Mumbai Court September 1989 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Impaco Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1989
Reported in: (1989)80CTR(Bom)191; [1990]186ITR714(Bom)
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. This reference is made under the provisions of Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue. The questions that are raised read thus :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for the year 1966-67 confirming the order of the Income-tax Officer was information within the meaning of Section 147(b) of the Act for the assessment year 1965-66 ? (2) Whether the definition of 'average rate of tax' in Section 2(10) of the Act applies to the same expression used in Section 85A ? (3) Whether the average rate of tax in Section 85A is the rate arrived at by dividing the total amount of income-tax chargeable on the total income as reduced by the amount of capital gains, by the total income as reduced by the amount of the capital gains ?'2. There is no dispute between counsel in regard to the answers to be given to the second and third questions. They are agreed that both the...
Ramniklal A. Gandhi Vs. R.R. Bhavsar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1989
Reported in: (1993)IIILLJ712Bom
S.M. Daud, J.1. This purports to be an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.2. The 5th Respondent to this appeal is the widow of Sayanna Lachiah who expired on 19 June, 1982. It is alleged that this tragedy took place in the course of an employment wherein Sayanna was serving the appellant and respondents 3 and 4 to this appeal. The widow's application for compensation under the Act was heard by Mr. V.V. Savaji designated as the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Judge of the 2nd Labour Court, Bombay. The said learned Judge after hearing parties passed an order, the operative part wherof reads thus: 'The application is allowed. Opposite parties Nos. 1, 2 and 3 (i.e., appellant and respondents 3 and 4 to this appeal) do pay amount of Rs. 19,200/- plus penalty of 25% on this amount i.e., Rs. 4,800/- (minus Rs. 10,000/- which the applicant has received) - Rs. 14.000/ - to the applicant'. This order was passed on 7 F...
Chhagan Lal Devman Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1989
Reported in: I(1990)DMC533
W.M. Sambre, J.1. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 3-12-1986 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Akola in Criminal Revision No. 213/85 reversing the order of J.M.F.C. in Misc. Criminal Case No. 7/85, applicant has filed this revision.2. It is the case of the applicant that the non-applicant No. 2 was residing with the applicant for 4 years and thereafter she herself suo-moto deserted him. Mr. Mohta, learned counsel for the applicant contended that the non-applicant No. 2 Ashabai was a lady of bad character. She was having illicit relation with one Dilip. He has contended that for four years they were having good relations. Two children were born to them and thereafter when she was pregnant for four months, she was assaulted by the applicant and he tried to pour kerosene on her person. This was the reason that she went to her father. It is contended that the applicant was annoyed by the conduct of the N.A. No. 2 as he saw that children were crying at home and Asha had been to ...
Mukesh Gopaldas Dattani Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1989
Reported in: (1992)(43)LC336Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Collector (Appeals) bearing No S/49- 270/84L dated 22.11.1984 confirming the order-in-original No S/10-254/84A dated 20.9.1984 with a modification that the redemption fine imposed may be reduced to Rs 4000/-.2. The appellant imported nutmegs valued at Rs. 15.984/- from Singapore, and sought the clearance of the consignment in the month of August 1984 under OGL, claiming the same permissible under entry No 48 of List 4 to Appendix 6 of Policy AM 1984-85 and OGL No 15/84 issued on 12.4.1984, and filed Bill of Entry No 915/2. The clearance was however objected to by the Department on the ground that it was a canalised item under Appendix 5 of the Policy 1984-85, and also that the entry No 48 in List 4 of Appendix stood deleted as early as 17.4.1984 by issue of the Public Notice. Notice to show cause was accordingly issued and in reply thereto, the appellant submitted that OGL No 15/84 issued in exercise of the powers conferred under Sec...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Isa Farms Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1989
Reported in: [1990]181ITR448(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. The only question of law raised in this reference at the instance of the Departments is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the income of the assessee-company is exempt under section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The assessee is a company. The proceedings relate to its assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73. The company was incorporated on September 17, 1951. On March 4, 1963, the company passed a resolution for amending its object clauses. A petition was filed in this court for permission to do so. The petition was initially opposed by the Registrar of Companies. However, ultimately, on the company's passing a fresh resolution retaining some object clauses and replacing certain others, permission was granted by this court. As a result of amendments, clause (e) was added to article 3 of the memorandum of association after clause (d). The opening portion of clause (e) reads as follows :'(e) To h...
Bombay Gas Public Ltd. Co. Vs. Papa Akbar and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1989
Reported in: (1989)91BOMLR895; [1990(60)FLR417]; (1990)IILLJ220Bom
1. The petitioners, the Bombay Gas Public Limited Company, challenge in this writ petition an order dated 4th November, 1987 passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, granting to the 1st respondent gratuity with interest as set out in that order.2. The 1st respondent joined the services of the petitioner is June 1950. He worked as a fitter upto 29th July, 1981 when the employees of the petitioners went on a flash strike. This strike was declared as an illegal strike under Section 25, subsection (1) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 by the Labour Court under its order dated 24th August 1981. Thereafter the Company has not carried on any business. It declared a closure on 26th December, 1983. The dispute in connection with the closure is still pending in Court.3. According to the 1st respondent he attained the age of superannuation on 17th March 1987. He filed on application on 8th April 1...
M.P. Mustafa Vs. Secretary (Preventive Detention) to the Govt. of Maha ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)BomCR618; (1989)91BOMLR376; 1991(1)MhLj238
H.W. Dhabe, J.1. The petitioner, who is the cousin brother of the detenue Shri Areeparambil Bappu (hereinafter referred to as 'the Detenu'), resident of Post Purathoor via Tirur, Mallapuram, District Kerala, has filed the instant criminal writ petition challenging the order of detention of the detenu dated 7-4-1989.2. The facts are that by the aforesaid order of detention dated 7-4-1989 the detenu, Areeparambil Bappu, was directed to be detained u/s 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short, the 'the COFFPOSA Act'). The grounds of detention upon which the above order of detention was based are dated 7-4-1989 itself and they were communicated to the detenu on the same date on which the detention order was served upon him. The grounds of detention show that on 16-1-1988 the Intelligence Officers of the Customs Department, on suspicion, intercepted in the presence of Panchas three pieces of unaccompanied Cargo which arrived un...
inspecting Assistant Vs. General Electric Co.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-15-1989
Reported in: (1990)32ITD538(Mum.)
1. The first ground in this departmental appeal is that the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that royalty income of Rs. 5,14,786 should be taxed at 40% and not at 53.75% as was done by the ITO.2. The assessee had contended before the ITO that the amount was liable to be taxed at 4C% only in terms of the provisions of Section 115A(l)(b). The ITO, however, rejected this claim. He observed that the payment was under an agreement dated 16-4-73. The same was merely amended in 1979 and, therefore, it cannot be considered as an agreement entered into after the cut off date which is 1-4-1976. He for that reason taxed the assessee at effective rate of 53.75%. The CIT(A), however, held that the agreement was with M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Originally the agreement was signed in 1973. The same was extended for an additional period of five years and the royalty received by non-resident company was as per the new agreement. He was of the view that the payment was under the agreement entered...
Sudhakar Pednekar Vs. Mrs. Emiliana De Silva Britto and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-15-1989
Reported in: [1989]66CompCas951(Bom)
Dr. G.F. Couto, J.1. At the hearing of this appeal against the order dated December 11, 1986, passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mr. Mulgaokar, learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent-insurance company, stated that the insurance company will deposit in the Claims Tribunal the amount of Rs. 15,000 under section 92A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, within three weeks from today reserving, however, its right to agitate the question that there is no liability on its part under the insurance policy.2. In view of the above statement made by Mr. Mulgaokar, Mr. Kakodkar, appearing on behalf of the appellant, stated that the present appeal may be disposed of bearing in mind the aforesaid concession on behalf of the insurance company and accordingly, the impugned order be set aside.3. By the impugned order, learned Presiding Officer of the Claims Tribunal had held that there was no liability of the insurance company as the payment of the pr...
Swiss Bank Corporation Vs. Jai Hind Oil Mills Company and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-15-1989
Reported in: [1989]66CompCas241(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by original defendant No. 2 against an interlocutory order dated April 28, 1987 passed by the learned single judge granting certain injunction against the defendants in terms of prayer (a) of Notice of Motion No, 728 of 1986. Respondent No. 2 - original defendant No. 1 has filed cross-objections challenging the grant of injunction against defendant No. 1. As the appeal is preferred against the interlocutory order, we wish to make it clear even at the outset that the observations made by us should be considered only as prima facie observations and the conclusions recorded by us should not be treated as final conclusion at time of hearing of the suit. The facts which gave rise to filing of these proceedings are as follows.2. The plaintiffs (Jai Hind Oil Mills Company) are a partnership firm carrying on business in dealing in the manufacture of various types of edible oils, and is also engaged in the business of importing and exporting diverse good...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »