. As the matter has been argued for some time before us, we propose to set out briefly our reasons for the order which we propose to pass.3. The facts : One Hemant B. Mafatlal died on August 16, 1971. On March 28, 1974, an assessment of his estate was made for the purpose of estate duty. The matter was carried in appeal to the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty who disposed it of by an order dated March 17, 1975. Thereafter an appeal was preferred to the Appellate Tribunal which passed its order thereon on August 26, 1977. We are not concerned with this order of the Tribunal. However, on November 5, 1976, that is, after the order of the Appellat...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›