Mumbai Court February 1986 Judgments
Vishnu Khandsari Udyog Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-1986
Reported in: (1987)(13)LC424Tri(Mum.)bai
1. M/s. Vishnu Khandsari Udyog, Aurangabad have filed a Revision Application under old Section 36 of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 to the Government of India which has been transferred to the Tribunal in terms of Section 36-P ibid and is to be treated as an appeal to the Tribunal. When the appeal was called out for hearing on 27.2.1986 none appeared for the appellants. However, a letter dated 18.1.1986 from the authorised representative of the appellants was received explaining the facts of the case and the contentions in support of the appeal and requesting that the appeal be decided on the basis of the submissions made in the original Revision Application and the present letter dated 18.1.1986. Accordingly, I proceeded to consider the appeal and decide the same.2. The appellants have claimed refund of duty paid under the compounded levy procedure for the period 22.12.75 to 31.12.75 and 1.1.76 to 7.1.76 on the ground that the Government of India under their Notification No...
Tag this Judgment!Consolidated Pneumatic Tool Company (India) Ltd. Vs. R.A. Gadekar and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-1986
Reported in: 1986(1)BomCR484; [1986(52)FLR467]; 1986MhLJ238
C.S. Dharmadhikari, J.1. In this petition the petitioner company has challenged the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal dated 7th October 1985 holding that the references made under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, are not barred by section 59 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, hereinafter referred to as the 'MRTU and PULP Act.'2. It appears from record that initially a complaint under the MRTU and PULP Act was filed before the competent Court, qua some of the employees who are also covered by the reference made by the Government under the Industrial Disputes Act on 5th March, 1985. In the said proceedings a contention was raised by the present petitioners that the employees have taken recourse to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and as such the complaint is not maintainable in view of the provisions of section 59 of the MRTU and PULP Act. It appears that when the complaint under the MRTU ...
Tag this Judgment!Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Smt. Nora Aitken
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1986
Reported in: (1986)16ITD458(Mum.)
1. The revenue is aggrieved against the order of the Appellate Controller deleting goodwill of Rs. 4.50 lakhs.2. Shri M.G.R. Aitken died on 21-5-1970. He was seniormost partner of Crawford Bayley & Co., solicitors, Bombay, with share of 19 per cent.The accountable person included in the estate of the deceased only Rs. 60,933 on account of the deceased's interest in the aforesaid firm and claimed that nothing was includible on account of share of goodwill of the deceased in the said firm because in a firm of professionals, the dominant factors were personal skill, integrity, honesty and professional expertise. The Assistant Controller, however, held that the aforesaid firm of solicitors had been in existence for a number of years and the clientele was attracted by the firm's name and not because the said firm had a particular individual as a partner and it was doubtful if many clients knew the names of the partners of the said firm, not to mention the personal skill, integrity, etc...
Tag this Judgment!Mehta Agencies Vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation Through Its R ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1986
Reported in: 1986(3)BomCR363
V.V. Vaze, J.1. Smt. N.N. Gaikwad an Inspector of the Employees State Insurance Corporation in her routine tour visited factories in Unit Nos. 214 and 215, A to Z Industrial Estate, Lower Parel, Bombay. She found that two establishments were functioning ; one in Unit No. 214 and another in Unit No. 215. In the former, M/s. Cosmic International Exports were manufacturing spare-parts for automobiles while in the latter M/s. Mehta Agencies were engaged in packing goods. According to Smt. Gaikwad both these unit though housed separately were functionally one and she reported accordingly to the corporation who treated the units as one for the purposes of the Employees State Insurance Act. As the total number of workers in these two units exceeds 20, M/s. Mehta Agencies were asked to make employees contribution and Employers special contribution for the period from the last quarter of 1972 to the first two quarters of 1973. This demand having been confirmed by the Employees Insurance Court, ...
Tag this Judgment!Orkay Silk Mills Limited and Another Vs. M.S. Bindra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-1986
Reported in: 1986(9)ECC44; 1988(19)LC503(Bombay); 1988(33)ELT48(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging the legality of the order dated June 1, 1985 passed by respondent No. 1. The petitioner No. 1 is a company carrying on business of manufacturing polyester filament yarn of the type known as Partially Oriented Yarn ('POY') as also of draw-texturing such 'POY' into textured yarn. The petitioner-company has factories at Saki Naka in Greater Bombay and at Patalganga in Raigad District. The company started manufacturing 'POY' from March, 1982 at Patalganga. The petitioner-company itself draw textures some of its POY and there are also five companies and/or partnership firms which were connected with the petitioner-company and which also carry on the business of draw-texturing the POY manufactured by the petitioner-company. These concerns are : (1) Orlando Synthetic Industries Pvt. Ltd., (2) Paramount Synthetics (P) Limited, (3) KDB Crimping Proprietors Kapal Dyeing and Bleachi...
Tag this Judgment!Vijay Ramji Pawar and ors. Vs. Girna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)BomCR386; 1986MhLJ314
S.M. Daud, J.1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the refusal of Courts constituted under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, to prevent the discussion of a no confidence motion tabled against petitioners who are the Directors of respondent No. 12. The question that arises for consideration has to be appraised in the following background :---Respondent No. 1 is a Co-operative Society registered under the afore-mentioned Act and is a 'specified' Society within the meaning of section 73-G of the said Act. On about November 9, 1984, the Board of Directors of respondent No. 1 was elected in conformity with the procedure prescribed by the statute and their number came to 13. In the election held by the Board to elect the Chairman, the successful person was respondent No. 2. The Board of Directors, apart from the petitioners, included respondents Nos. 2 to 6. Soon after the election of respondent No. 2 as the Chairman, a tussle began betwee...
Tag this Judgment!Shobhana Manji Thakkar and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)BomCR554
A.D. Tated, J.1. I have heard the judgment just delivered by my learned brother. I fully agree with my learned brother on all points except on the finding reached by him that the appellants-accused have not committed an offence under section 302 read with section 34 I.P.C. in respect of the death of Manjula. With utmost respect I am unable to agree with my learned brother that the accused committed only the offence punishable under Part II of section 304 read with section 34 I.P.C. in causing the death of Manjula inasmuch as the doctor who performed autopsy on the dead body of Manjula opined that the injuries sustained by Manjula were likely to cause death. My learned brother determined the nature of the offence in respect of the death of Manjula only on the basis of the nature of the injury as deposed to by Dr. Kapse. In my opinion, with respect, this is not the correct approach. When it is proved that the accused intended to cause the death and to carry out the said intention caused ...
Tag this Judgment!Harish Vijaykumar Khaitan and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)BomCR355; (1986)88BOMLR186; [1986(52)FLR316]; (1988)ILLJ314Bom; 1987MhLJ794
1. By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the Petitioners challenge the order dated 13th February 1985 passed by the Government of Maharashtra under Section 10(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') prohibiting the continuance of the alleged lock-out resorted to by M/s. Avanti Development Company Limited. (Petitioner No. 2). Petitioner No. 1 Harish Vijaykumar Khaitan is a share-holder and the Managing Director of the Petitioner No. 2.2. Respondent No. 1 is the State of Maharashtra. Respondent No. 2, the Association of Engineering Workers, is a registered Trade Union. It claims to represent the workmen of Petitioner No. 2 Company. Respondents Nos. 3 to 7 are the workmen employed by Petitioner No. 2 and they claim to represent all the workmen.3. The facts on which the Petitioners based their writ petition are as under :-Petitioner No. 2 was incorporated under Companies Act on 16th October 1981. It acquired John Baker D...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Vichem Laboratories
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-1986
Reported in: [1987]65STC427(Bom)
M.H. Kania, A.C.J. 1. This is a reference under section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, made at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax. There is only one question referred to us for our determination, which is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that in respect of the tax due prior to 11th May, 1973, but paid after 11th May, 1973, the penalty under sub-section (3) of section 36 for the delay after 11th May, 1973, could be levied only at the old rates prevailing prior to that date and not at the new rates which came into force on that date ?' 2. It is between the counsel that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Maya Rani Punj v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi reported in : [1986]157ITR330(SC) , the said question will have to be answered in the negative and against the assessee. 3. The question is answered accordingly. No order as to costs of this reference. 4. Reference answ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Paper Process Works
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-1986
Reported in: [1986]62STC322(Bom)
Kania, A.C.J.1. This is a reference under section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. The question referred to us for our determination is as follows :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was correct in law in coming to the conclusion that the paper reels of smaller width sold by the respondent were not a commercially different commodity from the paper rolls of bigger width from which they were prepared by the process of slitting the paper did not amount to manufacture under section 2(17) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, and consequently there was no contravention of the recitals of form 14 and no purchase tax under section 14 was payable ?'It is quite apparent that this question which is referred does not appear to be grammatically correct, and with the consent of the counsel, we reframe the same as follows :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was correct in law in coming to the conclusion that the paper ree...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »