Mumbai Court July 1992 Judgments
S.H. Kelkar and Co. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1992
Reported in: (1993)44ITD170(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A), for the assessment year 1989-90.2. The first dispute in this appeal is against the addition of Rs. 58,79,694 in the valuation of the closing stock. The assessee-company is engaged in the manufacture of fragrances and industrial perfumes. It purchases raw material, consumable stores etc. (hereinafter referred to as 'inputs') and uses them in the manufacture of its final products and, in case certain stock of input is left out, it is shown in the closing stock. The method of the valuation of such closing stock as adopted by the assessee is cost. The dispute is with regard to the valuation of this closing stock. The assessee's case is that the cost of input was the price paid by the assessee, as reduced by the right of credit of excise duty paid and included therein (hereinafter referred to as 'MODVAT credit'). The cost of purchase, according to the assessee, was the net of this right. The MODVAT credit is directly rel...
Tag this Judgment!Aboobakar Abdulrehman and Co. Vs. Shreeji Properties
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Bom265; 1992(3)BomCR402
ORDER1. On 28th October, 1987, this Court directed the Court Receiver to hand over the property back to the defendants. The Court Receiver wants to comply with that order but he finds that there are some occupants in certain portions of the property who have come in after the Court Receiver took charge of the property. The Court Receiver therefore by this Report prays for an order '(a) That the present unauthorised occupants of the suit property a list whereof with the portions in occupation has been shown on the site plan Exhibit 'E' hereto be ordered to hand over vacant possession of the said respective portions to the Court Receiver. (b) Any other order that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to give in the matter.'2. The facts necessary to be mentionedare these : The plaintiffs in the suit were mortgagees of the suit property. The defendants were mortgagors. This suit was filed in1934 for enforcing the mortgage. On 9th July1935 a preliminary mortgage decree was passed. At that time th...
Tag this Judgment!S.H. Kelkar and Co. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1992
Reported in: (1994)49TTJ(Mumbai)262
ORDERR. P. GARG, A.M. :This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A), for the asst. yr. 1989-90.2. The first dispute in this appeal is against the addition of Rs. 58,79,694 in the valuation of the closing stock. The assessee-company is engaged in the manufacture of fragrances and industrial perfumes. It purchases raw material, consumable stores etc. (hereinafter referred to as inputs) and uses them in the manufacture of its final products and, in case certain stock of input is left out, it is shown in the closing stock. The method of the valuation of such closing stock as adopted by the assessee is cost. The dispute is with regard to the valuation of this closing stock. The assessees case is that the cost of input was the price paid by the assessee, as reduced by the right of credit of excise duty paid and included therein (hereinafter referred to as MODVAT credit). The cost of purchase, according to the assessee, is with the net of this right. The MODVAT credit is ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Cna Peejay Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M.V. Nikolay Maksinov and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Bom286; 1994(3)BomCR273; 1993(1)MhLj463
ORDERPendse, J.1. This is an appeal preferredby original plaintiffs to challenge judgment dated February 5, 1990 delivered by learned single Judge in Admiralty Suit No. 8 of 1980. By the impugned judgment the learned Judge held that the Admiralty Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit and thereupon the plaint was returned for presentation to the proper Court, that is this Court under its Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction. The facts which gave rise to filing of the suit are as follows.2. The appellants-plaintiffs are private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act and inter alia carry on business of import and export. Respondent No. 1 is a vessel flying U.S.S.R. Flag and respondent No. 3 are the owners of the said vessel. Respondent No. 2 are the general agents in Bombay and elsewhere in India in respect of respondent No. 1 vessel as well as other vessels belonging to respondent No. 3. Respondent 2 as the general agents of respondent No. 3 are responsibl...
Tag this Judgment!S.Y. Bangar and ors. Vs. Kirloskar Kisan Equipment Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1992
Reported in: (1993)ILLJ758Bom
1. The petitioners-workmen, by this writ petition under Article 227 challenge the judgment and order passed by the learned Member of the Industrial Court, Pune on August 8, 1984 dismissing their complaint (ULP) No. 21 of 1984. 2. The short facts giving rise to the petition are as under : The petitioner-workmen were working as helpers with the first respondent-company. It was their case that without observing the seniority list they were retrenched on December 28, 1983 while some of the juniors were retained and thus the first respondent company indulged in unfair labour practice covered by Items 5, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the MRTU and PULP Act'). On such allegation, they filed the unfair labour practice complaint being Complaint (ULP) No. 21 of 1984 in the Industrial Court at Pune. The said complaint was resisted by the first respondent company and it was their...
Tag this Judgment!P.R. Nerurkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)BomCR439
M.G. Chaudhari, J.1. As both the appeals involve common questions they can be conveniently disposed of by this judgment.Facts of Appeal No. 751 of 19822. Upon a complaint instituted by the appellant Mr. P.R. Nerurkar, an Inspector appointed under section 15 of the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment & Welfare) Act, 1969, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in the Court of Presidency Magistrate, 16th Court, Ballard Pier, Bombay on 21-4-1980 complaining that the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 (hereinafter referred to as the respondents) who were carrying on export business amongst other things in garments, had contravened Clause 14 of the Cloth Markets or Shops Unprotected Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme) framed by the Government of Maharashtra in exercise of powers conferred under sub-section (1) of section 4 of the aforesaid Act, they had committed offence punishable under Clause 44 re...
Tag this Judgment!Geeta Krishnaraj Merchant Vs. Krishnaraj S. Merchant
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1992
Reported in: II(1993)DMC515
V.P. Tipnis, J.1. This appeal is filed by the appellant-wife against the judgment and order dated 30th July, 1991 passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court at Bandra which judgment and order, according to the appellant, is passed ex parte. Admittedly, the wife has also preferred am application for setting aside the ex parte decree. This matter was therefore adjourned in view of the fact that if the application of the wife for setting aside the ex parte decree is allowed by the Family Court, the appeal itself would be infructuous.2. On the last occasion i.e. on 18-6-1992 we were specifically informed that, the Family Court has already directed that the petition by the wife for setting aside the ex parte decree be heard peremptorily on 28th July, 1992. On 18th June, 1992 we directed that the Family Court should scrupulously abide by the said direction. We record with displeasure that despite the fact that the writ of the said order passed by this Court was delivered to the concerne...
Tag this Judgment!Rakesh Nemkumar Porwal Vs. Narayan Dhondu Joglekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1992
Reported in: 1994(3)BomCR355; [1993]78CompCas822(Bom); 1993CriLJ680; 1993(1)MhLj630
Saldanha, J.1. On the unusual facts that have emerged before us in this petition, certain interesting points of law have been canvassed which are of some consequence having regard to the fact that they concern the ambit and scope of section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. This recently introduced proviso of law was specially placed on the statute book for purposes of making the dishonour of cheques punishable by a criminal court and thereby providing a speedy and efficacious remedy to the victim of such a situation. The provision, however, prescribes certain conditions and limitations which have been seriously debated in the course of the hearing of this petition and which are summarised by us below as they substantially represent the high points of the issues in controversy : (a) Whether it is open to a complainant to invoke the process of a criminal court alleging an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act at any point of time earlier to that as it pr...
Tag this Judgment!Harshad S. Mehta Vs. Union of India, and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1992
Reported in: (1992)94BOMLR789; 1992CriLJ4032
ORDER1. This is an application for anticipatory bail under S. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - hereinafter referred to as the 'Code'. 2. On 31st May 1992, the premises said to be those of a person named Niranjan Shah were searched by officers of the Income-tax Department. In the course of this search, the officers came across a large number of documents showing questionable deals by various persons. Some of the documents evidenced violations under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 - hereinafter referred to as the 'FERA'. Niranjan Shah made himself scarce immediately after the search of his premises which had taken place on 31st May 1992. The petitioner came to be arrested on 4-6-1992 by the CBI in what is now commonly referred to as the scam of the century. Since that time he is in custody and the custody has been continued from time to time. The last occasion when the petitioner was produced before the Special Court was on 17-7-1992 and the Judge presiding over th...
Tag this Judgment!Mohamed Yusuf Ali Vs. the Assistant Collector of Customs and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1992
Reported in: (1992)94BOMLR395; 1992CriLJ3285
ORDER1. The applicant has preferred this application for his release on bail. The applicant had earlier preferred Criminal Application No. 536 of 1992. The same was also for his release on bail. It was rejected on 28-2-1992 on the ground that there was an indication that the applicant though is a medical student has a tendency to abscond and it would not be desirable to grant bail. However taking into consideration the fact that the applicant is a medical student as was disclosed from the documents produced by him, it was further ordered that the respondent No. 1 shall file the complaint within a period of 3 weeks and the Court before which it will be filed, will decide the case within a period of 4 months thereafter. 2. In pursuance of this order, the respondent No. 1 did not file the complaint within 3 weeks i.e. on 26-3-1992. Thereafter however the case has not been completed within a period of 4 months of the filing of the complaint. The roznama which has been produced before this ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »