Mumbai Court June 1995 Judgments
Hiren Enterprises Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-1995
Reported in: (1995)LC254Tri(Mum.)bai
1. All the three appeals are directed against the common Order-in-Appeal No. 2077/89BCH communicated on 4-1-1990, of the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay confirming the Orders-in-Original No. S/10-149/88, S/10-150/88 and S/10-151/88 all dated 27-9-1988 of the Deputy Collector of Customs Gr I Bombay, where he has ordered confiscation vide Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, three consignments of Peppy seeds with an option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation and has also imposed personal penalties vide Section 112 of the Act.2. The appellants imported the three consignments and claimed clearance against two REP licences, which were issued against the product group Gr 2(i)(a) in Appx. 17 of the Policy Book AM 1985-88, relating to Fresh Fruits vegetables and flowers. The clearance was however, objected to on the ground that the Poppy seeds were consumer goods not permissible vide Entry No. 121 of Appx. 2, Part B of the same policy, and even otherwise, the item imported did not ...
Tag this Judgment!Peico Electronics and Vs. Collector of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-1995
Reported in: (1995)(79)ELT713Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is directed against the order-in-Appeal No. 1008/90 BCH, dated 5-7-1990 of the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay, confirming the Order-in-Original No. S/10-226/89IV, dated 4-12-1990 of Asst. Collector of Customs, Bombay, ordering confiscation of the goods imported by the appellants with option to pay redemption fine of Rs. 5600/-.2. The appellants imported a case containing 65 kgs of tool alloy steel valued at Rs. 5579/- and sought clearance under OGL Appx 6(5) of AM 1988-91. Clearance was claimed under OGL Licence No. 5/88 dated 30-3-1988. As per the general conditions of the import under OGL, vide para 31 of Appd 6, the appellants were required to register the contract with the competent authority named therein within the specified period and it appears that the appellants had not complied with the said condition. The clearance was therefore objected to. The importers however contended that they have complied with the requirement of para 7(1) of OGL No. 5/88 and ...
Tag this Judgment!Atlas Corporation Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-1995
Reported in: (1996)57ITD139(Mum.)
1. There are two appeals by two different assessees' involving common issues. There are also two cross-appeals by the revenue in respect of these two assessees. The assessment year involved is 1990-91. Since, facts in both the assessees' cases are identical, these appeals are being disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience.2. The first common issue arising out of these two assessees' appeals is whether an income/loss arising from the sales of the shares could be assessed as business income/loss. The other issue which is common in revenue's appeals is whether the loss shown by the assessees on the sale of shares if fictitious or bogus.3. It has been admitted before us by the learned Counsel for the assessees as well as by the learned-Sr. Departmental Representative that facts in both the cases are identical and, therefore, decision given in one case, would be binding in other case. Therefore, we are mentioning the facts of only one case, i.e., M/s. Atlas Corporation.4. ...
Tag this Judgment!Miss Sangita Ramchandra JaIn Vs. S.A. Dwivedi and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-1995
Reported in: 1996(5)BomCR287; 1996CriLJ24; (1996)IIILLJ646Bom; 1995(2)MhLj719
1. This writ petition raises an interesting question of law as to whether a person who was a minor on the date when an alleged offence under Section 48(1) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was committed can be tried by the Labour Court under the provisions of the Act. 2. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the Petitioner challenges an order dated September 28, 1993 made by the Presiding Officer, 2nd Labour Court, Thane, who dismissed her application for deleting her name from the proceedings before it. 3. The petitioner is the daughter of 3rd Respondent and was born on September 12, 1974. At the material time, she was still a minor studying in the High School. Though she was a minor, she and her father were Proprietors of Powerloom business in Bhiwandi. The 1st respondent filed complaint (ULP) No. 163 of 1992 before the Industrial Court at Thane, in ...
Tag this Judgment!Sangita Ramchandra JaIn (Miss) Vs. S.A. Dwivedi and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-1995
Reported in: [1995(71)FLR768]
B.N. Srikrishna, J. 1. This writ petition raises and interesting question of law as to whether a person who was a minor on the date when an alleged offence under Section 48(1) of the Maharashtra recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was committed, can be tried by the Labour Court under the provisions of the Act. 2. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner challenges an order dated 28th September, 1993 made by the Presiding Officer, 2nd Labour Court, Thane, who dismissed her application for deleting her name from the proceedings before it. 3. The petitioner is the daughter of 3rd Respondent and was born on 12th September, 1974. At the material time, she was still a minor studying in the high school. Though she was a manor, she and her father were Proprietors of a Powerloom business in Bhiwandi. The 1st respondent filed Complaint (ULP) No. 163 of 1992 before the In...
Tag this Judgment!Pune District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Hira Lal Ramchandra G ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-1995
Reported in: (1999)IIILLJ688Bom
B.N. Srikrishna, J.1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated October 29, 1992 made by the 1st Labour Court, Pune, in Complaint (ULP) No. 13 of 1991 and the order of the Industrial Court, Pune, dated September 17, 1993 made in Revision Application (ULP) No. 83 of 1992, both proceedings under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Respondent has remained absent despite service.2. The Respondent joined the service of the Petitioner Bank as back as in the year 1973. During the year 1984/85 the Respondent was frequently remaining absent without intimation or leave. On August 8, 1985 he was given a show cause notice calling upon him to show cause as to why action should not be taken for his frequent absence without leave and consequent disruption of the Bank's work. Not only did the Respondent not give a reply to the show cause noti...
Tag this Judgment!Pune District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs. Hiralal Ramchandra Gai ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-1995
Reported in: (1998)IIILLJ7Bom
B.N. Srikrishna, J.1. This writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated October 29, 1992 made by the 1st Labour Court, Pune, in Complaint (ULP) No. 13 of 1991 and the order of the Industrial Court, Pune, dated September 17, 1993 made in Revision Application (ULP) No. 83 of 1992, both Proceedings under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Respondent has remained absent despite service.2. The Respondent joined the service of the Petitioner Bank as back as in the year 1973. During the year 1984/85, the Respondent was frequently remaining absent without intimation or leave. On August 8, 1985 he was given a show cause notice calling upon him to show cause as to why action should not be taken for his frequent absence without leave and consequent disruption of the Bank's work. Not only did the Respondent not give a reply to the show cause n...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Satmabegum Mohammed Razak Khan Vs. Shri Satish Sahney and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)BomCR166; (1995)97BOMLR745
A.C. Agarwal, J.1. The petitioner who is the mother of Shri Jaffer Ahmed alias Jaffer Fantoos, son of Mohammed Razak Khan, has filed the present habeas corpus petition seeking to challenge the order of detention bearing D.O. No. 79/PCB/Zone-I/94 dated 1st November, 1994 passed by Shri Satish Sahaney, The Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay under section 3(2) of the National Security Act. The said order alongwith the grounds of detention were served on the latter (detenu) on 5th November, 1994 and the detenu was incarcerated. The order of detention and the consequent detention of the detenu is impugned in the present petition. The grounds of detention inter alia provide that the detenu is a person of violent character. He indulges in terrorising activities and accepts assignments on contract basis to settle disputes by resorting to illegal ways and means whereby he has become a potential danger to the society at large. He being weapon welding and dangerous criminal has created terror...
Tag this Judgment!Mona Aggarwal Subhashkumar Aggarwal Vs. Mahatma Gandhi Institute of Me ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-1995
Reported in: 1996(2)BomCR64; (1995)97BOMLR655
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard learned Counsel.The petitioner herein challenges the selection of respondent No. 3 for the graduate diploma course in Gynaecology and Obstetrics and claims the said registration for herself.For understanding the controversy, the following background is necessary :--2. Respondent No. 1-Mahatma Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences has the facility for Post Graduate Disciplines in the medical education. The said institution is affiliated to the respondent No. 2-Nagpur University. The petitioner passed her final M.B.B.S. examination and admittedly is qualified to pursue the Post Graduate Study. It is the case of the petitioner, and it remains unchallenged, that the respondent No. 1-Institute is a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, since it is run on the State Finances. The petitioner claims that she became eligible for admission for the Post Graduate courses in January, 1995. She points out that prev...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Virendra and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-1995
Reported in: [1995]55ITD309(Mum)
ORDERPer J. K. Verma (AM) - The only objection taken by the revenue in this appeal is against the decision of the ld. CIT(A) whereby he has held that the assessee is an industrial undertaking engaged in manufacturing activities and consequently erred in directing the ITO to allow the assessee deduction under sections 80HHA and 80-I of the I.T. Act.2. We have heard the rival submissions. The admitted facts are that the assessee is involved in breaking of ships and selling the parts and its other articles. The assessee claimed that in this way the assessee was an industrial undertaking and was engaged in manufacturing of articles or things and was thus entitled to deductions under sections 80-HHA and 80-I. The Assessing Officer on the other hand took the view that the assessee was in industrial undertaking because, according to him, by no stretch of imagination the activities of breaking of ship and selling the parts and its other articles could be considered to be industrial undertaking...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »