Mumbai Court November 1986 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Third Wealth-tax Officer Vs. Smt. Usha S. Patel
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1986
Reported in: (1987)21ITD24(Mum.)
1. This appeal by the department relates to the assessment year 1978-79. On the relevant valuation date, the assessee held shares in Dandeli Ferro Alloys (P.) Ltd. The valuation was done in accordance with the provisions of Rule ID of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957. The submission of the assessee before the WTO was that the value of goodwill which had been shown as an asset in the balance sheet should not be included in the value of assets for making computation under Rule ID. The WTO rejected the said submission. The assessee filed appeal before the AAC. The AAC observed that since the goodwill was an intangible asset, its value was deductible in the computation under Rule ID. The department is now in appeal before us.2. We have heard the parties. We find that in the first part of Rule ID, it is specifically mentioned that the value of all the liabilities as shown in the balance sheet shall be deducted from the value of all its assets shown in the balance sheet. Consequently, under this ...
Shipyard Technical Staff Assn. and Others Vs. Mazgaon Docks Ltd. and A ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1986
Reported in: (1987)IILLJ266Bom
Bharucha, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of Lentin J. dated 22nd July, 1981 dismissing the appellants' writ petition with no order as to costs. The learned Judge held that Mazgaon Docks Ltd., 1st respondent, was not 'the State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. He also held that, in any event, there was no merit in the challenge to the constitutional validity of some of the rules in the Mazgaon Docks Officers (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1977.2. Article 12 of the Constitution states, in the context of Part III of the Constitution, that 'the State' includes 'other authorities under the control of the Government of India.'3. The Supreme Court has delivered a series of judgments dealing with the concept of 'the State' under Article 12. These judgments are reviewed in the judgment in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. v. Brojo Nath Gangually, : (1986)IILLJ171SC . This judgment reaffirms the tests in this beha...
Mill Manager, Savatram Ramprasad Mills Vs. Industrial Court and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)BomCR517
M.M. Quazi, J.1. The present Letters Patent Appeal arises out of the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant.2. The respondent No. 2 was an employee of the appellant. His services came to be terminated vide notice dated 27-7-1980, on the ground that the demanded and accepted bribe of Rs. 20/- from another employee in order to grant him leave. He, therefore, filed a complaint under section 28(1) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') contending that the dismissal was in utter disregard to the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as while inflicting the punishment of dismissal his past unblemished service record was not taken into consideration. According to him, he had put in 30 years service and had earned good testimonials from the Department. According to him, the order was in contravention of the mandatory requirement of the Stand...
Jhunjhunwala Rolling Mills and Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-1986
Reported in: (1987)(12)LC452Tri(Mum.)bai
1. M/s. Jhunjhunwala Rolling Mills have filed this appeal under Section 35B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 against the order No. B 2271/NG/141/82 dated 28-1-1983 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). Bombay confirming the order No. I/Iron & Steel/81 dated 25-4-1981 of the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Amravati rejecting 12 refund claims of M/s. Jhunjhunwala Rolling Mills under Section 11B as time barred. The brief facts of the case are that M/s.Jhunjhunwala Rolling Mills have filed these 12 refund claims of M/s.Jhunjhunwala Roiling Mills under Section 11B as time barred. The brief facts of the case are that M/s. Jhunjhunwalia Rolling Mills have filed these 12 refund claims on 3.1.81 and 4.2.81 for a total amount of Rs. 10,83,161.45 on the ground that the steel produce manufactured by them were not dutiable under T.I. No. 26AA of the Central Excise tariff.However, the period to which the claims related was from 2.3.66 to 30.12.77. Since these claims ...
Vishram Sitaram Raut Vs. M.A. Deshpande and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-1986
Reported in: [1987(54)FLR68]; (1994)IIILLJ277Bom
Pendse, J. 1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia, the petitioner-former employee of the Railway, is challenging the legality of theorder, dated April 16, 1983 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Labour Court No. 2, Bombay, rejecting the application filed under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Only few facts are required to be stated to appreciate the grievance of the petitioner. The petitioner joined Railway service on June 29, 1941 as a Pointsman. The petitioner was promoted from time to time and on January 4, 1977 was working as Brakes man. The petitioner retired with effect from January 4, 1977 due to medical unfitness. The petitioner, thereafter, sought settlement of his dues which included Provident Fund, Gratuity, wages unpaid and other retirement benefits. The petitioner received letter, dated May 2, 1977 from the Divisional Superintendent, Central Railway, Bhusawal, that an am...
Rajesh S/O MatadIn Jaiswal and ors. Vs. Village Panchayat, Wadi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)BomCR528
S.W. Puranik, J.1. The petitioners herein are the elected Members of the Village Panchayat, Wadi, having been elected in the elections held in the year 1984. The term of Office expires in the year 1989.2. For some reason or the other the petitioners, seven in number, tendered resignations from the Panchayat Committee on 4-11-1985, before the Chairman of the Village Panchayat. Under the provisions of section 29 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (for short the Act) if there is no dispute raised regarding the genuineness of the resignations, then the said resignation letters become effective seven days after the same are placed before the meeting of the Committee. In the present case, the resignation letters dated 1-11-1985, which were tendered on 4-11-1985 were in fact placed before the meeting of the Committee on 11-11-1985. The petitioners were present at the proceedings of the said meeting held on 11-11-1985. When the item regarding the scrutiny of the resignation letters was...
L.D. Textile Industries Ltd. and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-21-1986
Reported in: 1987(11)LC82(Bombay); 1987(28)ELT36(Bom)
1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging the legality of the order communicated to petitioner No. 2 by letter dated July 4, 1983, copy of which is annexed as Exhibit 'A' to the petition, intimating that the claim for refund made on July 4, 1983 is time-barred and has been filed beyond a period of six months, and therefore, the refund claim from the year 1977 cannot be considered.2. It is not necessary to set out the facts in detail save and except mentioning that petitioners 1 and 2 are sister concerns or related concerns as understood under Section 4 of the Excise Act. Petitioner No. 1 are manufacturers of cotton textiles and used to transfer it to petitioner No. 2 for the purpose of processing. Petitioner No. 2 used to sell the goods to the distributors. The petitioners filed price lists from time to time on the basis that the petitioners are related persons. After the Supreme Court delivered the judgment reported in 19...
Bombay Alloys and Castings Vs. Association of Engg. Works and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-21-1986
Reported in: [1987(54)FLR597]; (1995)IIILLJ838Bom
Desai, J. 1. In this Writ Petition, an award given by 2nd respondent (both Parts I and II) stands impugned. We find little substance in the challenge and are surprised that in such matter unconditional stay was granted at the time of admission of the writ petition. Result of such stay in many cases is that if ultimately the Rule is discharged and the stay therein vacated, the workmen concerned suffer although the amounts had been awarded to them by the Labour or the Industrial Court. In our opinion, the whole amount or at least a substantial part thereof must be secured by a deposit or a bank guarantee so that in case the challenge fails the workmen or the Union arc not leu in the lurch to take recourse to the dilatory government machinery but can have recourse to the amount so deposited or to the bank guarantee if one is ordered.2. According to the petitioner's Advocate reference to the Labour Court was not legally permissible in as much as more than 100 workmen were involved in the r...
Gaurish Transport and anr. Vs. Pedro Salvador and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-1986
Reported in: I(1988)ACC180
S.K. Desai, J.1. These Appeals are preferred against the decision of the learned Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raigad, Ratnagiri, in Accident Claim Case No. 55 of 1980. By the impugned judgment and order, the Tribunal ordered that the Applicant do recover the sum of Rs. 3 00,000/- along with interest at 10 per cent per annum thereon from the date of the Application till the amount is paid to him jointly and severally by the Opponents. However, it directed further that the liability of Opponent No. 4 (to the Application) was limited to Rs. 50,000/-.2. Two Appeals have been preferred from the judgment of the Tribunal delivered in favour of the Applicant on 23rd January 1984. First Appeal No. 247 of 1985 is preferred by the owners of the truck which was involved in the accident. As the owners of the truck had insured their vehicle only for limited liability Policy whereunder the liability of the insurer is limited to Rs. 50,000/- under the decree of the Tribunal, the owne...
Mahendra Singh and anr. Vs. Jagirsingh and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-1986
Reported in: I(1987)ACC439
V.A. Mohta, J.1. The appellants, original plaintiffs, Mahendra Singh, aged 45 years and his wife Smt. Mahender Kaur, aged 40 years sued the respondents Jagirsingh son of Shersingh, truck-driver, Suratsingh son of Sardar Bhagat Singh, truck-owner and the Insurance Company in forma-pauperis for the claim of a sum of Rs. 72,000/- as damages under the Fatal Accidents Act for the death of their son Kulwantsingh, aged 23 years, alleging that the death was caused by rash and negligent act on the part of respondent No. 1 Jagirsingh, who was driving the truck belonging to respondent No. 2 Suratsingh in the regular course of his employment.2. The Trial Court after recording evidence came to the conclusion that the death was due to rash and negligent driving. Decree for damages was granted but only to the extent of Rs. 13,500/- with future interest at 6% per annum. Aggrieved by reduction of the claim, the present appeal has been filed which is restricted to additional claim of Rs. 10,000/-.3. Hav...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »