Mumbai Court February 1986 Judgments
Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1986
Reported in: [1986]61STC299(Bom)
Kania, A.C.J.1. There is only one question referred to us for our determination in this reference. That question runs as follows :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the book entry of Rs. 82,324 representing 50 per cent of the closing balance of the tin deposits left on 31st March, 1973, written off from the account stocks of the tins on the probable non-return of the tins by the customers constitutes 'sale price' ?'2. It is agreed between the respective counsel that the question referred must be answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra [1983] 53 STC 179.3. The question is answered accordingly. No order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Laxmi Cotton Mfg. Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1986
Reported in: [1987]65STC119(Bom)
M.H. Kania, A.C.J.1. These are references under section 34(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953. The accounting periods to which the references relate are (1) from 1st April, 1954, to 31st March, 1955, and (2) from 1st April, 1955, to 31st March, 1956. It is, however, common ground that in the later periods the Revenue does not claim to recover any sales tax after 6th September, 1955, in view of the change in law. The respondent-assesses run two spinning and weaving mills at Solapur. In the course of manufacturing textile goods these mills purchased coal from various collieries situated outside the then State of Bombay for being consumed in their business. As coal was a controlled commodity the procedure prescribed under the Colliery Control Order of 1945 was followed for obtaining coal that was required by the assessees. We are, however, not concerned with the facts relating to that matter as the question referred in that regard has already been answered by this Court. The coal in que...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State, Bombay Vs. Khimji Velji ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1986
Reported in: [1986]61STC300(Bom)
Kania, A.C.J.1. Two questions have been referred to us for determination in this reference under section 61 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. These questions are as follows :'(1) Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that section 46(2), first part, would not cover the case of a registered dealer ? (2) Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the forfeiture orders for the period up to 15th July, 1962, are bad in law ?'In view of our judgment reported in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Khimji Velji & Co. [1985] 58 STC 95, question No. (2) must be answered in the negative and in favour of the revenue. As pointed out in that judgment, in view of question No. (2) being answered as aforesaid, it is not necessary to answer question No. (1) and we decline to answer this question. The questions are answered as aforesaid. No order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!Digvijay Cement Company Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1986
Reported in: [1986(52)FLR362]; (1995)IIILLJ491Bom
Pendse, J. 1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Company is challenging the legality of two orders passed by the State Government in exercise of powers under Section 10(i)(d) and under Sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) The facts giving rise to the passing of these orders are as follows:2. The petitioners are a Limited Company having their factory at Sewree, Bombay, and in which about 219 workers are employed. The workers are represented by respondent No. 3-Union. On January 12, 1985, the respondent No. 3 Union informed the Minister for Industries, Government of India, New Delhi, that the petitioner Company had number of factories in the country and one of the major Unit is at Sikka in Gujarat State and that Unit supplies raw materials for the manufacture of Cement to the Bombay factory. The Union pointed out that the Company is not being run to the full capacity and ...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Rajak Haji Mohammed Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-1986
Reported in: [1989]65CompCas78(Bom); 1986(10)ECC237; 1989(23)LC268(Bombay); 1986(25)ELT305(Bom)
Mehta, J.1. This writ petition involves an interesting question whether a person summoned under section 40 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, can claim the right to have his advocate present during the course of his interrogation by the officers of the Enforcement Directorate.2. The petitioners in this criminal writ petition, Abdul Rajak Haji Mohammed, was summoned by the officers of the Enforcement Directorate under section 40 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (Act 46 of 1973). The brief facts are that on June 29, 1985, the residential and office premises of the petitioner. Abdul Rajak Haji Mohammed, were searched by the Enforcement Directorate as also by the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. In the course of the search, certain incriminating documents were recovered from the office premises and an amount of 450 Hongkong dollar were seized from his residence.3. On June 30, 1985, one Mohammed Isaq Kapadia, the marketing manager of the New Bengal...
Tag this Judgment!Pennwali India Ltd. and Others Vs. Registrar of Companies, Maharashtra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-1986
Reported in: [1987]62CompCas112(Bom); 1986MhLJ548
Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar J.1. The appellants are the original petitioners. The first petitioner company is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, and carries on business, inter alia, as general engineers and contractors. Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are directors of the first petitioner company.2. During the years ending on October 31, 1980, October 31, 1981, and October 31, 1982, the company had deposited with various independent and reputed public limited companies certain amounts as fixed deposits for six months, except in the case of one deposit which was for a period of one year. All these amounts were repaid on maturity and the interest on these amounts was also received by the company.3. The amounts so deposits so deposited by the company have been shown in the balance-sheets of the company for the relevant periods on the assets side under the general heading 'loans and advances'. Under this heading, on the assets side of the balance-sheet, the amounts of the deposits are...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Rajak Haji Mohammed Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)BomCR187; (1986)88BOMLR158
ORDER1. This writ petition involves an interesting question whether a person summoned under S. 40 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act can claim the right to have his advocate present during the course of his interrogation by the Officers of the Enforcement Directorate.2. The Petitioner in this Criminal Writ Petition Abdul Rajak Haji Mohammed was summoned by the Officers of the Enforcement Directorate under S. 40 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (Act 46 of 1973) (hereinafter referred to as 'the F.E.R.A.'). The brief facts are that on 29-6-1985, the residential and office premises of the petitioner Abdul Rajak Haji Mohammod were searched by the Enforcement Directorate as also by the Officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. In the course of the search certain incriminating documents were recovered from the office premises and an amount of 450 Hongkong Dollars was seized from his residence.On 30-6-1985 one Mohammed Isaq Kapadia, the Marketing Manager of the New B...
Tag this Judgment!Nemichand Sasmal and ors. Vs. JainuddIn Allihusien and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-1986
Reported in: AIR1986Bom369; 1986(1)BomCR488; (1986)88BOMLR149; 1986MhLJ929
ORDER1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has been filed by the plaintiffs against concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the two Courts below dismissing their suit as also their appeal therefrom.2. Hearing rival submissions of the respective Counsel and going through the judgments of the two Courts below, I find no such merit in this petition so as to warrant interference at the hands of this Court in its limited and discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.3. The petitioners, who claim to be tenants of different premises leased to them respectively at different times and forming part of the suit building, also now claim to be tenants of the terrace as also of the air space above it. Courts below have for good and sound reasons rejected this claim. It is not possible to take of the matter a view different from the one rightly taken by the two Courts below. There is also no such error apparent on the face of the record as to warrant interfe...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnacharan Pramodnath Chakraberti Vs. Indian Textiles Co. Ltd. and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-1986
Reported in: [1986(52)FLR289]; (1995)IIILLJ630Bom
Pendse, J.1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the legality of the order dated March 14, 1985 passed by the Presiding Officer, First Labour Court, Bombay, in an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioner filed the application for recovery of various amounts, including the amount of gratuity for the period of 36 years service. The petitioner claimed that he was employed by the respondent Company in the Sales Department and his services were terminated from the month of February 1979. The application was resisted by the Company initially claiming that the petitioner was employed as a typist. The Company denied that the amounts claimed by the workman are due. As regards the claim for gratuity, it was urged that the said claim cannot be entertained by the Labour Court in proceedings under Section 33-C(2) of the Act, but will have to be left f...
Tag this Judgment!Purshottam Revachand Baviskar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-1986
Reported in: [1986(52)FLR634]; (1994)IIILLJ149Bom
S.P. Bharucha, J. 1. The petitioner joined the service of the Union of India in the Saman Bhandar Nirikshanalaya (Inspectorate of General Stores) in 1963 as a Viewer 'D' . On 6th May 1981 he was issued a notice informing him that his services were no longer required and that they would stand terminated on the expiry of a period of 3 months from the date of the service of the notice upon him. On 24th September 1981 the petitioner was served with an order which stated that his service stood terminated with effect from 5th August 1981. In the Daily Orders of the Inspectorate dated 9th September 1981, it was stated that, consequent upon reduction in the industrial establishment, the petitioner had been rendered surplus. 2. The petition seeks to quash the notice dated 6th May 1981 and the order dated 24th September, 1981. 3. It was submitted by Mr. Dharap, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the termination of the petitioner's services was, as the Daily Orders dated 9th September, 1981...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »