Mumbai Court December 1996 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.
Century Textiles and Industries Ltd., Bombay and Another Vs. Maharasht ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Bom192; 1997(3)BomCR282
ORDERTipnis, J.1. Petitioner No. 1 - The Century Textiles and Industries Limited -- is a company and petitioner No 2 is a share holder the company. The issue raised in the petitioner is as to whether the Maharashtra State Electricity Board is entitled in charge for supply of electrical energy in accordance with the tariff for the supply of electricity at high tension the accordance the with the provision the of clause 1 entitled 'Minimum Bill' at the rate of 75% of the contract demand even when no demand of registered to the actual demand registered is much less then 75% of the contract demand owing the circumstances beyond the control of the company like strike lock-out etc.2. Prior To 1st July, 1980, the company was receiving electrical energy at its divisions known as 'Century Rayon, Rayon Division Century Rayon Tyre Cord Division and Century Chemicals Divisions' situate at Shahad, Dist. Thane, from the Tata Electric Supply Company Ltd. As and form the midnight of 30th June/ 1st Jul...
Harjot Singh Jaspal and ors. Vs. Koran Govindan and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-1996
Reported in: 1997(4)BomCR435
R.M. Lodha, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and respondent No. 1.2. Mr. Naphade, learned Counsel for petitioners has raised two-fold contentions : (i) that the Small Causes Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the obstruction notice taken out by the respondent No. 1 in execution of the decree passed in his favour in R.A.E. Suit No. 528/1780 of 1984 since according to the decree-holder the petitioners were tresspassers; and (ii) that the executing Court failed to exhibit the agreement of lease dated 28-10-94, xerox copy of which was placed on record by the petitioners, and, prejudged the entire defence of the petitioners at that stage.3. I have considered the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners and have also perused the impugned orders and the available relevant material placed on record. The respondent No. 1 herein Koran Govindan filed a suit for eviction against his tenant 'Hotel Horizon Private Limited' in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay ...
Sudhakar Deoraoji Wele and anr. Vs. Commissioner, Nagpur Division and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-1996
Reported in: (1997)99BOMLR499
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.Rule. Heard finally with the consent of the parties. The petitions are dismissed for the reasons to follow.REASONS1. This judgment shall dispose of both these writ petitions.2. In Writ Petition 3000 of 1996, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur (respondent No. 1), by which the Commissioner has allowed the appeal filed by respondent No. 3 - Sunil Chandrakantaji Raut, whereby he has set aside the order of the Returning Officer (respondent No. 2) rejecting the nomination paper of the respondent No. 3. Both the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 3 were the contesting candidates in the election to the Wardha Zilla Cooperative Milk Society of which the respondent No. 2 was the Returning Officer. The Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of both the petitioner Sudhakar Wele and the respondent No. 3 Sunil Raut, on the ground that the societies which these two persons were representing had not complied with th...
Rendezvous Estates (P.) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-09-1996
Reported in: (1997)61ITD268(Mum.)
1. The appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 1991-92 involves a dispute relating to valuation of land. The land in question was valued by the assessee at Rs. 12,01,320. This value was determined by capitalising the net maintainable rent by 8.33%. The Assessing Officer found that in computing the rent maintainable rent, the assessee had taken into account the rent at the rate of Rs. 12,500 per month for 8 months and Rs. 11,054 per month for remaining 4 months. When asked the reasons for variation in the lease rent, the assessee explained that a portion of property leased out to M/s Unique Estate Development Co.Ltd. was sold by the assessee after construction of the property. The reversionary interest was assigned to the buyer of the building in consideration of which the assessee received a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs. In other words, for all practical purposes, the assessee had sold a portion of the land in consideration of Rs. 10 lakhs (the mode of transfer is immaterial). It was st...
George Thomas Vs. Bombay Tyres International Ltd. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-09-1996
Reported in: [1997(75)FLR910]; (1998)IIILLJ1021Bom
1. Rule.2. By consent rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.3. The petitioner has filed a complaint under Section 28(1) of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act for unfair labour practices under Item 4(f) of Schedule II and Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Act in the Industrial Court at Bombay, which came to be registered as Complaint (ULP) No.863 of 1993. As required under Sub-section (1) of Section 28 of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act, 1971, the complaint relating to unfair labour practices has to be filed within 90 days of the occurrence of such unfair labour practice, and so the petitioner along with the complaint filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the complaint as according to the Complainant, the cause of action arose on October 10, 1991.4. The Industrial Court after recording evidence in the matter rejected the application of the Complainant for condonation of delay and dismissed the complaint by the impugned order dated August 5, ...
Dhanshobha Vasudeo Hadkar Vs. Vasudeo G. Hadkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-09-1996
Reported in: I(1997)DMC347
R.P. Desai, J.1. The instant First Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 23rd November 1989 passed by the Family Court at Bombay on the Notice of Motion No. 1970 of 1989 in M.J. Petition No. 204 of 1977. Briefly stated, the facts which give rise to the present Appeal are as under:2. The Appellant had filed a Petition being M.J. Petition No. 3237 of 1972 for restitution of conjugal rights. On 14.3.1974, a decree was passed in her favour. As there was no resumption of the conjugal rights between the parties, the respondent husband filed a petition for divorce on the ground that there was no resumption of cohabitation between the parties for a period of two years after the passing of the decree for the resumption of conjugal rights in the proceeding to which they were parties. On 28th April 1977 a decree of divorce was accordingly passed. The amount of alimony was fixed at Rs. 125/- per month for the period commencing from 1.5.1977.3. The appellant thereafter took out a ...
United Timber Industries Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1996
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT704Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In its order of 13-12-1995, this Tribunal had set aside the order of the Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva in which he had held that goods described as teak flooring panels could not be exported and ordered their confiscation. This Tribunal remanded the case to the Commissioner to consider whether the goods would fall within the exception to the prohibition provided in the negative list of imports after considering the certificate of registration with the Chemical and Allied Product Export Promotion Council. This appeal is against the order passed by the Commissioner in those proceedings.2. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner has considered the claim made by the appellant, before him, subsequent to the earlier order of the Tribunal that the goods sought to be exported were sawn teak timber. He has held that these goods were excluded from the negative list, such exclusion being subject to the conditions prescribed in the Public Notice issued by the Director Gen...
Radhakrishna Shipping P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1996
Reported in: (1998)(100)ELT479Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The application is for condonation of delay on the exact period of which has apparently not been ascertained.2. Advocate for the applicant says that the order impugned in the appeal was received by the applicant on 28-3-1996. Therefore the appeal should have been filed on or before 29-6-1996. The appeal was actually filed in the Tribunal at Delhi on a date between 23rd July and 28th August, 1996. Advocate says that he has not been able to get the exact date of filing. It was subsequently filed in the Bombay Tribunal on 3rd October, 1996.3. Advocate for the applicant contends that, although the appeal should have been filed in the Bombay Tribunal, the question of any further delay does not arise after it was filed in Delhi. He seeks to explain the delay between 29-6-1996 and the date of filing the appeal in Delhi.On 9-7-1996 draft appeal sent to an Advocate in Delhi for finalisation and filing in the registry. This Advocate returned the papers on 19-7-1996 on the ground that he does...
Assistant Commissioner of Vs. MexIn Medicaments (P.) Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1996
Reported in: (1997)61ITD209(Mum.)
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the CWT (Appeals) dated 27-7-1994 for the assessment year 1991-92. The ground taken by the revenue reads as follows :- "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CWT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to exclude the value of flats given on rent to M/s. IPCA Laboratories P. Ltd. from the total wealth of the assessee, holding that it is not a specified asset under section 40(3) of the Finance Act, 1983." 2. The assessee-company owns certain flats which were let out to a sister concern, M/s. IPCA Laboratories P. Ltd. The value of these flats was not disclosed in the return of wealth on the ground that the assets have to be excluded from the category of specified assets as defined in section 40(3)(vi) of the Finance Act, 1983, which revived wealth-tax on closely held companies with effect from 1-4-1984. The relevant provision reads as under :- "40(3). The assets referred to in sub-section (2) shall...
Rahemat Khan and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1996
Reported in: 1997BomCR(Cri)440; 1997CriLJ4619; 1997(1)MhLj695
Deshmukh, J. 1. This Appeal was placed on Board for final hearing before Division Bench, because of the order passed by the learned single Judge (Salve, J. ) on 18-7-1986 directing to issue notices to the appellants/original accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 as to why they should not be held guilty under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted and sentenced accordingly. The learned single Judge, further, directed to issue notice to accused No. 3 as to why he should not be held guilty for offence punishable under Section 302 and 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted and sentenced accordingly. The learned single Judge directed to place the matter before Division Bench. 2. The accused persons were charged and tried for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, so also for offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. After conclusion of the trial, the learned ...