Mumbai Court February 1995 Judgments
Gtc Industries Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-1995
Reported in: (1998)65ITD380(Mum.)
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Central-IV, Bombay and pertains to the assessment year 1985-86.2. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3), read with Section 145(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The accounting year of the assessee ended on 30-6-1984. The assessee is a company in which public are substantially interested. The assessee-company is following the mercantile system of accounting. It filed its return of income for the relevant year of assessment on 28-6-1985, reflecting therein income of Rs. 3,84,14,220. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 26,20,51,000 in the total income of the assessee under the head "Premium on sale of cigarettes". The Assessing Officer deducted the amount of commission and trading income alleged to be reintroduced by means of hawala entries and advertisement expenses alleged to be used out of secret bank accounts. The assessee being aggrieved of the assessment ord...
Tag this Judgment!Gtc Industries Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-1995
Reported in: (1998)60TTJ(Mumbai)308
ORDERM. K. CHATURVEDI, J.M. :This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A), Central IV, Bombay, and pertains to the asst. yr. 1985-86.2. The assessment was completed under s. 143(3) r/w s. 145(2) of the IT Act, 1961. The accounting year of the assessee ended on 30th June, 1984. The assessee is a company in which public are substantially interested. The assessee-company is following the mercantile system of accounting. It filed its return of income for the relevant year of assessment on 28th June, 1985, reflecting therein income of Rs. 3,84,14,220. The AO made an addition of Rs. 26,20,51,000 in the total income of the assessee under the head 'premium on sale of cigarettes'. The AO deducted the amount of commission and trading income alleged to be reintroduced by means of havala entries, and advertisement expenses alleged to be used out of secret bank accounts. The assessee being aggrieved of the assessment order, preferred appeal there against before the CIT(A)...
Tag this Judgment!Mukesh H. Mehta and Others Vs. Harendra H. Mehta and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-1995
Reported in: 1995(3)BomCR686; [1998]92CompCas402(Bom); 1995(2)MhLj644
P.S. Patankar J. 1. This is a petition under section 5 of the Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act of 1961'), for enforcement of the award dated October 31, 1990. The enforcement thereof is opposed by the respondents. 2. Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 are husband and wife. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2, herein are husband and wife. All of them are non-resident Indians (NRI) and were residing in the U.S.A. (United States of America). They carried on jointly several businesses in India and in the U.S.A. The businesses were carried on through the agency of partnership firms, private limited companies, associations of persons and private trusts. Various properties came to be acquired. 3. The disputes arose between them prior to October, 1989. It was decided that the same be referred for the arbitration of the elder brother of petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 1 for the purpose of dividing their joint businesses and properties in India and the U.S.A. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Bombay Gumasta Union Vs. M.R. Bhope, Member, Industrial Tribunal and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-1995
Reported in: 1995(4)BomCR155; [1995(71)FLR905]; (1996)IIILLJ525Bom; 1995(2)MhLj572
1. This Writ Petition under Article 226 takes exception to the order dated March 23, 1992 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, upholding the preliminary objection of the employer that reference (IT) No. 44 of 1988 made by Government of Maharashtra under section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the Act', for short) is not competent law and disposing of the said reference as not maintainable. 2. Briefly, the facts giving rise to this petition are as follows. The petitioner is a trade union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. According to the petitioner, it enjoys the membership of a substantial majority of the workmen employed in the concerns of the respondents Nos. 2 to 14, who are under the management and control of one Abhaykumar Kasliwal and one Shanibhukumar Kasliwal. The petitioner union on behalf of the workmen working with respondents Nos. 2 to 14 raised a charter of demands on respondents No. 2 to 14 by its letter dated March 24, 1987. A copy of the...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Chhotabhai Jethabhai Patel and Company Vs. Karimkhan, S/O Nadidad ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)BomCR616; (1996)IIILLJ660Bom
1. By this Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking to challenge the legality and correctness of the judgment passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Bhandara, an appellate authority under Section 31 of the Bidi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966. 2. Mr. P. N. Chandurkar, the learned Counsel for petitioner has raised three-fold submissions viz., (i) that, the respondent No. 1 was removed from service after holding domestic enquiry into the misconduct of theft committed by him and, therefore, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour was not justified in holding that the conduct of the enquiry was not fair; (ii) that, the factory of the petitioner in Bhandara district has been closed and that closure was pursuant to the settlement between the petitioner and its respective union and, therefore, even if removal of the employee was bad in law, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour was not justified in direc...
Tag this Judgment!Radhasingh Jokhansingh Vs. Hindustan Hosiery Mills and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-1995
Reported in: (1996)ILLJ477Bom
ORDERA.P. Shah, J. 1. This group of four petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution by the workmen of the Respondent Hindustan Hosiery Mills raises a common question as to whether the lower Courts were right in dismissing workmen's application under Section 78 read with Section 79 and 42(4) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 ('Act' for short) on the ground that the workmen did not approach the respondent within the period prescribed by Rule 53 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Rules, 1947 ('Rules', for short). 2. The fact are few and almost undisputed. There is no dispute that the workmen were in the employment of the 1st respondent. On November 10, 1979, the 1st respondent terminated their services by issuing letters of termination. The workmen thereafter by their separate letters dated April 8, 1980 approached the 1st respondents and demanded reinstatement with back wages. The 1st respondent, however, failed to comply with the approach notices of the workmen dated Apr...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Khatijabi Aboobaker and ors. Vs. Karma Constructions and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-1995
Reported in: 1996(4)BomCR318; (1995)97BOMLR30
E.S. Da Silva, J.1. Upon hearing learned Counsel the appeal is admitted and since I am satisfied that the points raised by the parties have been sufficiently argued at considerable length the same, by consent, is taken for final hearing.2. This Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Margao, in charge of Vasco Court, dated 22nd December, 1994, in Civil Miscellaneous Applications No. 81 of 1994 and 84 of 1994 attached to the Special Civil Suit No. 44 of 1994, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed by a common order two applications of the appellants for temporary injunction. By the first one dated 6th May, 1994 the appellants sought to restrain the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3, their heirs, agents, servants and legal representatives, from carrying out any construction or interfering in any manner whatsoever in the suit property and further to maintain the status quo till the final disposal of the suit on merits. In the second one dated 16th M...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Roy Andre Sales De Andrade and anr. Vs. the State of Goa and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-1995
Reported in: 1996(5)BomCR551
E.S. Da Silva, J.1. Rule, by consent, returnable forthwith.This is a petition instituted by the petitioners for confirmation of their divorce made by mutual consent by a Court in Brazil.2. Both the petitioners are nationals and citizens of India of Goan origin respectively born at Panaji in Goa from Goan parents. They were married to each other in a catholic marriage with Civil effects on 6th May 1979 at Panaji, Goa and their marriage was registered in the Civil Registration Office of Ilhas, Panaji, under No. 111/79. The said marriage was also registered in the Civil Registration Office of Santos, Brazil, where they had gone for employment. By judgment dated 14th June, 1989 of the Judge in charge of the 3rd Civil Court of Santos, Brazil, which became res judicata on 17th October, 1989, the judicial separation of the petitioners was decreed initially and afterwards, by Judgment of Approval dated 24th February, 1993 by the Judge of 3rd Civil Court of Santos, divorce by mutual consent of ...
Tag this Judgment!Jijaba Namdeo Borude Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-1995
Reported in: 1995(3)BomCR701; (1995)97BOMLR306; [1996(73)FLR1045]; (1996)IIILLJ584Bom; 1995(2)MhLj210
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of termination of his services dated, January 2, 1990. The brief facts leading to this petition are as under :- 2. That the petitioner was working with respondent No. 2 Bombay Port Trust since 1969. It is submitted that while he was discharging his duties as officiating labour supervisor at uncleared Warehouse No. 1, the petitioner was charge-sheeted for the misconduct alleged to have been committed by him. That on January 1, 1986, at about 3-40 p.m. one lorry bearing Register No. BMT-9468 parked near the B. P. X. wall side was found loaded with cargo wooden boxes. As the driver of the lorry was asked to produce the documents in support of cargo loaded in the lorry, he failed to produce any document in respect of cargo loaded in the lorry. On inquiry, some wooden boxes containing video games were found. The police was informed and took the driver to police station with the lorry and interrogat...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Krishnakant G. Borkar Vs. Shri Euffemio Azavedo and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-1995
Reported in: 1996(4)BomCR288
E.S. Da Silva, J.1. Rule. By consent heard forthwith.2. The filing of this petition, which makes a very unhappy and unpleasant reading, sadly, projects once again the conduct of some Police Officers which tends to tarnish the image and reputation of the Department and is likely to forfeit the trust and confidence which the public is supposed to repose in the Institution as a whole, inasmuch as it reveals upto what extent mental and moral dishonesty on extraneous considerations can render ineffective the machinery of an Institution which is supposed to be the custodian of the rule of law turning it, thus, in a real mockery in the eyes of public.This is precisely the grievance of the petitioner who has approached this Court with a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the inaction of the Police Officers, namely, the Police Inspector of Panaji Police Station, in taking steps on a complaint lodged by him, which ex facie reveals the commission of serio...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »