Mumbai Court October 1994 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.
Air India Vs. V.K. Srivastava, C.i.T. and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-1994
Reported in: [1995]213ITR739(Bom)
M.L. Pendse, J.1. Air India, a corporation incorporated under the Air Corporations Act, 1953, appointed Ludovico Reister, a highly qualified chef, from September 23, 1969, to September 22, 1973, in the flight kitchen of the corporation. Section 10(6)(vii) of the Income-tax Act 1961, exempts the income earned by a foreign technician in India subject to the conditions specified in that section. Section 10 of the Act, inter alia, provides that for computing the total income of a previous year of any person, the remuneration due to or received, chargeable under the head 'Salaries' for services rendered as a technician in the employment of the corporation shall not be included provided the remuneration in pursuance of the contract of service in the case of a technician who has special knowledge and experience in industrial or business management techniques, is received by him during the period of sic months commencing from the date of his arrival in India. In the case of any other technicia...
Godfrey Philips India Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Collector of C. Excise, Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-1994
Reported in: 1995LC251(Bombay); 1995(77)ELT525(Bom)
M. L. Pendse, J.1. The controversy in this petition stands concluded by decisions of two Division Benches of this Court, to which one of us (Pendse, J.) was a party, one dated March 9, 1994 in Writ Petition No. 1835 of : 1994ECR368(Bombay) M/s. Chemifine and Another v. Union of India and two Others and another reported in : 1994ECR345(Bombay) Mehta Pharmaceutical Industries v. Union of India. The decision of the Supreme Court reported in : 1994ECR28(SC) Pankaj Jain Agencies v. Union of India also held that the rates of duty had to be ascertained from the date of publication of Notification in the Official Gazette. The Supreme Court turned down the contention that notwithstanding the publication in the Official Gazette, unless the Notification was available and the law is made known, the Notification could not be enforced. 2. The controversy in this petition lies in a narrow compass. The petitioners are engaged in manufacture of cigarettes. The manufactures enjoyed partial exemption by ...
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Vs. Ramnath Jagdish Tiwari and ors. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-1994
Reported in: 1995(2)BomCR438; (1995)IILLJ548Bom
V.P. Tipnis, J.1. By this petition, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. challenges the legality and the validity of order dated 5.10.1990 by which the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Bombay in reference No. CGIT-20 of 1988 under award part-I held that the departmental enquiry is vitiated on the ground that the principles of the natural justice were breached. The learned Presiding Officer, therefore, directed the parties to lead additional evidence. The petition also challenges the legality and correctness of the order dated 25th February 1991 whereunder he directed the management to pay full backwages to the workman from 5.2.1987 till the final award is passed. He further directed that the backwages upto 31.3.1991 may be paid before 15.4.1991 and, thereafter the wages from April 1991 onwards were directed to be paid for every month by 10th of the succeeding month. The question of the subsistence allowance and bonus was left open. 2. Respondent No....
Abasaheb Bali Gharge and anr. Vs. Balaji Ramhari Gharge
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-1994
Reported in: 1995(1)BomCR542
S.D. Pandit, J.1. Original defendants in Regular Civil Suit No. 133 of 1976 on the file of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Vaduj, have come in Second Appeal.2. The suit property consists of an agricultural land bearing Survey No. 308/4, admeasuring 78 acres of village Vikhale, Taluka Khatav, District Satara.3. Respondent-plaintiff came before the Court with the case that the said property was of the ownership of Sonatai Bali Ghadge and that she was in occupation and possession of the said property as its owner since the year 1955-1956 and she sold the said property to him for a consideration of Rs. 14,000/- on 1st of January, 1976 and put him in possession of the same and since then he is in occupation and possession of the said property, but the defendant No. 1 - Abasaheb, who is the son of Bali Pandurang Gharge, is trying to disturb his possession and enjoyment of the said property along with his wife and, therefore, he sought a decree for perpetual injunction.4. The defendants-app...
Indian Dyestuff Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-1994
Reported in: (1995)(75)ELT617Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is against the Order-in-Appeal No. GSM-72/90 (V-2(14D)3088/88), dated 9-1-1990 of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, dismissing the appeal of the appellants.2. The appellants were availing benefit of exemption under Notification No. 201/79-C.E., dated 4-6-1979 in respect of Cuprous Chloride as an input used in the manufacture of the final product S.O. Dyes. Cuprous Chloride is classified under T.I. 68 and when it is used in the manufacture of final product set-off is available in respect of duty paid thereof. However, the department objected to their eligibility for set-off on the ground that it is neither a raw material or a component.It is only catalyst. Though on merits, the issue may fall within the purview of Special Bench, Shri Prakash Shah, the Ld. Advocate pleads that he is not contesting the appeal on merits. They are not contesting the appeal on merits mainly considering the amount involved. However, they are contesting the appeal only on the g...
Forbes Forbes Campbell and Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. Nishar Ahmed, Iac, ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-1994
Reported in: (1995)124CTR(Bom)91; [1996]217ITR103(Bom)
M.L. Pendse, J.1. Gokak Patel Volkart Ltd., a company registered under the Companies Act, was in occupation as tenant of flat No. 15 on the fourth floor of Meherabad Building, situated at Bhulabhai Desai Road, Bombay - 400 026. The lease was secured from one Farrokh Adi Ghandhy. The flat is situated in a co-operative society. From the year 1976, the flat is in occupation of petitioner No. 1-company which is a sister concern of Gokak Patel Volkart Ltd. On July 23, 1992, the order of amalgamation of petitioner No. 1-company with Gokak Patel Volkart Ltd. was passed by this court. The petitioner-company, while in the occupation of the flat since the year 1976, was reimbursing Gokak Patel Volkart Ltd., the rent of Rs. 1,200 per month together with the society charges which Gokak Patel Volkart Ltd. was required to pay to Farrokh Adi Ghandhy. On March 1, 1983, Farrokh Adi Ghandhy sold the flat to Gokak Patel Volkart Ltd., for a consideration of Rs. 4,00,000. 2. Gokak Patel Volkart Ltd. entere...
Maria Z. Concescio Vs. the Principal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-1994
Reported in: [1995(70)FLR738]
Pendse, J.1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner is challenging legality of order dated May 14, 1986, passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Bombay rejecting the application for condonation of delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal. The facts which gave rise to the passing of this order are not in dispute and are required to be briefly stated to appreciate the grievance of the petitioner. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the School run by the respondent with effect from June 6, 1983. The appointment of the petitioner was as a probationary. The services of the petitioner terminated on April 28, 1985. The petitioner approached the Education Inspector on October 7, 1985 complaining against the termination. The Education Inspector advised the petitioner to file an appeal before the School Tribunal. The petitioner thereupon preferred appeal before the School Tribunal on October 11, 1985. 2. As the appeal was preferr...
Gafur Bhai Chhotabhai Maniyar Since Decd. by His Heirs Vs. Smt. Sugrab ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-1994
Reported in: 1995(2)BomCR613
S.D. Pandit, J.1. Shri Gafurbhai Chhotabhai Maniyar the original plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No. 928 of 1976 on the file of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Dindori has come in the Second Appeal before this Court.2. The plaintiff Gafurbhai is the son of Chhotabhai Maniyar. The original defendent Baleminya Minyabhai Maniyar is real uncle of the plaintiff Gaforbhai Chotubhai Maniyar. It is the case of the original plaintiff that his father's father Minyabhai had left behind him the moveable properties described in schedule 'A' annexed to the plaint. He died about 46 years prior to the date of the suit. After his death, the property went in possession of his uncle Baleminya Minyabhai Maniyar and the said Baleminya is not ready and willing to give him his share in the property, and therefore, he filed the suit to get partition and separate possession of his 1/2 share in the suit properties.3. The respondent-original defendant had died during the pendency of the suit and his daughter S...
Bhujangrao S/O Madhavrao Kulkarni and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-1994
Reported in: 1995(3)BomCR65; (1995)97BOMLR194
S.C. Malte, J. 1. These appellants/accused have preferred this appeal against their conviction under various sections. Initially, in all four accused were being prosecuted for offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 120B, all read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and also under section 5(1)(c) and section 5(1)(b) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The accused were tried before the Special Judge, Solapur, who was appointed as Special Judge under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The learned Judge acquitted accused No. 1. The trial Judge, however, convicted accused No. 2 (appellant No. 1) for offence under section 409 of the I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for two years and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default R.I. for one year. He was also convicted under section 477A read with section 109 I.P.C. and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and fine of Rs. 500/- in default R.I. for three months. The appellant No. 1 ...
Komal Kamlakar Chitnis and Others Etc. Vs. Director, Medical Education ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Bom1; (1995)1UPLBEC463
ORDERTipnis, J. 1. All these writ petitions came up for final hearing before the Bench of D. R. Dhanuka and Vishnu Sahai, JJ. By order dated 27-9-1994 the Bench observed that the petitions involved consideration of the following questions:-- (i) Whether the Rules for selection to M.B.B.S./B.D.S. Courses and particularly Rule 3.3.0 prohibit the candidates like the petitioners passing qualifying examination in March, 1993 as ineligible for seeking admission to M.B.B.S./B.D.S. courses for the academic year 1994-95? (ii) Whether Rules for admission to M.B.B.S./B.D.S. courses for the academic year 1994-95 issued and published by the State Government on 19th June, 1994 and particularly Rule 3.3.0 treats the candidates passing the qualifying examination i.e. H.S.C. 12th Standard) examination in the month of March, 1994 alone as eligible for admission to such course? (iii) Whether the view taken by the Division Bench of our High Court i.e. Aurangabad Bench, Aurangabad in Writ Petition No. 21...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »