Mumbai Court October 1992 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.
Citric India Ltd. Vs. Union of IndiA.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-21-1992
Reported in: 1993LC257(Bombay); 1993(66)ELT566(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. Petitioner No. 1 is a Public Limited Company and on September 24, 1968 obtained a licence from Food and Drug Administration, Maharashtra, Bombay and commenced manufacture of pharmaceutical products, which are used in the drug formulations. One of the items manufactured by the petitioners is Citric Acid I. P. The Company filed classification lists from time to time classifying the product under Tariff Item No. 68 of the First Schedule of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and the classification lists were duly approved by the Excise Authorities. On March 1, 1975 the Central Government issued notification in exercise of powers conferred by sub- rule (1) of Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 exempting goods of the description specified in the Schedule annexed to the notification and falling under Item No. 68 of the First Schedule from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon. this Notification No. 55 of 1975 was amended on March, 1978 by Notification No. 62 of ...
Heena Shipping Agency Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-20-1992
Reported in: 1993(63)ELT230(Bom)
Sujata Manohar, J.1. The first petitioner is a partnership firm, carrying on business as Customs House Agents in Bombay. The second petitioner is a partner of the first petitioner-firm. 2. The first petitioner-firm was granted a temporary licence under the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 on 21st of May 1986 which was valid for a period of one year. This licence was revalidated for a further period of one year. It was to expire on 20th of May 1988. 3. Under Regulation 9 at least one of the partners of the petitioner-firm was required to qualify in the written and oral examinations to be conducted by the respondents under the said Regulations within a period of two years from the date of grant of a temporary licence before they could be granted a regular licence. None of the partners of the first petitioner-firm qualified in the examination during this period. The first petitioner-firm however, had an employee who had passed this examination. This qualified employee, how...
Sylvester and Company Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-20-1992
Reported in: 1993(1)BomCR299; 1993(63)ELT53(Bom)
Srikrishna, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, impugns an order of the Collector of Customs, Bombay dated 29th April 1992. 2. The petitioners are a partnership firm, carrying on business as Licensed Clearing Agents. The petitioner hold a valid licence issued under the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations). The petitioners hold a valid licence since the year 1945, which has been renewed from time to time under the Regulations in force. Under Regulation 8, a temporary licence to act as Customs House Agents may be granted upon fulfilling the conditions stipulated Regulations 6. Examinations are held in accordance with Regulation No. 9 and, if a partner of a partnership firm, or any full-time employee employed by a partnership firm or a company, or any individual carrying on business by himself, qualifies by passing the said examination, then a regular licence is granted under Regulation 10. The C...
Sonia D/O Dinesh Bagade Vs. Maharashtra Institute of Technology and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-20-1992
Reported in: (1993)95BOMLR826
B.N. Deshmukh, J.1. The petitioner after passing her XII standard examination, had applied for admission to 1st year M.B.B.S. Course in private Medical College. She belongs to Scheduled Caste being Mahar by caste, having secured 244 marks in the medical group.2. For the year 1992-93, in all 1490 seats were available for admission in private Medical Colleges. Out of these, 20% seats are to be filled in by the candidates from Government quota. The total number of seats available in such Government quota of 20% were to the extent of 303.3. Out of these 303 seats, 43 seats were available for Scheduled Castes; 18 seats were available for Scheduled Tribe; 15 seats were for V.J.N.T.; 31 seats were for Other Backward Classes, while 196 seats were available for candidates belonging to Open Category.4. There Is no dispute that, for this year, out of 18 seats meant for Scheduled Tribe, only 2 seats could be filled in by Scheduled Tribe candidates, while 16 seats were vacant.5. The distribution of...
C.J. Thakar (A. P.) Vs. Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-19-1992
Reported in: [1995]214ITR323(Bom)
V.A. Mohta, J.1. The following two questions are referred under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, to this court at the behest of the accountable person : '(1) Whether the firm, 'Messrs. J. M. Thakar and/or C. J. Thakar and/or P. D. Thakar Advocates' had any goodwill (2) Whether any goodwill passed in the death of late Shri J. M. Thakar ?' 2. The basic facts are : The late Shri J. M. Thakar, Advocate, died on March 31, 1971. The accountable person for his estate is his son - Shri C. J. Thakar, Advocate. Shri J. M. Thakar, Advocate, at the time of his death was partner in the firm 'Messers. J. M. Thakar and/or C. J. Thakar and/or P. D. Thakar, Advocates'. The other two partners were Shri C. J. Thakar and Shri P. D. Thakar, both Advocates. The firm earned income from legal practice by the partners. Originally, the firm was styled as 'messers. J. M. Thakar and/or H. M. Thakar, Advocates', when it consisted of two partner - Shri J. M. Thakar and Shri H. M. Thakar. When Shri C. J....
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Raghuvanshi Mills Ltd
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-19-1992
Reported in: [1994]205ITR636(Bom)
Mrs. Sujata Manohar, J.1. This reference pertains to the assessment year 1966-67. The following two question have been referred to us under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the amount of Rs. 5,50,000 standing to the credit of gratuity reserve account should be included in the capital computation under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 2. Whether, on the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the dividend reserve was a reserve to be included in the capital computation for the purpose of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 ?' 2. In the balance-sheet of the assessee-company as on March 31, 1965, there was a credit balance of Rs. 5,50,000 in the gratuity reserve account. The question is whether this amount should be treated as a reserve and included in the capital of the assessee-company for the determination...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Gangabishan Champalal Bajaj and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-19-1992
Reported in: [1995]214ITR348(Bom)
V.A. Mohta, J.1. At the instance of the Controller of Estate Duty, Nagpur, the following questions have been referred under section 64 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 : '(i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in taking the view that the order of assessment passed by the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty in respect of the estate of the deceased, Mathuradas Gulabchand Bajaj, was barred by limitation on April 29, 1972, under section 73A of the Act (ii) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the Appellate Controller cancelling the assessment made by the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty ?' 2. The late Shri Mathuradas Bajaj died on July 23, 1961. His sons voluntarily filed an estate duty account on October 25, 1971, i.e., after more than ten years of the death. Assessment was completed by the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty on April 29, 1973. The Appellate Controller cancelled the assessment as time-barred under sectio...
Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax. (Vice ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-19-1992
Reported in: [1994]207ITR1091(Bom)
Mrs. Sujata Manohar, J.1. In this reference, which is under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, one question has been referred to us at the instance of the assessee. This question relates to the assessment year 1966-67. Five questions are referred to us at the instance of the Revenue. These questions pertain to the assessment years 1966-67 and 1967-68. Therefore, in all six questions are before us. These questions are : 1. Assessee's appeal (assessment year 1966-67) : 'Whether having regard to the different provisions of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act of 1964, the assessment made under section 6 of the Act of the assessment year 1966-67 on December 21, 1972, beyond the period of four years from the end of the assessment year in question is valid in law ?' 2. Revenue's appeals (assessment years 1966-67 and 1967-68) : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the balance as on the first day of the accounting year in the account styled as 'foreign tax...
Kashi Conductors Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-19-1992
Reported in: 1993LC129(Bombay); 1993(63)ELT42(Bom)
A.V. Savant, J.1. The petitioners seek to quash the impugned action of the respondents in endorsing the Bill of Entry, Exh. D., to the petition, to the effect that the petitioners are liable to pay the import duty on the goods imported by them despite the fact that the imports were made under the Special Imprest Licence issued under the Duty Exemption Scheme. The petitioners, therefore, seek a direction restraining the respondents from demanding or recovering from the petitioners any duty of customs or additional duty in respect of the clearance of the goods imported against the said Special Imprest Licence which is at Exh. C to the petition. 2. The first petitioner is a firm of which the second petitioner is a partner. The first respondent is the Union of India. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 represent the Customs Department whereas respondents Nos. 4 and 5 represent the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports and the 6th respondent is the Bombay Port Trust. The petitioners claim to be the r...
Rizvi Nagar Co-op. Hsg. Sty. Ltd. Vs. the Municipal Corporation of Gr. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-19-1992
Reported in: 1993(1)BomCR495
S.M. Jhunjhunuwala, J.1. In the suit for declaration that auction sale conducted by 1st defendants on 25th October, 1989 in favour of 3rd defendant was illegal, invalid, null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs, Consent Terms were filed and Consent Decree in terms of the said Consent Terms was passed on 11th March, 1992. The plaintiffs agreed to pay to 3rd defendant the sum of - Rs. 7,35,000/- with interest thereon at the rate of 18% per annum from 20th October, 1989 till date of payment in the manner provided for in the said Consent Terms. Clauses 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, which are relevant for the purposes of this Chamber Summons, read as follows :1. The plaintiffs to pay to the 3rd defendant a sum of Rs. 7,35,000/- (Rupees seven lakhs thirty five thousand only) with interest thereon at the rate of 18% from 20th October 1989 till the date of payment as follows : (a) A sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs) on or before 15th March 1992. (b) The balance of the amount of - Rs. 3,35,0...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »