Mumbai Court October 1993 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.
Rajendra Shantaram Chavan Vs. Executive Engineer and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-27-1993
Reported in: [1994(68)FLR419]
V.P. Tipnis, J Rule. Mr. Pai, learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader, waives service of Rule on Behalf of the respondents. By consent of the parties, Rule heard forthwith. Hard parties. Perused the judgments and the material on record. 1. The petitioner filed a complaint bearing complaint (ULP) No. 671 of 1989 before the Labour Court at Nasik under the provisions of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971. The crux of the complaint was that the petitioner was entitled to be continued in service as a permanent employee of the respondents. Along with the complaint, an application for condonation of delay was also filed. IT was pointed out that though the complaint is filed on 6.12.1989, the services of the petitioner were terminated on 30.9.1988. IT was contended that thereafter he was approaching the respondents from time to time, but only oral assurances were given. It was further alleged that the respondents have also taken in service the employees whose series were terminated along with the petitioner. IT w...
Hindustan Ciba-geigy Ltd. Vs. Prakash Chandar Juneja and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-27-1993
Reported in: 1994(2)BomCR550
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. The question has offence been canvassed as to what precisely is the status of a final order passed by a Court during the intervening period when an appeal or further proceedings challenging that order is pending before a superior Court. It is necessary to clear the air with regard to this relatively elementary issue as it has arisen in this and also several other proceedings.2. Criminal Appeal No. 92 of 1986, filed by the present petitioner, M/s Hindustan Ciba-Geigy Ltd., came to be disposed of by judgment and order dated 19-4-1993. The original accused, who was the respondent to that proceeding and to the present one, came to be convicted of an offence punishable under section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956. The operative part of the order reads as follows :-'The appeal is accordingly allowed. The judgment and order of the trial Court are set aside. The respondent No. 1 accused is convicted under section 630 of the Companies Act and is ordered to pay a fine in the ...
Standard Industries Ltd. Vs. Collr. of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-26-1993
Reported in: (1995)(75)ELT829Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The duty amount has not been quantified. However, they are imposed a penalty of Rs. 8 lakhs, for which the stay application has been moved.2. Shri Srinivasan, the learned consultant, pleads that the order indicates that some duty will be worked out by the Asstt. Collector on the basis of the guidelines outlined in the order by him and that duty demand, which is yet to be worked out, has been confirmed by him under Section 11A. Such an action is not permissible under Section 11A. If the duty specified in the show cause notice is sought to be modified, the revised duty amount, on adjudication, has to be determined by the adjudicating authority. However, he does not press for remand of the case on this ground. In any case, there is no mala fide in the case warranting imposition of penalty.3. After hearing both the sides, we find that duty demand has not been determined as yet. Hence penalty cannot prima facie be enforced without quantifying the duty. We grant stay and waiver of deposi...
Everest Gems Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-26-1993
Reported in: (1994)(72)ELT720Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The aforesaid appeals are directed against the following orders indicated against each:C/183/88 O/A No. 3998/87 BCH, dated 8-9-1987.CD/668/86 & O/O No. S/10-307/86 A, dated 18-6-1986C/972/87-BOM 2. From the above, it can be seen that the Appeal Nos. 668/86 and 972/87 are against the same order; one filed by M/s. Everest Gems against the order of confiscation and imposition of redemption fine and the other filed by the Collector of Customs under the direction of the Board seeking for determination of the liability on M/s. Everest Gems to penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act.3. In these cases M/s. Everest Gems have imported almonds in shell and claimed clearance against the additional licences issued to Diamond exporters in compliance with the Supreme Court directive on the Writ Petitions filed by the Diamond Exporters. These additional licences were sought to be utilised for the import of almonds by M/s. Everest Gems. The facts which are required for the disposal of the ...
ilyas Kader Sheikh Vs. Tenth Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-26-1993
Reported in: (1994)49ITD108(Mum.)
1. his is an appeal by the assessee which is directed against the order of the Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) L-Range, Bombay, dated 8-4-1988 wherein he has confirmed the penalty levied by the Income-tax Officer under Section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the delay in the submission of the return without reasonable cause.The assessee has taken several grounds to urge that the learned DC(A) was not justified in confirming the penalty and therefore, the penalty sustained should be cancelled.2. Assessee is an individual, who carries on brokerage business in motor car. No books of account have been maintained by the assessee for the business. For the assessment year 1982-83 for which the accounting year ended on 31-3-1982, the assessee filed return of income on 3-4-1984 showing a business income of Rs. 14,500 on an estimate basis.The ITO, inter alia, noticed that the drawings of the assessee and his father, who is separately assessed to tax, amounted to Rs. 14,400 b...
Sugdeo Ramchandra Tayade Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-26-1993
Reported in: 1994(2)BomCR54; 1994CriLJ2150
ORDER1. Having suffered conviction under section 294 Indian Penal Code and Section 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act (PCR Act for short) and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 15 days and fine of Rs. 100/- under first count and rigorous imprisonment for one month and fine of Rs. 100/- under second count, imposed by the Sessions Judge, Buldhana in Criminal Appeal No. 81/90, the present appellant, an employee in the office of the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Buldhana, has preferred this revision inter alia contending that his conviction more particularly under section 7(1)(d) of PCR Act, is wholly unwarranted and that the so-called insulting words alleged to have been uttered by him did not amount in insult or attempt to insult on the ground of untouch ability in relation to a member of a Scheduled Caste. The petitioner was originally convicted in Criminal case No. 328/87 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Buldhana for offence under sections 448,...
Padamjee Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-26-1993
Reported in: (1994)117CTR(Bom)288; [1994]210ITR97(Bom)
Dr. B.P. Saraf J.1. By this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the assessee, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following two questions of law to this court for opinion : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that the exchange difference of Rs. 4,15,057 Rs. 4,61,319 being the additional liability paid on account of fluctuation in foreign exchange rate, in respect of the instalments payable for the machinery imported by the assessee under the deferred payment scheme, does not constitute revenue expenditure? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in holding that the sums of Rs. 21,36,840, Rs. 4,89,502 do not constitute additional cost of machinery in terms of section 43A of the Income-tax Act, 1961?' The assessee is a public limited company engaged in the manufacture of certain varieties of paper. Fo...
Kashinath Gopal Khamble and ors. Vs. Bombay Dyeing and Mfg. Co. Ltd. a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-25-1993
Reported in: [1994(68)FLR286]
ORDERA.V. Savant, J. 1. Heard Mr. Ganguli for the petitioners and Mr. Rele for respondent No. 1 Employer. 2. This is a petition against the order of dismissal of the complaint on 2nd June, 1993. The main grievance in the complaint was that the departmental inquiry should be stayed in view of the subsequent criminal proceeding adopted by the injured person in respect of an incident which occurred on the 29th August, 1992. In respect of this incident in which the workman assaulted one Bhikaji Massage, the employer served charge-sheet on the workmen on the 26th December, 1992. After some adjournments in the month of January, 1993, inquiry commenced on 13th February, 1993, in the sense that the injured Bhikaji Massage was examined on that day. The inquiry was adjourned for cross-examination on 26th February, 1993, on which date the said Bhikaji Massage was cross-examined. He was further cross-examined on 5th March, 1993 and 18th March, 1993. One Sunita Chavan, who tried to rescue the said ...
Narainji Vishram Chhatbar Vs. Kiran Gajendra Mehta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-25-1993
Reported in: 1994(3)BomCR286
M.S. Rane, J.1. A Short but crucial and decisive point that arises for consideration in this matter is whether a partner can file a suit seeking reference to the Arbitrator on the basis of partnership agreement which is unregistered.2. Since, it is a point of law the matter is being disposed of without going into the merits or demerits of the rival contentions. 3. Few relevant facts :It is the case of the plaintiff that by a deed of partnership dated 1st August, 1990 partnership between the plaintiff and the defendant came to be constituted. Copy of the deed of partnership has been annexed as Exh-A to the plaint. On perusal of the said deed of partnership, it is noticed that the partnership has not been given any name. According to the plaintiff, dispute arose with regard to the said partnership. It may be stated that the main dispute seems to be revolving over the premises where the partnership business was supposed to have been carried on. According to the plaintiff disputes have ari...
Dhirendra S. Parikh Vs. Fifth Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-22-1993
Reported in: (1994)49ITD257(Mum.)
1 to 3. [These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.] 4. Ground No. 2 relates to a disallowance of a sum of Rs. 1,06,760 as unproved liabilities. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee-firm had shown a liability of Rs. 2,83,122 in the balance-sheet stated to be clients' deposits. The assessee had income from profession. One of the credits amounting to Rs. 2 lakhs stood in the name of Sri U.J. Patel since 1978 and a sum of Rs. 40,097 was shown as interest payable to him. On being asked to prove the genuineness, the assessee explained that it was not actually the clients' deposit, but it was a loan from four persons, Mr. K.P. Bakshi, Mrs. P.K. Bakshi, Mr. K.R. Sheth and Mrs. P.K. Sheth. It was pointed out that they had sold shares of Advance Computers Services (P.) Ltd. to Sri U.J. Patel for Rs. 2 lakhs and the amount was paid to the assessee on their behalf by Sri U.J. Patel. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer recorded the statement of Sri K.R. Sheth under...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »