Mumbai Court August 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.
N.C.K. Sons Corporation Vs. Madhavnagar Cotton Mill Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-1986
Reported in: 1986(3)BomCR729
M.S. Jamdar, J.1. The appellants, N.C.K. Sons Corporation, have preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the order passed by the City Civil Court Judge, Bombay dismissing their application for setting aside the award passed by the arbitrator on behalf of the Cotton Textiles Export Promotion Council in Arbitration Case No. 446 of 1979, directing the appellants to pay to the respondents a sum of Rs. 25,734.70/- as costs.2. The appellants had some dealings with the respondent-textile mill and a dispute arose between them in respect of the cash incentive admissible on exports of powerloom cloth supplied by the respondent-mill to the appellants under a contract dated February, 16, 1976. The respondent-mill, therefore, submitted the dispute to the arbitration of the Cotton Textile Export Promotion Council and appointed one Shri R.P. Poddar as arbitrator on their behalf. As the appellant failed to appoint an arbitrator on their behalf, though duly called upon to do so the matter was referred ...
Mohammed Afzal Yakub and Yashpal Hiralal Mehra Vs. the State of Mahara ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-1986
Reported in: 1987(11)ECC83
P.B. Sawant, J.1. These two petitions can be disposed of by a common judgment, on a very short point. In petition No. 165 of 1986 the detention order was passed on 13th September, 1985 and in Petition No. 384 of 1986 the order was passed on 24th February, 1986 both under COFEPOSA.2. In Petition No. 165 of 1986, in paragraph 8 of the affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government it is admitted that the sponsoring authority submitted to the State Government the proposal for detention on 1st June, 1985 with some documents. Thereafter the order of detention was passed and the grounds of detention were formulated on 14th June, 1985. It is then admitted that other documents and translations were received from the Customs under their letters dated 24th June, 1985, 27th June, 1985, 3rd July, 1985, 12th July, 1985, 17th July, 1985, 23rd July, 1985, 26th July, 1985, 3rd September, 1985 and 10th September, 1985, on 27th June, 1985, 4th July, 1985, 18th July, 1985, 24th July, 1985, 29th July, ...
Fourth Wealth-tax Officer Vs. Smt. Ashalata G. Kelkar
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-1986
Reported in: (1986)19ITD377(Mum.)
1. These five appeals relating to the assessment years 1973-74 to 1977-78, filed by the revenue against the consolidated order of the AAC, Bombay, deal with the same issue and are, therefore, for the sake of convenience, disposed of by a common order.2. The grievance in these appeals is against the direction of the AAC that in working out the value of unquoted equity shares of companies under rule ID of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957 advance tax should not be deducted from the tax payable with reference to the book profits in accordance with the law applicable thereto ('the tax payable') for the purpose of determining whether and, if so, to what extent the amount representing provision for taxation was in excess and was, consequently, not to be treated as a liability.3. The learned departmental representative, Shri Subramanian, cited before us three rulings, one of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Oswal(Minor) v. CWT [1984] 148 ITR 620, another of the H...
Vishwanath Mahalu Gondhali and Another Vs. Ramanlal Deoram Tamboli and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-1986
Reported in: (1986)88BOMLR515; [1987]62CompCas510(Bom)
S.C. Pratap, J.1. This is the original claimants' - parents of the victim - revision against rejection by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred 'the Tribunal') of their application for payment of compensation on no fault basis under section 92A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, (hereinafter 'the Act').2. The victim died on the spot on March 11, 1985, in an accident involving a truck bearing MHS 511, then owned and driven by respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 was, according to the petitioners, the insurer of the said vehicle. The petitioners filed compensation application under section 110A of the Act along with a separate application (exhibit 5) under section 92A of the Act for immediate payment of compensation of Rs. 15,000 on no fault basis. The petitioners later filed another application (exhibit 21) and pressed their earlier aforesaid application (exhibit 5). Respondent No. 1 did not deny the fatal accident. Respondent No. 3, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (hereina...
Rakesh Enterprises and Another Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-1986
Reported in: 1986(10)ECC46; 1986(25)ELT906(Bom)
1. The petitioner No. 1 is a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act and carries on business as importers of chemicals. The petitioners placed order for import of 'Phenol USP' with Nampoo Trading Company Limited of Japan and the indent was for a total quantity of 26 metric tonnes. The consignment arrived in Bombay on September 8, 1982 and the petitioners had filed five Bills of entries on September 1, 1982 in respect of this consignment. The petitioners claim that Phenol USP is a basic drug or a pharmaceutical or a drug intermediate and in accordance with Notification No. 55/75 dated March 1, 1975 duty of excise is not leviable on the import of Phenol USP. The Assistant Collector of Customs did not accept the claim and levied countervailing duty at the rate of 8% which is the rate specified under Item No. 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The order of assessment passed by the Assistant Collector has given rise to the filing of this...
Albright Morarji and Pandit Ltd. Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-1986
Reported in: [1987]166ITR583(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. The Petitioner is a public limited company engaged in the manufacture and sale of phosphoric acid and industrial phosphates. One of the industrial phosphates manufactured by the petitioner is known as Sodium Tripolyphosphate and this produce was manufactured under a licence from an English Company known as Albright & Wilson Limited, London. The petitioner had entered into an agreement dated November English Company was to build and operate a plant and provide the know-how to the petitioner for manufacture of sodium tripolyphosphate. In the year 1976, Hindusthan Lever Limited, a company carrying on several business activities in India, decided to set up a plant at Haldia, near Calcutta, for the manufacture of sodium tripolyphosphate having an output capacity of 30,000 tonnes per annum. Hindustan Lever entered into a tripartite agreement with Albright & Wilson Limited, London - the English company - and Dharamsi Morarji Chemicals Company Limited, on June 15, 1976, and under ...
Vijay L. Deshmukh and Etc. Vs. the Dean, Medical College, Nagpur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-1986
Reported in: 1986MhLJ776
Deshpande, J.1. The common question that arises for decision in these eight writ petitions is whether by virtue of Rule 1 (16) of the Annexure to the Government Resolution Medical Education and Drugs Department No MED 1081 7575/MED-4, dt 21st December 1984, the Deans of the Medical Colleges are obliged to allot the vacant seats, if they remain unfilled after 30 days from the date of opening of the colleges, to the candidates belonging to the open category irrespective of the initial reservations contemplated by part-D of the Annexure.2. The eight petitioner, Who had passed the XII-standard H.S. C. examination in March 1985, applied for admission to the Medical Colleges located at Nagpur for the academic session 1985-86 under Part-C of the aforesaid rules promulgated on 21st December, 1984, The admissions were closed at serial No. 212, and the petitioner-Vijay Deshmukh in Writ Petition No. 1333 of 1986, who had secured 257 marks, and the other petitioners, were not placed in the provisi...
Meghana A.P. Desai (Smt.) and Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)BomCR377
G.F. Couto, J.1. Though separately, petitioners challenge in these petitions, the same decision of the third respondent, Southern Planning and Development Authority; communicated to the petitioner Smt. Meghana A.P. Desai, by its letter dated 18th April, 1985, directing her to re-submit her application and plans for construction of a house at Margao signed by an Architect registered with it and not by an Engineer. The issue and the question raised are the same and hence, this common judgement.2. Petitioner Smt. Meghana A.P. Desai, is the owner of a plot of land situated at Margao and bearing the chalta Number 54 of P.T. Sheet No. 196 of the Margao City Survey, petitioner Vikas Vithal Desai, being a Civil Engineer, registered under No. 292 with the local P.W.D. and under No 32 with the Margao Municipal Council, carrying on the profession of Civil Engineer in Goa. She decided to raise a building in her aforesaid plot of land and after engaging the services of the petitioner Vikas, submitt...
Afco Industrial and Chemicals Vs. Collector of Central Excise and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1986
Reported in: (1987)(32)ELT220Tri(Mum.)bai
1. M/s. Afco Industrial and Chemicals Ltd., have filed an application dated 10-9-1980 to the Government of India under old Section 36 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and this has been transferred to the Tribunal in terms of Section 35P and is to be treated as an appeal to the Tribunal. The appeal is against the order No. 102/79, dated 15-9-1979 under reference F.No. 194/133/78-CX-V(A) of the Central Board of Excise and Customs, under which the Board confirmed the order No.V(68) 15-84/Adj/77/83, dated 21-1-1978 of the Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Pune levying a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on the appellants under Rule 173Q of the Central Excises Rules, 19^4 and appropriating Rs. 5,000/- towards enforcement of the bond given by the appellants for the release of the seized goods as they were not available for confiscation.2. On behalf of the appellants, advocate Shri Pochkhanawala submitted that they were manufacturing Barium Chloride and Barium Chloride Anhydrous fallin...
Fifteenth Income-tax Officer Vs. P.J. Anthony
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1986
Reported in: (1986)19ITD381(Mum.)
1. These three appeals relating to the assessment years 1978-79, 1980-81 and 1981-82 filed by the revenue against the consolidated order of the AAC, Bombay, deal with the same issue and are, therefore, for the sake of convenience, disposed of by a common order.2. The assessee is an individual who was an employee of Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. ('the employer'). The assessee purchased a flat for which a housing loan of Rs. 83,851 was given by the employer. The ITO held that the rate of interest of 4 per cent charged by the employer on this loan was a concessional rate of interest, the fair rate of interest was 8 per cent and, therefore, the difference between interest at the fair rate of 8 per cent, which ought to have been charged, and the interest actually charged by the employer was a 'perquisite' within the meaning of Sub-clause (iii) of Clause (2) of Section 17 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The ITO, therefore, valued the perquisite on this account at Rs. 5,028 for the assessme...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »