Mumbai Court February 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.
Schradar-scovtll Duncan Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-1986
Reported in: (1986)16ITD18(Mum.)
1. These two appeals, one each by the assessee and the ITO relate to the assessee's assessment for the assessment year 1978-79. The other two assessees are only interveners in support of the contention that an establishment for boarding and lodging of the employees, auditors, directors, etc., of an assessee on tour for the purpose of the business is not a guest house within the meaning of Section 37(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). Accordingly, it is proposed to first dispose this ground, being ground No. 4 in the assessee's appeal, for which the Special Bench has been constituted. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 1,24,788 being expenses incurred by the company on transit flats at Bombay and New Delhi.The assessee-company maintained three guest houses, two at Delhi and one at Bombay. The two guest houses at Delhi are at Vasant Vihar and at Prithviraj Road. The guest house at Bom...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mandar Madhav Tambe and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)BomCR115; [1989]65CompCas251(Bom); 1986MhLJ274
Masodkar J.1. This appeal is filed by original opponent No. 3, that is to say, the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., which arises out of the compensation proceedings initiated under section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). By the impugned order, the insurance company has been held liable to pay the amount of compensation along with other opponents jointly and severally.2. For the purpose of the present appeal, certain finding as are relevant and are recorded by the trial court are not in dispute, in that the occurrence or the accident took place on July 4, 1979. The vehicle was driven by opponent No. 2 Jay singh Baburao Jadhav. The evidence of the clerk from the Regional Transport Officer's office at Kolhapur, by name Ramchandra Babu Mane, goes to show that the said Jay singh, the driver of the vehicle, was not holding any regular licence to drive on the date of the accident. However, he was given a regular licence as and from July 9, 1979, which ...
Phoenix Mills Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-1986
Reported in: 1986(8)ECC164; 1988(19)LC318(Bombay)
1. The petitioners are a public limited company carrying on business of manufacture and sale of cotton fabrics, man-made fabrics and yarn in Bombay. The petitioners were served with three show cause notices by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Bombay on November 25, 1975, May 25, 1977 and October 27, 1977 to show cause why certain amounts should not be recovered from the petitioners, being the amounts short-levied on the clearance of the goods during the period prior to the service of show cause notice. The Government of Maharashtra by notification dated January 4, 1979 declared the petitioner-company as relief undertaking within the meaning of the Bombay Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, 1958. By the said notification, the company was given protection for the period of one year from January 4, 1979 in respect of any remedy for enforcement of right, privilege, obligation or liability in favour of any creditor except liability to the workmen, to the Government of Maharas...
T.T. Blades Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-1986
Reported in: 1986(9)ECC104; 1989(20)LC485(Bombay); 1986(24)ELT231(Bom)
1. This petition has been filed and conducted in a most casual manner and Shri Shroff, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, after arguing for 45 minutes yesterday evening, stated today that he had wasted the time of the Court as the facts stated by him were inaccurate and the documents shown to the Court were not correct.2. Shri Shroff desired to tender a draft amendment when the petition was taken for hearing this morning and insisted that amendment should be granted accordingly. I declined to do so because amendment to the petition cannot be granted during the hearing of the petition and that too by merely tendering across the draft amendment. The petitioners should have taken care to take out Chamber Summons as prescribed by the Original Side Rules. It seems that the petitioners and the Advisers are under the impression that Rules are not made to be observed and they can throw anything at the Court whenever it is convenient to them. I declined to permit that cours...
Mukand Iron and Steel Works Ltd. Vs. V.G. Deshpande Registrar of Trade ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)BomCR286; [1986(52)FLR367]; (1986)IILLJ290Bom; 1986MhLJ267
1. On 11th August, 1983 the Additional Registrar of Trade Unions informed the Rashtriya Mukand Employee's Union (the 2nd respondent that he had on 10th August, 1983 cancelled its registration on the ground that it had contravened the provisions of Section 28 of the Trade Union Act by failing to send an annual return. On 18th August, 1984 the Registrar of Trade Unions informed the 2nd respondent, with reference to its letters enclosing the annual return and requesting restoration of registration, that the letter dated 11th August, 1983 'is hereby withdrawn as the Union has complied with provisions of Trade Unions Act, 1926, by submitting the necessary annual returns'. The only question that I have to consider in this petition is whether the Registrar had the power to withdraw the cancellation of the registration.2. Mukand Iron & Steel Works Ltd., (the petitioners) have a factory at Kalwe in the district of Thane. The 2nd respondent was the recognised trade union representing workmen at ...
Maharashtra General Kamgar Union Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-1986
Reported in: 1987(2)BomCR276; (1986)IILLJ113Bom; 1986MhLJ202
Mrs. Sujatha V. Manohar, J.1. The appellants are the original petitioners. They are a Trade Union registered under the Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926 and have their registered office at 252, Janata Colony, R. N. Narkar Marg. Ghatkopar, Bombay-400 077. The workmen of Respondent No. 3, namely, Indian Cork Mills Ltd. are members of the Appellants since the year 1980.2. Respondent No. 3 gave a notice of retrenchment dated 31st August, 1983 for the purpose of retrenching 308 workmen plus 5 members of clerical staff. In the Annexure to the notice of retrenchment reasons for the proposed retrenchment were set out as under :'In view of heave overhead and administrative expenses, the company is suffering losses. The company's profitability has dwindled considerably during the last few years. If appropriate action is not taken, then company may have to even face total closure. To avoid this, retrenchment has become inevitable.'A notice was served on the same date to the Secretary, Government of M...
New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Mandar Madhav Tambe and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-1986
Reported in: I(1987)ACC269
B.A. Masodkar, J.1. This appeal is filed by original opponent No. 3, that is to say, the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., which arises out of the compensation proceedings initiated under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). By the impugned order the insurance company has been held liable to pay the amount of compensation along with other opponents jointly and severally.2. For the purpose of the present appeal, certain findings as are relevant and are recorded by the trial court are not in dispute, in that the occurrence or the accident took place on July 4, 1979. The vehicle was driven by opponent No. 2, Jaysing Baburao Jadhav. The evidence of the clerk from the Regional Transport Officer's office at Kolhapur, by name Ramchandra Babdu Mane, goes to show that the said Jaysing, the driver of the vehicle was not holding any regular licence to drive on the date of the accident. However, he was given a regular licence as and from July 9, 1979, w...
R.N. Agarwal and Co. Vs. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1986
Reported in: 1986(10)ECC350; 1987(30)ELT872(Bom)
1. The petitioners are a partnership firm carrying on business of export and import. In the month of October 1983, the petitioners imported a consignment of 84 cases containing 50,000 pieces of Spark Plugs. The Spark Plugs imported by the petitioners are used in industrial pumps and engines. The petitioners filed Bill of Entry dated October 6, 1983 for clearance of the goods. The Customs authorities did not allow clearance on the ground that the cargo was under-valued and the cargo was not covered by the relevant licence under which the import was effected. The Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay, confiscated the cargo and imposed fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- in lieu of confiscation, in addition to re-fixing the value of the consignment against declared value. The Bill of Entry was accordingly revised on June 5, 1984. The petitioners challenged the order of confiscation by filing an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, and the appeal was all...
Megha Chanchaldas Jeswani Vs. Commissioner of Police and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1986
Reported in: 1986(3)BomCR214; 1986MhLJ561
P.S. Shah, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner challenges his detention under an Order dated September 30, 1985, passed by the Commissioner of Police, Thane, under section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers and Drug-offenders Act, 1981, (hereinafter called 'the Act'). This petition was heard by a Division Bench consisting of my learned brothers Jahagirdar and Tated, JJ. Jahagirdar, J., held that the order of detention is based on some of the grounds of detention which are irrelevant and in this view of the matter, set aside the order of detention passed against the petitioner and directed that he be set at liberty. Tated, J., however, disagreeing with the view taken by Jahagirdar, J., held that there is no legal infirmity in the impugned detention order and confirmed the detention order. In this view of the matter, he proceeded to pass an order discharging the rule.2. In view of the differenc...
Mavumkoottathil Subramanian Mohandasan Vs. State of Maharashtra and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1986
Reported in: 1990(26)LC95(Bombay)
R.A. Jahagirdar, J.1. At 6 a.m. on 12th of March 1985 the Customs Officers attached to the Air Intelligence Unit, Sahar Airport, Bombay, intercepted the petitioner near the exit gate. He had just arrived from Abu Dhabi, After taking a search of his belongings it was noticed that the petitioner was carrying with him gold bars and gold sovereigns bearing foreign markings and valued at the domestic market at Rs. 3,48,810. The gold was attached and the statement of the petitioner under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 was recorded. On the same day he was produced before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bombay and ultimately he was released on bail on 11th of April 1985.2. The Customs Department sent a proposal to the Government of Maharashtra to examine the possibility of detaining the petitioner with a view to preventing him from indulging in the activity of smuggling. By on order dated 27th of May 1985 and executed on 18th of June 1985 the petitioner was detained under Se...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »