Mumbai Court January 1986 Judgments
income-tax Officer Vs. Dharamsi Morarji Chemicals Co.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-1986
Reported in: (1986)18ITD256(Mum.)
1. Out of these nine appeals, five have been filed by the department, while the remaining four have been filed by the assessee. The departmental appeals relate to the assessment years 1975-76 to 1979-80, while the appeals filed by the assessee relate to the assessment years 1975-76 to 1977-78 and 1979-80.2. We shall first deal with the appeals filed by the department. The first ground raised is that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) had erred in holding that the amounts of dividends and royalty which are required to be excluded in terms of Rules 1(viii) and 1(ix) of the First Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 ('the Act') are the gross amounts and not the net amounts of dividends and royalty.This ground is common to all the five assessment years. The amounts involved are mentioned in the orders of the authorities below and need not be mentioned in this order. The learned representative for the assessee has relied on the decisions in CIT v. Jupiter General Insurance ...
Tag this Judgment!M. Shashikant and Co. and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-1986
Reported in: 1986(9)ECC150; 1988(19)LC379(Bombay); 1987(30)ELT868(Bom)
1. The petitioners are a firm carrying on business of dealing in diamonds and since the year 1981 have been recognised as an Export House. The petitioners Nos. 2 to 6 are partners of the firm. The petitioners, as a registered Export House, are issued various licences such as Additional Licence, R.E.P. Licence and Imprest Licences. Under Paragraph 183 of the Import Policy for the period AM-81 and AM-82, a facility was granted to Export Houses to import CGL goods against such licences subject to the condition that such goods should be sold to actual users. Paragraph 382 of the relevant Hand Book prescribes that the licence holders could grant a letter of authority in favour of persons who arrange import of goods.2. The petitioners were issued Imprest Licence bearing No. 0449345 dated May 12, 1981 for the import of uncut and unset diamonds of the value of Rs. 3,59,34,782/- subject to an export obligation of Rs. 5,52,84,280/-. One of the conditions of the licence was that it would be subje...
Tag this Judgment!RobIn Products Vs. Shankar Tukaram Mali
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-1986
Reported in: (1994)IIILLJ1151Bom
V.V. Vaze, J.1. Shankar Tukaram Mali was working in biscuit and confectionery factory of the respondent. His duties included pushing the dough in the machine and after the finished product comes out, cleaning the drums with a view to preparing the machine for new intake on the next day. Shankar had informed the respondent M/s. Robin Products that the safety arrangements of the machinery were not working properly and that necessary steps should be taken to repair the same. However, before it could be done the machine took its toll and Shankar lost the left thumb while cleaning the drums of the machine on 24.1.1977 which resulted in a 30% loss of his earning capacity. Shankar claimed compensation of Rs. 3,360/- and medical expenses from M/s. Robin Products which claim was granted by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Judge, Labour Court, Nasik. Hence the appeal.2. The appellant had led stress on the fact that though Shankar had put his monthly emoluments at Rs. 300/- the pay...
Tag this Judgment!Bennett Coleman and Company Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-1986
Reported in: AIR1986Bom321
ORDERPendse, J.1. This petition involves an important question relating to Constitutional validity of Sections 21 and 22 read with Section 2(r) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act')--in its application to an Undertaking connected with the publication of Newspaper. The petitioners challenge the validity of these provisions on the ground of violation of fundamental rights conferred under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.The petitioner No. 1 is a joint stock company governed by the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and has its registered office at The Times of India Building, Bombay, while respondent No. 2 is a shareholder and Executive Director of petitioner No. 1. The 'Times of India' is published by petitioner No. 1 from New Delhi, Bombay and Ahmedabad and Hindi Newspaper 'Nav Bharat Times' is published from New Delhi and Bombay. Jansevak Karyalaya Limited of 8 Camac Street, Calcutta (hereinafter referred to ...
Tag this Judgment!Mangilal Rungta Vs. Manganese Ore (India) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1986
Reported in: 1987MhLJ383
V.A. Mohta, J.1. Points of some interest arise in this appeal by the original defendant against an ex parte decree for Rs. 3,84,375/- with future interest at 6 per cent per annum passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division Nagpur, on 21st Sept. 1978. The respondent original plaintiff had filed a suit for damages for breach of contract in refusing to take delivery of the Managese Ore purchased by the defendant from the plaintiff vide contract dated 5th March 1968. This suit filed in 1969 was fixed for evidence on 10th April 1978. In the early hours, it was called when the plaintiff's representative, witnesses and the counsel were present. None was present for the defendant. As a result, the following order came to be passed:--'Plaintiff and his witnesses present. Defendant and his counsel absent. Case is of 1969. It is very old case. Hence I proceed ex parte against defendant. Plaintiff to prove the claim by affidavits.'The plaintiff filed an affidavit of its Chief Sales Officer Sr...
Tag this Judgment!Ningu Vithu Bamane and ors. Vs. Sadashiv Ningu Bamane and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Bom27; 1986(2)BomCR146; 1986MhLJ186
1. The appellants here are the original defendants 1 to 4 they shall be hereinafter referred to as defendants 1, 2, 3 and 4, They challenge the judgment and decree passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge Senior Division Kolhapur on 31 st July 1975 in Special CivilSuit No. 174 of 1973 decreeing the plaintiffs suit for partition separate possession of their shares in the suit properties along with past and future mesne profits.2. this appeal is mainly directed against the first three respondents who were the orginal plaintiff (herinafter referred to as 'plaintiffs 1, 2, and 3')3. Defendant 1 Ningu Vithu Bamane is the husbane of Plaintiff 3 Gaugubai ningu Bamane Plaintiffs s1 and 2 are their sons.4. According to the plaintiffs defendant 4, Jana Ningu Bamane is the kept mistress of defendant 1. Defendant 2 and 3 are theor sons.5. Respondents 4 to 10 who were defedants 5 to 11 were made formal parties as thety are cosharers in the immoveabkle preperties involved inthesuit these defendants d...
Tag this Judgment!Anoopchand Nathmal Baid Vs. Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1986
Reported in: 1986(3)BomCR157
M.S. Deshpande, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal reviewing its earlier order passed in revision and holding that the petitioner was in possession of the suit lands for the first time in 1971-72 and not in 1970-71 as per its finding recorded while deciding the revision application.2. The petitioner filed an application under section 50 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act ('Vidarbha Tenancy Act', for short) before the Agricultural Lands Tribunal claiming that he was in possession of Survey Nos. 81, 83 96/3 and 98/1, total area 58.33 acres of Belghat from the land-holder Champabai and continued to be tenant until 1974-75. He gave a statutory notice to the landholder making an offer to purchase the land on 1-11-1974. As no sale-deed was executed by the landholder, the petitioner filed an application to the Additional Tahsildar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal for the purchase of the land and fixat...
Tag this Judgment!Central India Spinning, Weaving and Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Bombay and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)BomCR455
Qazi, J.1. By Writ Petition No. 2500 of 1982, the other Writ Petition Nos. 1837/1983, 2250/1983, 779/1983, 1928/1982 and 2275/1983 also stand disposed of since the question involved is common in all these petitions. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2500 of 1982 is a Limited Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 carrying on its business of spinning, weaving and manufacturing of cloth at Nagpur. It is popularly known as 'Empress Mills, Nagpur'. Since about November, 1978 the petitioner established at Nagpur a Division known as paper Division where the petitioner manufactures Kraft paper. The Kraft paper is classified for the purpose of Central Excise duty under Item 17(2) of the Central Excise Tariff. In exercise of the powers under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, the respondent 1 by Notification No. 128/1977, dated 18-6-1977 exempted certain categories of papers manufactured in paper mills of the type described in the table to the notification from so much of the duty ...
Tag this Judgment!Garware Nylons Ltd. Vs. Government of India and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-1986
Reported in: 1986(9)ECC102; 1992LC147(Bombay); 1986(26)ELT688(Bom)
1. Each of the two points raised in the petition is covered by a Division Bench judgment of this court. The reference to facts is, therefore, shortly made.2. In January 1974 the petitioners imported 50 tons of nylon 6 (polyamide) chips. On 2nd February, 1974 the Chemical Examiner certified that what had been imported was polyamide synthetic resin in the form of chips. On 1st March, 1974 the petitioners wrote to the Collector of Customs and claimed exemption from countervailing duty upon the basis of a central excise notification dated 1st March, 1973. They stated that the polyamide chips that had been imported would be used only for spinning nylon yarn.3. Under section 2A of the Indian Tariff Act countervailing duty was leviable on any article imported into India in an amount equal to the excise duty for the time being leviable on a like article produced or manufactured in India.4. The exemption notification dated 1st March, 1973 was issued by the 1st respondent under rule 8 of the Cen...
Tag this Judgment!Bombay Port Trust Employees Union Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)BomCR268; (1988)IILLJ39Bom
1. This petition is filed to quash an order of the 1st respondent (the Union of India) declining to refer for adjudication under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, a dispute raised by the petitioner.2. The petitioner is a registered trade union representing the workmen of the 2nd respondent (the Trustees of the Port of Bombay). On 25th May 1981 the petitioner served upon the 2nd respondent a notice of strike on and after 10th June, 1981 for the reasons mentioned in the annexure thereto. The annexure listed twelve demands made by the petitioner.3. Conciliation proceedings ensured. On 5th March, 1981 the Conciliation Officer made a failure report to the 1st respondent, the appropriate Government. He stated that an understanding had been reached between the parties in respect of demands Nos. 5, 6, 7, 11 and 12 and that no understanding had been arrived at in respect of the remaining demands, i.e., demand Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 9 and 10. The failure report noted that the main cause for the failu...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »