Mumbai Court April 1987 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.
In Re: E.C.C.Workshops Ltd. and in Re: Larsen and Toubro Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-1987
Reported in: [1988]63CompCas381(Bom)
S.N. Veriava, J.1. These two petitions for amalgamation are being opposed only by the Regional Director, Company Law Board, Bombay, on the grounds that both these companies are registered under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969, and that the companies have not applied under section 23, Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act.2. Mr. Rele, appearing for the Regional Director, has argued that the exemption under section 23(3) is not available to these companies because such exemption is available only in respect of companies whose main business is rendering services which are similar. According to Mr. Rele, the main business of Larsen and Toubro Ltd. is of selling goods and the services rendered are only in the nature of 'after sales service' as indicated by the fact that it has sales worth Rs. 372 lakhs whereas the value of the services it provides are only to the extent of Rs. 2.29 lakhs and that, therefore, the services which it renders is only in the regi...
Maharashtra Veej Mandal Kamgar Sangh Vs. Maharashtra State Electricity ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-1987
Reported in: (1987)89BOMLR230; (1988)IILLJ134Bom; 1987MhLJ988
Kania, C. J.1. This is an Appeal by the Petitioner who has been unsuccessful in the Court below. The Appellant is a trade union registered under the Indian Trade Union Act. Respondent No. 1 is a statutory body constituted under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. The names of the other two Respondents have been deleted from the Memorandum of Appeal on the application of Mr. Dharap, Counsel for the Appellant.2. The Appellant raised industrial disputes relating to bonus for the years 1965-66, 1966-67, 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70. The disputes were taken up for conciliation under the provision of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and a failure report was submitted to the appropriate Government. A strike notice was issued by the Petitioner on November 5, 1971, to Respondent No. 1 and by its order dated February 7, 1972, the Government referred the disputes with regard to the bonus for the five years for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal. The disputes related to several items which w...
Kishore Jaikishandas Icchaporia Vs. M.R. Bhope, Presiding Officer, Lab ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-1987
Reported in: (1994)IIILLJ406Bom
Daud, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution assails an order passed by a Labour Court upon an application made under Section 13-A of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as) 'the S.O. Act'.2. The petitioner was in the employment of respondent No. 3. The question that arises in this petition is on what basis he should be paid during the period of suspension. According to the petitioner, he is entitled to subsistence allowance as per rule 25(5-A) of Model Standing Orders under the Bombay Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1959 (Rules). The employer on the other hand contends that the subsistence allowance payable to the petitioner would be regulated by the Certified Standing Orders which are at Exh.A.-in particular Clause 25(5A) thereof. At the most, it would be Section 10A(1) of the S.O. Act to which the Petitioner could resort. In no case, would the petitioner be entitled to subsistence allowance as prescribed by ...
Daruwala M. Umar A. Rehman Vs. Namdeo Kondiba Chavan and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-1987
Reported in: 1987(3)BomCR365; (1987)89BOMLR245; 1987MhLJ607
V.V. Vaze, J.1. The Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in its Chapter II deals with the classification of municipal areas and municipal councils. The first group in the council consists of Councillors elected at Ward elections. The second group consists of Councillors co-opted by the elected councillors. An unusual contingency is envisaged by section 18 of the Act whereunder if at the general elections no Councillor is elected from any ward the vacancy is to be filled in by nomination of a duly qualified person by the State Government. Such a nominee of the State Government would be deemed to be elected at an election under the Act. Thus the municipal council can have councillors who are elected, those that are co-opted and some who are nominated.2. Section 15 prescribes the qualification for becoming Councillor and disqualifications appear in section 16.3. As is usual with as Act prescribing elections to a body, a machinery has been provided un...
Fifth Wealth-tax Officer Vs. P.D. Store
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-1987
Reported in: (1987)22ITD111(Mum.)
1. These six appeals relate to the assessment years 1968-69 to 1973-74 and arise out of the proceedings for imposition of penalty under Section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. In the following table relevant dates of the original assessment orders, reassessment orders and the penalty orders are given :Assessment Date of Date of Date of Year original reassessment Penalty1968-69 21.1.1969 26.3.1979 31.3.19811969-70 8.10.1969 26.3.1979 31.3.19811970-71 18.1.1972 26.3.1979 31.3.19811971-72 18.1.1972 26.3.1979 31.3.19811972-73 19.1.1973 26.3.1979 31.3.19811973-74 31.10.1973 26.3.1979 31.3.1981 In the original assessment orders, the value of the flat at "El-Cid" Building at 13, Ridge Road, Bombay-6 including garage was taken at Rs. 1,39,000 for the first four assessment years and at Rs. 1,94,550 for the remaining two assessment years on the basis of the valuation made by the registered valuer. Subsequently, reassessment proceedings were initiated on 9.8.1974 under Section 17 of the We...
Bombay Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. Employees of Bmtc ( ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-1987
Reported in: [1990]69CompCas465(Bom)
S.N. Variava, J.1. This petition for winding up is by the company itself on the grounds set out in section 433(a), (e) and (f) of the Companies Act, 1956, i.e., on the footing that a special resolution to that effect has been passed and also on the ground that the company is not able to carry on any business or any of its objects and it is just and equitable that the company be wound up by this court.2. This petition has been opposed by the Maharashtra General Kamgar Union (hereinafter to as 'the union') and by one Pandurang Hari Mhatre who represents 1,700 workers, some of whom admittedly are members of the Maharashtra General Kamgar Union.3. It is necessary to set out the history relating to the incorporation of this company and the facts leading up to this petition.4. The Government of Maharashtra with the avowed object of relieving the congestion in the city of Bombay and developing its suburbs and outskirts, established a company by the name of City and Industrial Development Corp...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. State Bank of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-1987
Reported in: (1987)63CTR(Bom)19; [1988]169ITR298(Bom)
Sugla, J.1. In this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue, the questions of law referred to this court for opinion are :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the dividend income was not assessable in the hands of the assessee on the ground that it did not constitute its real income ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the dividend income was not liable to assessment in the hands of the assessee, as it was diverted by an overriding statutory charge and application created by section 74 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, before it accrued and reached the assessee ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the whole of the dividend income was exempt from assessment under section 11(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (4) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, 25% of the dividend income was exempt from assessment under section 11(1)(a) of the I...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S.M. Mehta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-1987
Reported in: [1988]170ITR582(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. The carelessness of the Revenue is in evidence once again.2. In an allied matter, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal had refused a reference. The Revenue. had then applied to this court under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the application had been granted. The Tribunal was in the process of drawing up the statement of the case therein at the time when it drew up the statement of the case in the present matter. In the statement of case in the present matter, the Tribunal recorded that 'the Commissioner of Income-tax undertakes to make available before the hon' ble High Court the requisite number of printed copies of the statement of the case to be submitted to the hon' ble High Court pursuant to its above order, at the time of the hearing of the reference application under, consideration'.3. The reference under consideration reached hearing before us on March 26, 1987. It was then adjourned to enable the Revenue to ascertain what had happened in regard to ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-1987
Reported in: [1987]169ITR314(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. This is a reference made under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, raising, at the instance of the Revenue, the following question :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, interest is payable by the Government under section 214 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, up to the date of the original assessment or to the date of the rectification order ?'2. The only facts that need to be stated are that the assessee had paid advance tax in the sum of Rs. 10,22,096.35. When the Income-tax Officer made the order of regular assessment on January 25, 1968, he did not take this payment into account. He made an order of rectification on July 23, 1968, by reason of which the said amount of Rs. 10,22,096.35 became refundable to the assessee. The question relates to this refund.3. Mr. Dalvi, learned counsel for the assessee, relied upon Circular Instruction No. 947 issued on April 23, 1976, by the Central Board of Direct Taxes to all Commissioners of Income-tax. Pa...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. B.B. Nigudkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-1987
Reported in: [1988]170ITR578(Bom)
Sugla, J.1. The facts are in a narrow compass. By a deed of settlement dated October 12, 1948, the settlor, who died on February 17, 1963, had settled certain properties on trust known as Navare Vishwastha Nidhi' with the objects described differently as 'temporary' and 'permanent' objects. The 'temporary objects' mainly provided for financial assistance to the members of the settlor's family, while the 'permanent objects' provided for public charities and public welfare such as giving of monetary help to needy and worthy students by giving scholarships, loans against guarantee of repayment or against some security for the study of religion, philosophy, etc. Clause (13) of the deed empowered the settlor, i.e., the deceased, to make changes in the temporary objects and even to cancel some of them with a provision that savings caused on account thereof would be expended on permanent objects only.2. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty rejected the claim of the accountable person that ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »