Mumbai Court February 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.
Consolidated Hoists P. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-1992
Reported in: (1993)LC183Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Both the stay application as well as the appeal are against the order in original No. 068/CEX/1991 dated 23-10-1991.2. Though this day only stay application was listed for hearing, after hearing both the sides and with their consent, the appeal itself was taken up for hearing, because of the fact that the facts to be considered in the stay application are the same as for the appeal and they fall within a short compass.3. The appellants are manufacturers of cranes. They have removed a consignment of E.O.T. crane loaded in a truck on 18-3-1990 vide gate pass No. 64. It is reported that the crane could not be rebalanced while the truck was going on the road and hence the truck was brought back to the factory at about 5 p.m. on the same day. The consignment was rebalanced and finally the truck left the factory at about 3 a.m.on 19-3-1990, when it was intercepted by the Central Excise officers and it was found that the gate pass showed the time of removal as 3 p.m. whereas it was actual...
Rajan Enterprises (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-1992
Reported in: (1992)41ITD469(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of the CIT (Appeals), for the assessment year 1985-86. The only dispute in this appeal is with regard to the provisions of Explanation to Section 73, of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The assessee-company, as stated by the ITO, has been doing business in purchase and sale of cold rolled, 'Stainless steel strips besides purchase and sale of shares. During the year under consideration, it had purchased shares of M/s. Dimple Overseas P. Ltd., M/s. Ravindra Holdings Ltd., Shankar Holdings and Harikishan Invest. & Industries Ltd. for a total price of Rs. 4,29,734. It had sold these shares immediately within three months of their purchase at a very low rate for an aggregate consideration of Rs. 1,21,167, and, thereby incurred a loss of Rs. 3,08,567. Besides the above, the assessee had made a profit on the sale of 25,250 shares of Reliance Textile Industries Limited amounting to Rs. 1,55,100. The profit on Reliance Textile Industry shar...
Khatau Junkar Ltd. and Another Vs. K.S. Pathania and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-1992
Reported in: 1992(1)BomCR550; (1992)102CTR(Bom)194; [1992]196ITR55(Bom)
Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar J. 1. The first petitioner is a public limited company. In this petition, the first petitioner has challenged an intimation sent to it under section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act demanding income-tax and additional tax under section 143(1A) of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1990-91. 2. For the assessment year 1990-91, the first petitioner filed its return of income declaring a total income of Rs. 41,64,600 consisting of income chargeable under the head 'Business or profession'. Along with the return of income, the first petitioner also filed a tax audit report in Form No. 3CD as required under the provision of section 44AB of the Income-tax Act. The first petitioner claimed various deductions in the return of income. 3. On May 16, 1991, the first petitioner received an intimation under section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act dated March 18, 1991. Along with the intimation, an adjustment explanatory sheet was annexed. In that sheet, the first respond...
Nirlon Synthetic Fibres and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-1992
Reported in: 1992(62)ELT698(Bom)
ORDERPendse, J. 1. This is an application filed by the petitioners for setting aside order dated August 23, 1990 dismissing Writ Petition No. 1499 of 1981 on the ground that the petitioners and their Attorneys remained absent on more than one occasion. The application for setting aside the order is filed after one year and 129 days and there is also a prayer to condone the delay in filing the application. In support of the application it is claimed that the petitioners and their Attorneys could not remain present because the clerk of the Attorneys did not inform the fact of the matter being on the board. The petitioners claim that they had engaged counsel to attend to the matter, but in absence of instructions that the matter is on the board, the counsel could not attend. Shri Cooper, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners relied upon three decisions of the Supreme Court reported in : [1981]3SCR509 Rafiq and Another v. Munshilal & Anr., : (1981)4SCC574 Goswami Krishna M...
Ralliwolf Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-1992
Reported in: 1992(2)BomCR262; (1992)94BOMLR91; 1992(59)ELT220(Bom)
Kapadia, J. 1. The question involved in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India relates to the true scope and interpretation of Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 as duly amended by Act No. 22 of 1973, which came into force with effect from 1st October, 1975. 2. The first petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. It carries on business inter alia of manufacture of portable electrical tools, machines, fractional H.P. motors etc. At the relevant time, the first petitioner company was a subsidiary company of the holding company by the name Rallis India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as Rallis India). It is the case of the petitioners that they have been selling the fractional H.P. Motors in course of wholesale trade directly to the consumers. It is pleaded on behalf of the petitioners that the sales of the said H.P. Motors by the petitioners are on principal to principal basis and are at arm's length...
C.T.R. Trade Union and ors. Vs. C.T.R. Manufacturing Industries Ltd. a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-1992
Reported in: (1993)IIILLJ951Bom
A.V. Savant, J.1. Heard the Counsel.2. This petition was admitted on the 22nd November, 1991 and interim relief in terms of prayer (b) of the Petition was granted. Prayer (b) of the petition reads as under: -'(b) that pending the hearing and final disposal of the said Petition to grant interim relief to the members of the Petitioner No. 1 Union on par with the other workmen who have been paid increase in wage of Rs. 350/-from 1.4.90, Rs.375 / from 1.4.89 and Rs. 400/ from 1.4.91 and such other benefits received by the other co-workmen doing similar nature of work and including the arrears denied to them.'After this order was passed on the 22nd November,1991, the first Respondent employer filed Civil Application No. 6107 of 1991 for vacating the interim relief. Upon hearing the Counsel for the parties, this Court passed an order on the 6th December, 1991 modifying the earlier interim order and giving certain directions. The Petition was directed to be placed for hearing peremptorily and...
Garware Plastics and Polyester Vs. Collector of C. Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-1992
Reported in: (1994)(70)ELT365Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal directed against the order in original No.SKM-253/90-B1 dated 12-3-1990.2. The facts of the case for purposes of disposal of the appeal can be briefly stated as below:- The appellants, in their Vile Parle factory, were receiving Pancakes (video tapes) under modvat scheme, as inputs. They had taken modvat credit on three gate passes - Nos. 550 & 551 both dated 23-7-1988 and No. 593 dated 31-8-1988, which was objected to by the Department. It is needless to consider the objection with regard to G.P. No. 593 dated 31-8-1988, because the denial by the Assistant Collector with regard to the credit of duty covered by G.P. No. 593 was restored by the Collector (Appeals) and no appeal or cross objection with regard to this part of the order by the Collector (Appeals) has been filed by the Department. The issue to be considered is only with regard to the G.P. No. 550 & 551, where the Collector (Appeals) confirmed the order of reversal of modvat credit in respect of...
The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corpo ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Bom54; (1992)94BOMLR194
ORDERKapadia, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay seeking to challenge the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 27th June, 1988 in the above Writ Petition No. 2472 of 1987.2. An interesting question of law arises in this appeal, namely, whether the operation of Section 394 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 stands limited/restricted by Section 31 of the Petroleum Act, 1934. 3. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows: (a) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., IBP Company Ltd., along with two of their dealers filed in this Court the above writ petition seeking to challenge the right of the Corporation to insist on their obtaining a licence under Section 394 of the Corporation Act read with Part-II, Schedule M to the said Act of 1888. (b) The said oil companies manufacture and/or sell petroleum products and they also operate retail outlets themselves and...
Jayesh Ramniklal Doshi Vs. Carbon Corporation Ltd. and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-1992
Reported in: 1992(2)BomCR588; (1992)94BOMLR706; [1993]76CompCas748(Bom); 1992(2)MhLj1316
D.R. Dhanuka, J.1. The plaintiff is a shareholder of Carbon Corporation Limited, the first defendant-company. Defendant No. 2, Shri Mukul Harkisandas Dalal, has been functioning as a managing director and as a director of the first defendant-company for the past several years. Defendants Nos. 3 to 10 are other directors of the first defendant-company. Defendant No. 11 is the secretary of the first defendant-company. 2. The plaintiff contends that defendant No. 2 is not entitled to function as a managing director of the first defendant-company by reason of the statutory prohibition contained in section 267(a) of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956). The plaintiff contends that defendant No. 2 ceased to be a director of the first defendant-company by reason of the provisions contained in section 283(1)(d) of the said Act. The plaintiff contends that defendant No. 2 was adjudged as an insolvent by this court in insolvency proceedings adopted by creditors of defendant No. 2 (i.e., Insolvenc...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Bhatu Keshavrao Marathe
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-1992
Reported in: 1993(3)BomCR458
D.J. Moharir, J.1. This is an appeal by the State challenging the acquittal of the respondent accused upon a charge under section 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955.2. The prosecution case is that one Sambhaji Indave is a Forest Guard whose beat includes amongst others two villages Aslod and Doodkheda. The Forest Guard was provided with a government residential quarter at Aslod at a short distance from the public road and quite opposite is a flour mill.3. According to the prosecution, the complainant Forest Guard in the usual discharge of his duties to prevent illegal collection and appropriation, transport, etc., of forest produce, saw the respondent-accused at about 6.00 p.m. on 30th December 1981 on his tractor to which a trolley was attached. The trolley was full of manure. On the premise that the forest manure was a forest produce, the complainant stopped the accused on the road and made an enquiry as to whether he had a permit to collect and transport the manure....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »