Mumbai Court March 1990 Judgments
Ravindra V. Tamba Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Represented by the Executi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1990
Reported in: 1990(3)BomCR80
Sharad Manohar, J.1. The question involved is a more question of calculations. The stake involved is probably of a few hundred rupees; perhaps of a thousand or so, and on this small point the Government and the Contractor are breaking their heads figuratively.2. In the dispute between the Government on one hand and the Engineer Contractor on the other, Award was given. There is no dispute that the principal amount payable by the Government to the Contractor is an amount of Rs. 5, 246.39 p. in respect of the final bill. Interest is made payable on the same from the date when the final bill became payable. Para 99 on the Award is quite clear on this point. That para shows that the payment of final bill was delayed by the Government unnecessarily and no that account the claimant has been held entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date when the payments should have been made till the date of the Award.In the proceedings for making the Award the rule of the Court, the A...
Tag this Judgment!Datta Gyanaba Bokde Vs. Vice-chancellor, Marathwada University and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1990
Reported in: 1990(3)BomCR69
N.P. Chapalgaonkar J.1 The Marathwada University, a statutory University, which is represented by the Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 before us, having a seat at Aurangabad, published a short tender notice in daily 'Lokmat' on 4th August, 1989, calling for the sealed B-1 tenders from the registered and un-registered contractors for the construction of Environmental Science Department building. The estimated cost of he work was Rs. 7,02,000/- and the renders were to be submitted before 2.30 p.m. upto 19th August, 1989. The earnest money of Rs. 7,100/- was to be deposited. After the tenders were opened, the University took a decision to allot the work to Respondent No. 3 M/s. Sanjeev Construction Company, Aurangabad. It is the case of the petitioner who had also submitted a tender that his render should have been accepted being the lowest and also for the reason that he had complied the necessary requirement of the tender, whereas the tender of the Respondent No. 3 was not a legal one. Therefor...
Tag this Judgment!Zenith TIn Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-1990
Reported in: (1990)LC139Tri(Mum.)bai
1. For hearing the applicants appeal on merits, they are required to deposit a sum of Rs. 16,85,176.35 towards duty and Rs. 5,00,000/- toward penalty. Their plant and machinery have been confiscated but allowed redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 1.00 lac.2. Shri K. Parasrampuria, the learned advocate for the applicants, contended that invoking of extended period alleging suppression of material facts is totally unjust and uncalled for, because of the fact they are removing the metal containers in un-asembled condition under Chapter X procedure for captive use and was known to the department since long. Earlier these were classified under T.I. 68 and they were availing exemption for captive use. Consequent on the change in Tariff effective from 28-2-1986, the department contended that, that was classifiable as parts of metal containers and in absence of any contention for captive use, they are liable to duty, though the metal containers manufactured and supplied for use for packing b...
Tag this Judgment!Harmindersingh Pritamsingh Virdi Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-1990
Reported in: 1990(2)BomCR280; (1990)92BOMLR219; 1991CriLJ241
1. The petitioners in both the above matters are facing trial under sections 392 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code and under certain other penal provisions. After the filing of the charge-sheet, each of them were furnished with the copies of the investigation papers which were in Marathi. Since the petitioners as also their Advocates were not familiar with the Marathi language, they applied to the Sessions Court for directions that the translation of the police statements should be furnished to them in English. The said prayer was rejected by the Sessions Court. Being aggrieved, they have approached this Court with a similar prayer.2. Shri Keswani, the learned Counsel appearing in Criminal Writ Petition No. 21 of 1989 and Shri Miranda, the learned Counsel appearing in Criminal Application No. 488 of 1989 submitted that the language of the Criminal Courts in Bombay is English. Under Section 207 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a duty was cast upon the Magistrate to furnish free of costs t...
Tag this Judgment!Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. First Income-tax Officer and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-1990
Reported in: (1990)85CTR(Bom)243; [1991]188ITR135(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. By this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order of the Income-tax Officer dated August 24, 1981, granting interest of Rs. 29,972 under section 214 on Rs. 7,49,447. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that the petitioner is a company. The proceedings relate to its assessment for the assessment year 1978-79. The previous year ended on September 30, 1977. Advance tax was payable by the petitioner for the year on June 15, 1977, September 15, 1977 and December 15, 1977. However, two installments totalling Rs. 6,07,716 were paid on January 25, 1978, and February 16, 1978, i.e., after the due date but before the end of the financial year 1977-78. Provisional assessment under section 141 was made on August 7, 1978, resulting in a refund of Rs. 13,81,186. However, the same was received by the petitioner on October 15, 1978. As against the provisional claim for interest under section 214 on the excess amount of Rs. 13,8...
Tag this Judgment!Spaco Carburettors (India) Ltd. Vs. M.A. Ajinkya, Commissioner of Inco ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-1990
Reported in: (1990)92BOMLR193; (1990)83CTR(Bom)166; [1990]186ITR360(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. By this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity and legality of the order dated January 30, 1986, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City IV, Bombay, under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The petitioner is a company. The proceeding relate to its assessment years 1979-80 and 1982-83. The issue involved being common, only the facts pertaining to the assessment year 1979-80 are referred to for the sake of brevity. The assessment was completed on September 17, 1982. On the order of assessment itself, the Income-tax Officer had directed that interest under section 216 will be charged for deferred payment of advance tax. The petitioner had filed an appeal against the order of assessment. The appeal was disposed of by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on December 30, 1982. It is pertinent to mentioned that no ground against levy of interest under section 216 was taken by the petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Hariganga Security Services Ltd. Vs. Member, Industrial Court, Maharas ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-1990
Reported in: (1991)IILLJ203Bom
Deshpande, J.1. Writ Petition No. 1858 of 1987 filed by the employer, Hariganga Security Services Limited, Nagpur, is directed against the order reinstatement of respondent No. 2 passed by the Industrial Court while setting aside the order of the Labour Court, holding that the respondent No. 2 had committed an unfair labour practice. Writ Petition No. 288 of 1987 is filed by Subhash Meshram an employee against Hariganga Security Services Limited against the order passed by the Industrial Court refusing to award back wages while ordering his reinstatement.2. It would be convenient to refer to the parties as arrayed in Writ Petition No. 1858 of 1987. The respondent No. 2 Subhash Meshram was employed as a security guard with the petitioner from December 1983. He was also the Secretary of the Union of Workers of Hariganga Security Services Limited. A call for a strike was given by the Union and the strike commenced from 23rd October, 1984. At the intervention of the Deputy Commissioner of ...
Tag this Judgment!Trinity Electric Syndicates and ors. Vs. S.N. Shende of Bombay and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-1990
Reported in: 1990(3)BomCR104
T.D. Sugla J.1. By this petition under Article 226 read with 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the validity and legality of the notice dated 19-1-1987 issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City VIII, Bombay under section 263 of the Income tax Act 1961. It is common ground that during the course of its assessment for the assessment year 1982-83 completed under section 143(3) on 31-10-1984, the petitioners were inter alia granted exemption under section 35(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 irrespect donation of Rs. 2,00,000/- to M/s. K.M. Scientific Research Centre. It is also common ground that the said institution at the material time was approved by the prescribed authority under provisions of section 35(1)(ii) of the Act.2. The impugned notice was issued by the Commissioner on the ground that by a subsequent notification dated 2-1-1986, Government of India had withdrawn its earlier notification granting approval to the said institution...
Tag this Judgment!Anil S/O Ishwar Paserkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-1990
Reported in: 1990(3)BomCR96
V.A. Mohta, J.1 This is a Habeas Corpus Petition filed by the detenu Anil Paserkar challenging the order of his detention under section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (the N.S. Act), dated 30th May, 1989.2. According to Shri Jaiswal, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order and the continued detention is vitiated because of:(1) Non-explaining the grounds of detention in Marathi.(2) Non-submission of the report of the State Government to the Central Government within 7 days as required under section 3(5) of the N.S. Act.(3) Non-mentioning of the period of detention in the original order.(4) Non-consideration of the representation alleged to have been made by one Jiwan Baghele.3. Basic facts first. The detenu was externed from Nagpur District for a period of two years vide order dated 1st March, 1983 by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, since he was found to engage himself in the commission of violent and desperate acts, armed with deadly weapons since 1980. He v...
Tag this Judgment!Second Income-tax Officer Vs. K. M. Abraham.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-1990
Reported in: [1990]33ITD538(Mum)
ORDERPer Shri M. A. Ajinkya, Accountant Member - These are two appeals by the department against the consolidated order of the CIT (Appeals)-XIII, Bombay, dated 12-2-1986. The substantial ground in these appeals is that the CIT (A) erred in entertaining the assessees appeals regarding the claim for interest u/s. 244(1A) even though section 246 does not contain any provision to file appeals with reference to interest u/s. 244(1A). The other grounds taken by the department are refinements of this main ground. It is, for example, contended that the CIT (A) erred in holding that interest u/s. 244(1A) is admissible in respect of the tax paid on self assessment even though section 244(1A) lays down that interest is payable in respect of an amount paid in pursuance of an order of assessment or penalty. Further, it is contended that the CIT (A) erred in holding that interest u/s. 244(1A) is admissible from the date of regular assessment, even though section 244(1A) lays down that interest is p...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »