Mumbai Court December 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.
Automotive and Allied Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Regional Provident Fund ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-1993
Reported in: (1990)95BOMLR740; [1994(68)FLR642]; (1999)IIILLJ165Bom
M.L. Pendse J.1. The appellant company was incorporated on January 23, 1948 and the founder members were D. S. Kalyanpur and his two brothers J. S. Kalyanpur and Original respondent No. 2 S. S. Kalyanpur. One Ambala Patel was also a founder member but retired in the year 1954. D. S. Kalyanpur was Governing Director of the company till his demise in the year 1956. The entire share holding of the appellant company was held by the members of Kalyanpur family. The registered office and Bombay Sales Office of the company is situated in Bombay. In the year 1950 the company opened a branch office at Madras and original respondent No. 2 was appointed to manage the affairs of Madras office. The company also set up a factory at Lonavala to manufacture grease nipples, grease guns, oil guns etc., and the distribution of these articles in the Southern States i.e. Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Kerala was entrusted to original respondent No. 2 In addition to being a director and in contro...
Mandovi Pellets Ltd. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner for Goa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-1993
Reported in: [1994(68)FLR1134]; (1995)ILLJ254Bom; 1994(1)MhLj273
M.G. Chaudhari, J.1. The applicant, Mandovi Pellets Ltd. Workers' Union, through its General Secretary, has applied for permission to intervene in the Writ Petition filed by Mandovi Pellets Ltd., Company against the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Goa, and the Union of India. The petitioners are the employers and the applicant is the Union of Workers. The workers represented by the Union are the employees. 2. The Regional provident fund Commissioner (respondent No. 1), passed an order on 25th June, 1992, under Section 7-A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous to as 'the Act') applying the provisions of the act to the petitioners' establishment which manufactures iron ore pellets at their factory at Shiroda, Goa. The Commissioner has acted upon the Notification No. GSR 346 dated 7th March, 1962, issued by the Central Government. The said Order has been challenged by the petitioners in the writ petition. According to them, they are not covered by the provisions of the...
J.A.C. Enterprises Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-15-1993
Reported in: (1994)(72)ELT626Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appeal is directed against the Order No. S/8-28/93 ADMN dated 24-9-1993 of the Collector of Customs, Bombay, suspending the Customs House Agents Licence CHA No. 11/890 of the appellants, in exercise of his powers vide Sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 21 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984. "Whereas M/s. JAC Enterprises, were issued with CHA Licence No. 11/890, and were permitted to transact CHA business at Bombay Port. And whereas, an investigation against M/s. JAC Enterprises CHA No. 11/890, is contemplated in connection with seizure of 150 kgs. of Mandrex Tablets valued at Rs. 15,00,000/-, at Air Cargo Complex, Sahar, Bombay. And whereas, I am prima facie satisfied about the involvement of M/s. JAC Enterprises, CHA No. 11/890, in the export of the Mandrex Tablets valued at Rs. 15,00,000/- and therefore this is an appropriate case where an immediate action for suspending the CHA licence of M/s. JAC Enterprises CHA No. 11/890, is necessary. In view of above,...
Mukul Harkisondass Dalal Vs. Jayesh Ramniklal, Doshi and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-15-1993
Reported in: [1997]88CompCas808(Bom); 1994(1)MhLj259
M.L. Pendse, J. 1. This is an appeal preferred by original defendant No. 2 to challenge the legality of order dated February 6, 1992, passed by the learned single judge on Notice of Motion No. 1802 of 1991 restraining the appellant by an order of injunction from functioning and holding himself out to be the managing director or director of defendant No. 1 - company. The trial judge also issued an injunction against the company from permitting defendant No. 2 to act as managing director or director and defendant No. 2 was further restrained from receiving any salary, perquisites, benefits or privileges from the company as managing director or director. The decision of the trial judge is reported in Jayesh Ramniklal Doshi v. Carbon Corporation Ltd. [1992] MLJ 1316 ; [1993] 76 Comp Cas 748 (Bom). We are unable to agree with the view taken by the learned judge and the impugned order is required to be set aside. 2. Advance Paints Private Limited instituted Summary Suit No. 2409 of 1985 agai...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sadhana Nayar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-15-1993
Reported in: (1994)117CTR(Bom)15; [1994]210ITR648(Bom)
D.R. Dhanuka, J. 1. By this reference made under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question to this court for its opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that Circular No. 30 of 1941 is applicable in the case of the assessee when admittedly the provisions relating to option of assessing firm or the partner were not present in the Income-tax Act, 1961, as compared with the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ?' 2. The relevant assessment year is the assessment year 1975-76. The accounting period relevant to the previous year ended on March 31, 1975. 3. During the previous year one Mr. S. P. Seth used to carry on business as film distributor in the name of Messrs. S. P. Pictures. During the relevant years, the assessee used to carry on business as a film distributor in the name of 'Sadhana Enterprises'. 4. Messrs. Navketan International Films Pvt. Ltd...
ispat Profiles (i) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-1993
Reported in: (1995)(76)ELT166Tri(Mum.)bai
1. For hearing the applicant's appeal on merits, they are required to deposit Rs.1,10,07,719/- towards duty and a penalty of Rs. 50 lakhs.Their plant and machinery have been ordered confiscation but allowed redemption on payment of fine of Rs. one lakh vide Collector's order No. V 184115-14-1/92 dated 15-6-1993.2. The issue involved in this stay application is that the applicants are alleged to have manufactured machine rollers, out of the duty paid rollers received by them. There is no dispute that the duty paid rollers as well as the grooved rollers, which they are allegedly manufacturing, are classifiable under the same Tariff Heading 84.55.The applicants are engaged in re-rolling of iron and steel products.For that purpose, they bring duty free rollers, which are cut and grooved so as to fit them into steel rolling mills. The allegation is that they have not declared this manufacturing activity and they have not paid the duty leviable thereon.3. We have already considered this asp...
Mario Raposo S/O. Roland Raposo Vs. H.M. Bhandarkar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-1993
Reported in: (1994)IILLJ680Bom
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.Rule, Heard forthwith by consent of parties.1. A very interesting question of law arises in this petition. The petitioner and the respondents are members of a union called UCO Bank Employees' Association, Nagpur (hereinafter referred to as the 'ACT') A complaint came to be made under Section 28(1-A)(2) of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 before the Industrial Court whereby it was pointed out that the office bearers of the Union, had purchased the shares floated by the Unit Trust of India to the extent of Rs. 75,000/- and that these shares were purchased in the personal ends of the concerned office bearers. A complaint was, therefore, made before the Registrar of Trade Unions, but that was not considered. An application was, therefore, made before the Industrial Court praying therein that the Executive Body should be 'dissolved' as it had abused its powers and a committee should be appointed for the administration of the Union. An interim relief was also prayed for whereby i...
Mahavirprasad S/O Hanumandas Sharma Vs. Surendra Ambalal Khatri and an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-1993
Reported in: 1995(1)BomCR13; (1993)95BOMLR504
V.V. Kamat, J.1. This revision is filed under Section 115 of the C.P.C. against the impugned order dated September 10, 1993 of the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati, in execution proceedings regular Darkhast No. 115/1991.2. Regular Civil Suit No. 474/1980 ended in acceptance of the terms of compromise by the Court on July, 15,1983. The terms of the compromise, for convenience are reproduced here in below:3. It is for the execution of these terms the present proceedings are initiated.4. The question that was raised before the learned Judge and is decided by the impugned order is, as to whether the initiation of Darkhast proceeding is within the necessary limitation. The learned Judge has relied on Article 136 of the Limitation Act, specifying 12 years period of limitation. The learned Counsel urged that it is not Article 136 but it is Article 135 that would govern the matter. Article 135 relates to a situation where the decree is for mandatory injunction specifying 3 ...
Tigrania Metal and Steel Vs. C.C.E. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-1993
Reported in: (1995)LC584Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This application has been moved for clarifying to the Department the contents of the Order No. 214-15/93-WRB dated 27-10-1993 of this Bench, under which their appeal as well as stay application were disposed of by directing the Collector (Appeals) to hear the applicants on their stay application and thereafter if he chooses to grant stay, decide on the appeal itself. In other words, their appeal was allowed by way of remand in the above terms. Notwithstanding this order, it is now reported by the applicants that the department has construed that there is no stay in operation against the demand confirmed by the Assistant Collector and hence they were directed to pay up the amount, failing which coercive action would be taken. In this context, Shri M.H. Patil, the Ld. Advocate referred to the Supdt's letter dated 24-11-1993.2. After hearing both the sides, when the appeal itself has been disposed of by way of remand with a direction to the Collector (Appeals) for deciding on the stay...
Smt. Abhilash Vinodkumar JaIn Vs. Cox and Kings (India) Ltd. and Other ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-1993
Reported in: [1995]84CompCas1(Bom); 1994CriLJ1635
M.F. Saldanha, J. 1. One more dimension concerning the ambit and scope of section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956, has been canvassed in this case. The issue is briefly summarized in the question as to whether the criminal action contemplated under section 630 of the Companies Act for retrieval of company property or premises wrongfully withheld is maintainable against the legal heirs of a deceased employee. More exactly, the two possible situations that are illustrated are, firstly, where the employee has died in service and the legal heirs wrongfully withhold possession of the premises, and, secondly, where the employee himself, who has wrongfully withheld the premises, dies during the pendency of the section 630 proceedings and the legal heirs continue to wrongfully withhold the premises. Having regard to the fact that section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956, refers to action only against officers/employees of a company which as now clarified by the Supreme Court necessarily includes ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »