Mumbai Court February 1989 Judgments
Anchor Line Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-1989
Reported in: (1990)32ITD403(Mum.)
1. These two appeals are by the assessee against the order of the C.I.T. (Appeals) for A.Ys. 1982-83 & 1983-84.2. The first ground claiming non-application of Section 44-B is covered against the assessee by the Tribunal decision in Anchor Line Ltd. v.ITO [1984] 10 ITD 63 (Bom.) and in ITA Nos. 2679 & 2680 (Bom.)/84 and 2695 & 2696 (Bom.)/84 dated 10-7-1987.3. The alternative contention of the assessee before us at the time of hearing was that the unabsorbed losses of the earlier years have not been set off against the income of these two years. There is no discussion on this point in the assessment order of the Income-tax Officer. The C.I.T. (Appeals) rejected the claim of the assessee by following his earlier order. This point also seems to be covered by the Tribunal order wherein the directions were given to allow loss/depreciation in accordance with law. The learned counsel of the assessee, however, brought to our notice that the Tribunal in a latter decision in the cas...
Tag this Judgment!Harakchand Mansraj Vs. Emerald Woollen Milles Pvt. Ltd. and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)BomCR221; [1990]68CompCas702(Bom)
ORDERS.C. Pratap1. After this petition for winding up was admitted and advertised,the company paid in full all its creditors without exception. Thereafter, however, the present applicant claiming to be creditors of the company, have come forward for substitution in place of the original petitioners.2. Now, substitution, though permisssible, is a matter in the discretion of the court. It is not automatic. It does not follow ipso facto upon a mere application in that behalf on the mere allegation, unsubstantiated even if it be that a company is unable to pay its debts, Much depneds on the facts and circumstances which would vary from case to case. Discretion, as all judicial discretion, must be exercised one way or the other not arbtrarily or mechanically but for sound and good reasons. The court must see whether a case for substitution is made out and the paramount test is whether the applicant for substitution is one who could have made out a case for admission of a petition for windin...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmanrao Dauji Chunarkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-1989
Reported in: 1990(2)BomCR661
V.A. Mohta, J.1. By this petition acquisition of 2 H 2 R land of field Survey No. 46/2 admeasuring 18 acres of village Ghatanji, for the purposes of resettlement of persons affected by upper Painganga Project under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (The Central Act) has been challenged.2. Three points are urged by Shri Samudra, the learned Counsel for the petitioner:(1) In view of the Maharashtra Resettlement of Project Displaced Persons Act, 1976 (The State Act), instant acquisition can be only under that Act.(2) The land does not fall under the benefited zone of Upper Painganga Project and hence cannot be acquired.(3) In calculating the total holding of the land owner for determination of the area to be acquired as per Government Resolution No. RPA-1071/41583/R-I, dated 26th March, 1973, pot kharab land ought to be excluded.3. Point No. 1.Admitted position is that the State Act has not been made applicable to the Upper Painganga Project. Under the circumstances, the po...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Customs Vs. Shantilal Khimraj Kothari
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1989
Reported in: (1989)(24)LC273Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) bearing No. S/49-193/87GC (BMY) dated 24-10-1988 whereby he has set aside the order-in-original No. 87/87(DC) dated 8-6-1987, has ordered issue of gold dealers licence to the respondent herein.2. Before dealing with the matter, it may be clarified that pending appeal before us, the respondent in this matter filed a Writ Petition No. 3722 of 1988 in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay for an order directing the licensing authorities to issue the licence, pursuance of the order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals). In this matter, the Hon'ble High Court has granted rule and further directions to issue the licence by 31-1-1989 unless the order of the Collector (Appeals) is set aside by that time. The statement is made on behalf of the department that in pursuance to the directions issued by the High Court in the said Writ Petition the licence has already been issued. However, the same is made su...
Tag this Judgment!Hab Poly Pack Vs. Collector of C. Ex. and Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1989
Reported in: (1989)(20)ECC115
1. This is an appeal directed against the order of the Collector (Appeals) bearing No. V. 2(39 CETA) 373/87/669 (No. R-713/BD-157/87) dated 12-1-1988 rejecting the appellants' appeal for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, without going into the merits of the appeal.2. Shri Willington Christian, the learned advocate, arguing on behalf of the appellant, contended that for making the deposit of the disputed amount, there should have been a demand quantifying the amount, then only they can comply with the requirement. In the case, no such demand in pursuance of the order-in-original of the Assistant Collector dated 29-12-1986 has been issued quantifying the amount of duty. He also took us through the order-in-original where the amount of duty has been left blank. He, there-, fore, argued that the Collector without indicating as to the amount to be deposited ought not have rejected their appeal on this short ground without going int...
Tag this Judgment!Karvenagar Sahakari Griha Rachana Sanstha Maryadit, Pune and anr. Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1989
Reported in: AIR1989Bom392; 1989(3)BomCR106; (1989)91BOMLR518; 1989MhLJ320
Pendse, J.1. Petitioner 1 - Karvenagar Sahakari Girha Rachana Sanstha Maryadit is a co-operative society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act , 1960 (hereinafter referred to as ``the Act ``) and has been classified as a tenant-ownership type of housing society within R. 10 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules , 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ``the Rules``). The Society owns Land Acquisition Act which is divided into 27 plots which are leased out to members for the purpose of raising construction for personal use. The bye-laws of the Society, which are duly approved by the Registrar, prescribe that a member would be enrolled provided such member desires to construct a house on the allotted plot for his own use. The Society is entitled to decline enrolment of any member, in case the intention to construct a house is not bona fide. The bye-laws further prescribe that a person would not ;be enrolled a...
Tag this Judgment!Perfect Paper and Steel Converters Private Ltd. and Ors. Vs. the Bomba ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1989
Reported in: [1989(59)FLR66]; (1993)IIILLJ24Bom; 1989MhLJ518
Sawant, J.1. This appeal raises a question of law which is of general importance, namely, whether in proceedings before the Industrial Court under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), a party has a right to be represented by a person of his choice notwithstanding the fact that he does not fall in any of the categories mentioned in Regulation 11 of the Industrial Court Regulations, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations) made by the Industrial Court pursuant to the power conferred upon it under Section 33 of the Act.2. The facts leading to the present appeal are as follows:The 1st Respondent-Union of Workmen had filed a complaint against Petitioner No. 1 Employer under Section 28 of the Act alleging unfair labour practices mentioned in items 1(a) and 4(f) of Schedule II of the Act. Petitioner No. 1-Employer appeared in the complaint through Petitioner No. 2 who was described as its...
Tag this Judgment!Dasharath Narahari Narvekar Vs. Syndicate Bank
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-1989
Reported in: [1989]66CompCas45(Bom)
Dr. G.F. Couto, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated October 30, 1986, whereby the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa, dismissed the suit for damages filed by the appellant.2. The suit has been filed on the ground that the respondent-bank advanced a sum of Rs. 1,20,000 to the appellant by way of a loan for the purchase of a second-hand Leyland bus bearing registration No. GDS-1512, somewhere in the year 1978. The respondent-bank filed a civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa, being Special Suit No. 179 of 1983, for recovery of money arising out of the said transaction. The said suit is pending and inspite of this pendency, the appellant paid to the bank more than Rs. 35,000 on the said account ; that the delay in the payment of the amount to the bank was due to various factors beyond the control of the appellant, namely, want of a permanent permit to ply the said bus, accident and frequent breakdowns. He, therefore, requ...
Tag this Judgment!Rapicut Carbides Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex. and Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-1989
Reported in: (1989)(41)ELT259Tri(Mum.)bai
1. For hearing the applicants' appeal on merits, they are required to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,52,217.04 towards duty.2. Shri Karnik, the learned advocate, on behalf of the applicants contended that prima facie, the order of the authorities below is bad in law since they have ignored the Retrospective Legislation, namely the Central Duties of Excise (Retrospective Exemp tion) Act, 1986.Elaborating on this point further, he stated that the applicants are manufacturers of Tungsten Carbide Tools Tips. For manufacturing these tool tips they are required to produce at the intermediary stage Tungsten Carbide Power. These products were exempted before 28-2-86 in terms of the Notification No. 118/75. Conse quent on new Tariff and simultaneous extension of MODVAT credit, this notification was rescinded on 1-3-86. Further the goods captively consumed covered by MODVAT scheme were again exempted by Notification No. 217 of 2-4-86.The demand made is in respect of the period from 1-3-86 to 2-4-86 whi...
Tag this Judgment!R.N. Kaker Vs. Shabir FidahuseIn and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-1989
Reported in: 1989(1)BomCR503; 1990CriLJ144
ORDER1. Two questions arise in this petition :(a) Whether the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Customs, Narcotics Control Bureau of the Central Excise, are police officers while investigating offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ?(b) Whether the statements made before them are inadmssible in evidence under Section 25 of the Evidence Act or under Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ?2. The facts leading to the present petition, are briefly as follows : On 4th September, 1987 on the basis of a secret information, the Officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (D.R.I.) Bombay, assisted by the Officers of the Narcotics Control Bureau, Bombay, intercepted a Taxi bearing Registration No. MRO 6230, near Hotel Fariyas at Colaba, Bombay, Respondent No. 1 was the sole occupant as driver of the said taxi. The Officers saw a zipper bag at the feet of respondent No. 1. The Officers took the Taxi to their Office Building at Co...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »