Mumbai Court August 1991 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.
Puna Arjun Mali and anr. Vs. Mana Maka Bhil and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-1991
Reported in: (1991)93BOMLR961
N.P. Chapalgaokar, J.1. The question raised for consideration of this Court in this petition is whether a deemed purchase or a statutory transfer under the tenancy law is included in the term transfer defined for the purpose of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 by Section 2(1)(i).2. Petitioners herein were cultivating 4 Hectares and 69 Ares and 24 Ares portion of Survey No. 195 situated at villages Tangaon, Taluka Bhadgaon, District Jalgaon, since 1939. On tillers' day i.e. 1.4.1957, petitioners became deemed purchasers by virtue of the provisions of Section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. Since the original owner was a tribal, proceedings were initiated for the restoration of the land to him under the provisions of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 (hereinafter called 'Restoration Act, for the purpose of brevity). Since the original owner was a tribal, proceedings were initiated under the prov...
Mangilal J. Parmar Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-1991
Reported in: (1992)40ITD323(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of the CIT (Appeals) for the assessment year 1974-75. The facts leading to this appeal are slightly involved and may first be stated.2. The assessee is an Association of Persons called Mangilal J. Parmar and Ors. We are concerned with its assessment for the assessment year 1974-75,which was completed on 6-1-1983 by the ITO F-Ward, Thane. The assessment order was passed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 11-3-1976 for the assessment year 1975-76 in the case of Mangilal J.Parmar. In this assessment, Mangilal's l/3rd share amounting to Rs. 22,525 in the capital gains arising on sale of land was brought to tax.This land bearing C.T.S. No. 5 Tika No. 13And admeasuring 2524 sq.yds.was purchased by Mangilal jointly with two others, namely, Ramesh Rupchand Parmar and Phulwantibai Ramesh Parmar. Out of this land, a piece of 907 sq. yds was acquired by the Govt. of Maharashtra and Mangilal along with others received total compensation of Rs...
Chandrika Dinesh Vs. Fifth Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-1991
Reported in: (1991)39ITD595(Mum.)
1. Since a common issue is involved in these appeals against the action of the I.T. authorities, they are disposed of together for the sake of convenience.2. Smt. Chandrika Dinesh is the assessee in I.T.A. No. 4341/Bom./87, while Shri Harsh Dinesh is the assessee in ITA No. 4342/Bom./87. Shri Dinesh Dharamsey is the husband of Smt. Chandrika Dinesh and father of Harsh, the sole beneficiary of Harsh Dinesh Trust. On 28-3-1972, Shri and Smt. Dinesh Dharamsey jointly purchased a property known as Shradhadeep situated at Gokhale Road, Poona from Shri Dharam sey Khatau father of Shri Dinesh Dharamsey and father-in-law of Smt. Chandrika Dinesh for a consideration of Rs. 94,000. Shri Dinesh Dharamsey contributed Rs. 64,000, while Smt. Chandrika Dinesh contributed Rs. 30,000. Thereafter, the said property was rented out to Shri Dharamsey Khatau on a monthly rent of Rs. 400. On 23-10-1980, Smt. Chandrika Dinesh gifted a portion of her share in the said property to Harsh Dinesh Trust whose sole...
Bharatiya Kamgar Sena Vs. Geoffrey Manners and Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-1991
Reported in: [1992]73CompCas122(Bom); [1991(63)FLR435]
1. The appeal arises upon an order sanctioning, under section 391 of the Companies Act, the scheme of amalgamation between Geoffrey Manners and Co. Ltd. (GM) and John Wyeth (India) Ltd. (JWIL) with some modification. The scheme proposes to transfer a part of GM's undertaking to JWIL. The appeal is filed by the Bharatiya Kamgar Sena which is the representative trade union of the workmen of GM and which objected to the sanction of the scheme on the ground that it purported to compulsory transfer of workmen of GM to employment in JWIL. The learned single judge accepted the submission that such compulsory transfer could not be effected and modified the scheme so as to remove therefrom the provision that provided for the compulsory transfer Instead, the learned judge ordered that the concerned employees would have an option to join JWIL, in which event, they would be protected by the relevant provisions of the scheme. Those employees who chose to remain with GM would 'be entitled to all suc...
Suresh Pandurang Gawandi Vs. Works Manager, Maharashtra State Road Tra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-1991
Reported in: 1992(2)BomCR317; [1992(65)FLR691]
B.N. Srikrishna, J.1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns an Order of the First Labour Court, Pune, dated 9th October, 1984, dismissing Application (IDA/LCP) No. 140 of 1982 made by the petitioner under section 32C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The petitioner is employed as a driver in the first respondent's corporation, which is a corporation set up under the Road Transport Corporations Act for transport of passengers, repairs of engines, fuel pumps, starters, dynamos etc. The petitioner made an application under section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act, in which he claimed that he and other drivers were employed in the S.T. Central Workshop, Dapodi, which was a 'factory' registered under the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948. He alleged that he was required to work continuously for 11 hours everyday during the period 1st January, 1973 to 13th March, 1982. He claimed that he was entitled to get overtim...
In Re: the Vysya Bank Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-1991
Reported in: 1992(2)BomCR176; (1991)93BOMLR500
A.A. Cazi, J.1. This is a petition under sections 433, 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 for winding up of the Company Randhir Steel & Alloys (P) Limited which has its registered officer at 30/21, Jambulwadi 1st Floor, Kalbadevi Road, Bombay-400 002. It is undisputed that unless the petitioners show that the petitioners have complied with the provisions of Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 434 of the Companies Act, they will not succeed in this petition. The relevant portion of section 434(1)(a) reads as follows :'434(1) A company shall be deemed to be unable to pay its debts -(a) if a creditor, by assignment or otherwise, to whom the company is indebted in a sum exceeding five hundred rupees then due, has served on the company, by causing it to be delivered at its registered office by registered post or otherwise, a demand under his hand requiring the company to pay the sum so due and the company has for three weeks thereafter neglected to pay the sum, or to secure or comp...
Joseph Emmanuel Vs. State of Goa and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-1991
Reported in: 1991(4)BomCR36
K. Sukumaran, J.1. The petitioner, who has been functioning as Principal of the Goa College of Pharmacy from 1981 onwards, has approached this Court challenging the order of the Government-Exhibit 'O' dated 7-8-1991 by which the 3rd respondent was promoted on 'ad-hoc' basis to the post of Principal with immediate effect and for a period of one year or till the post is filled in on regular basis whichever event occurs earlier. In that order it was further mentioned that the petitioner would be relieved of the additional charge of the post of Principal. The order was varied by the Government itself by order dated 12-8-1991, where the word 'promote' was substituted by the word 'appoint'. By an amendment petition, the petitioner had prayed for quashing this order as well as totally unjustified and contrary to law. The 3rd respondent has filed an affidavit in justification of the appointment and asserting his continuance as Principal after having assumed charge of that post from 8-8-1991.2....
Godfrey Phillips India Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1991
Reported in: (1992)(39)ECC103
1. This is an appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by Collector (Appeals) bearing No. PPM-579/B.I-262/87 dated 14-9-1987.2. The undisputed facts are that the appellants, being manufacturers of cigarettes brought back cigarettes bearing Red & White (special) brand under the provisions of Rule 97 of the Central Excise Rules; but after remaking, they cleared cigarettes of different brands. Hence, their refund claim under Rule 97 in respect of a sum of Rs. 26,722,74 was rejected on the ground that the goods brought in were not utilised in the remaking of the same class of goods. The Collector (Appeals) confirmed the Asstt. Collector's order of rejection and rejected the appellants' appeal. Hence, the present appeal is before the Tribunal.3. It is the contention of the learned advocate, Shri Dharuwalla that 'cigarettes' form a class. It is not disputed by the Department that damaged cigarettes brought in were refined and remade into cigarettes only. It is not necessary that the ci...
Chemicals and Allied Products Vs. Collector of Customs and Cen.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1991
Reported in: (1992)(41)LC346Tri(Mum.)bai
1. For hearing the applicants' appeal on merits, they are required to deposit a sum of Rs. 14,675 towards duty and Rs. 5,000/- towards penalty.2. Shri Gohil, the ld. Consultant, pleaded that the demand seeks to cover the period from 3.10.1983 to 9.9.1985 by issue of show cause notice dated 11.4.1989. The allegation is that the goods have been clandestinely removed. Even then the demand covers beyond a period of 5 years. He also contended that even for the rest of the period, the order of the Addl. Collector is not sustainable, and they have an excellent case on merits.3. After hearing both the sides, we direct the applicants to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000/- within six weeks from the date of communication of this order and reporting compliance within seven weeks, failing which their appeal is liable to be rejected. On making such deposit, there shall be stay and waiver of recovery of the balance of duty and penalty amounts....
Larsen and Tobrou Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1991
Reported in: (1992)40ITD92(Mum.)
1 to 16 [These paras are not reproduced here, as they involve minor issues.] 17. The next ground of appeal is that the CIT (Appeals) erred in holding that 50 per cent of depreciation of Rs. 10,000 claimed by the assessee on its holiday homes was to be disallowed in computing the taxable income of the assessee. As observed earlier, while dealing with the disallowance in connection with the maintenance of holiday homes, provisions of Section 37(4) will have no role to play in the case of holiday homes. The disallowance, therefore, is not in order. In any case, depreciation being an allowance which is admissible under the provisions of Section 32 of the Act, the same cannot be disallowed under Section 37(4) of the Act. This is because Section 37(4) contemplates disallowance of only those expenses which are otherwise admissible under Section 37 of the Act. Expenses or allowances allowable under the other provisions of the statute would remain untouched by the provisions of Section 37(4) o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »