Mumbai Court March 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.
Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Best Workers' Union and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-1993
Reported in: [1994(68)FLR1143]; 1993(2)MhLj1660
B.P. Saraf J.1. The respondent No. 2 was working as a Bus Conductor with the Bombay Electric Supply and Transport undertaking. A complaint was lodged against him by a lady commuter that on 29.11.1983 when she boarded the bus on route No. 138, Respondent No. 2 who was the conductor collected Rs. 2/- from her as she did not have the necessary change and when she asked back the change while alighting from the bus there was some altercation between her and the Respondent No. 2 whereupon the Respondent No. 2 - bus conductor slapped the said lady commuter and threw all her papers on the floor and even twisted her fingers.2. On the written complaint of the lady commuter, a domestic enquiry was conducted against the Respondent No. 2 and he was found guilty of misconduct under standing Order No. 20(r). The Inquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the misconduct was conclusively proved against the Respondent No. 2. The Enquiry Officer also observed that in the past also he was found guilty of...
Arjun Nihalani Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-1993
Reported in: (1993)95BOMLR790
S.P. Kurdukar, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Smt. Gokhale, learned A.G.P. waives service for Respondent No. 1. Mr. Sawant, learned Counsel, waives service for Respondent No. 2. By consent, rule placed on board and called out for hearing.2. This petition is directed against the order dated 4th July, 1992 passed by the District Judge, Thane on Miscellaneous Applications No. 220 of 1991.3. Against an eviction order, the petitioner filed Misc. Appeal No. 220/ 1991. In this Appeal, there was a delay of about 840 days In filing the appeal. The petitioner filed Misc. Application No. 220/1991 (Exh. 1) for condonation of the said delay. This Application was rejected by the learned District Judge against which the present Writ Petition has been filed,4. Mr. Velji, Learned Counsel appearing in support of this petition, urged that against the very same eviction order the appeal has been filed by one Gunwantbhai D. Hirani bearing Appeal No. 151/1989 and the said Appeal is pending for final heari...
Anil Purushottam Kakad and anr. Vs. Tax Recovery Officer and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-1993
Reported in: (1993)95BOMLR817
B.P. Saraf, J.1. The controversy in this case relates to the proper stamp duty leviable on a deed of assignment by which the assignors transferred their running business including the goodwill thereof and all tangible and intangible rights, benefits and privileges pertaining and appertaining to the said business including the tenancy right in respect of the business premises and two garages and the telephone connection bearing No. 293179. The consideration for the transfer was a sum of Rs. 21,80,000/-. The said deed was registered and stamp duty thereon amounting to Rs. 1,10,000/- was paid classifying the said deed of assignment as a conveyance of movable property within the meaning of Article 25(a) of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 ('the Act'). The deed was tendered for registration on 10.9.1981. On 4.5.1988, after about 7 years thereof, a notice was issued to the petitioner by the Recovery Officer in the Office of the Collector, Bombay, demanding a sum of Rs. 2,12,800/- as arrears of sta...
Indian Engineering and Commercial Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commission ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-1993
Reported in: (1993)113CTR(Bom)91; [1993]205ITR1(Bom); [1993]68TAXMAN520(Bom)
U. T. SHAH. J. - The issue involved in this reference pertains to the taxability of Rs. 93,450 received by the assessee and the head under which it would be taxable if at all.The assessee is a company and it carrying on business in machines, machine parts and tractors. The assessment year involved is 1964-65 and the relevant previous year ended on June 30, 1963.By an agreement dated March 20, 1958, the assessee was appointed as a sole distributor in India for a certain type of wheel tractors and agricultural machines manufactured by Motto Imports, Warsaw (Poland) (hereinafter referred to as the 'the Polish company'). The agreement made it clear that the assessee, as sole distributor, would be acting on its own account and all orders would be issued in its own name. The selling prices were to be fixed by mutual consultation and it was specifically stipulated that the assessee would be entitled to no commission. Under clause 15 of the agreement, it was stated that the period of the agree...
Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Rustom Dubash Investment (P.)
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-1993
Reported in: (1993)47ITD265(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal by the revenue against the order of the CGT(A), for the assessment year 1983-84. The ground raised in this appeal is as under : On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in cancelling the assessment order. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that donor allowed the assessee-company to purchase the flat at a rate lower than the market rate thereby making a gift.2. The assessee is a private limited company. It had purchased a flat on 8th floor of Firpose Co-op. Housing Society, along with garage, at Bhulabai Desai Road, Bombay-400 036. The said flat was occupied by Smt.Moti B. Dubash and the assessee opted to purchase the same at a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs. The Assessing Officer, proceeding on the basis of the valuation of the departmental valuer, estimated the value at Rs. 5,69,000 and treated the balance sum of Rs. 3,69,000 as a deemed gift to the assessee. The assessment made was on protective basis. In appeal, the CGT(A...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Geoffrey Manners and Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-1993
Reported in: (1993)113CTR(Bom)149; [1993]204ITR483(Bom)
Mrs. Sujata Manohar J.1. In this reference, the applications of the assessee as well as the Department are consolidated. The following questions are referred to us under section 256 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with section 18 of the Companies (Profit) Surtax Act, 1964, at the instance of the Department : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in directing the Income-tax Officer to increase the assessee company's capital by the amount of the dividend declared in an annual general meeting held later than the first day of the 'previous year' 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the investment on shares shown by the assessee-company at Rs. 15,41,825 was includible in the computation of its capital and that no deduction could be made under rule 2 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act 3. Whether, on the facts and in the ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shivsagar Estates (Aop)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-1993
Reported in: [1993]204ITR1(Bom)
U.T. Shah J. 1. These two cross-references invoking, inter alia, a common point of dispute are disposed of together for the sake of convenience. 2. The assessment years involved are 1970-71, 1971-72 and 1972-73 and the relevant previous years are the corresponding financial years ended on March 31, 1970, March 31, 1971, and March 31, 1972, respectively. 3. As the issue raised in the question referred to us, at the instance of the Revenue, is covered by an earlier decision of this Court, well will take up the Revenue's reference first. 4. The material facts are : Sixty-five members of three families of Dhanwatay, Patel and Shah jointly purchased a vast area of land at Worli, in November 1963. This was divided into eight plots marked A to H. Plots A to F were given on lease to Messrs. Shivsagar Estates Limited, in April 1966, on an annual rent of Rs. 15 lakhs payable separately to each of the lessors in accordance with their respective shares. In the assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69 and...
Authur Import Export Co. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-1993
Reported in: 1993(66)ELT168(Bom)
Pendse, J. 1. The petitioner No. 1 is a partnership firm and established an Industrial Undertaking in pursuance of licence granted under the Industrial Undertaking Rules, 1952. The petitioners have installed capacity for manufacturing of the mixed waste yarn. The manufacture of the yarn requires hard synthetic waste as raw material. The waste is hardly available indigenously as the available waste is used by the spinning mills in the reprocessing and is mixed with viscose, cotton, wool, etc. The petitioners are, therefore, required to import waste yarn. 2. In accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 82(1) of the Import Export Policy, the petitioners applied for issuance of supplementary licences to actual users and the application was recommended by the Textile Commissioner. The petitioner was granted supplementary licence on July 16, 1986 for import of hard synthetic waste of c. i. f. value of Rs. 50 Lacs. On issuance of the licence, the petitioners approached several foreign suppl...
Municipal Corpn. of Gr. Bombay Vs. Devidayal Electronics and Wires Ltd ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-1993
Reported in: 1993(66)ELT198(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by Bombay Municipal Corporation to challenge legality of judgment dated October 11, 1990 delivered by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1515 of 1984. By the impugned judgment, the trial Judge held that the Corporation was not justified in refusing the benefit of exemption of Rule 7 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Exemption from Octroi (Free Gift, etc.) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') to the respondent No. 1 Company. The learned Judge also issued an injunction restraining the Corporation from refusing exemption of Rule 7 to the Company in respect of imports of goods for the purpose of processing as set out in the petition. The learned Judge also directed the Corporation to refund octroi duty collected on such imports from April 29, 1983 onwards. To appreciate the grievance of the Corporation, it is necessary to set out some statutory provisions. 2. Chapter VIII of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act enables the C...
Ramu Appa Desai Vs. Dawn Mills Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-1993
Reported in: 1993(2)BomCR646; (1994)ILLJ300Bom
D.R. Dhanuka, J.1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has impugned Judgment and Order dated January 19, 1987 passed by the respondent No. 2 in Application (B.I.R.) No. 90 of 1985 and Judgment and Order dated January 18, 1988 passed by the respondent No. 3 in Appeal (I.C.) No. 12 of 1987. By the above referred order dated January 19, 1987, the Labour Court dismissed the application of the petitioner made under Section 79 of Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 read with Section 78 and Section 42(4) of the said Act complaining against Order of dismissal dated February 14, 1983. By the above referred Order dated January 21, 1987, the Industrial Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the said order.2. In my opinion, the writ petition preferred by the petitioner against the above referred two orders is liable to fail. For the reasons discussed in later part of the order, the petition is dismissed with no order as to cos...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »