Mumbai Court June 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.
Poddar Tyres Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-1996
Reported in: (1997)57TTJ(Mumbai)112
ORDERT. V. RAJAGOPALA RAO, PRESIDENT :This is an assessees appeal for asst. yr. 1992-93 against the order of the CIT(A)-II, Mumbai, dt. 25th Sept., 1995.2. The only question involved in this appeal is whether investment allowance which remained unabsorbed and relating to the asst. yr. 1990-91 can be allowed to be carried forward and set off from the profit of the asst. yr. 1992-93 while completing the assessment proceedings for that year. Admittedly, the income-tax return for asst. yr. 1990-91 was filed long after the time prescribed under s. 139(1), (3) or (4) was over, i.e., on 2nd Feb., 1993. Copy of the income-tax return was furnished at pages 1 and 2 of the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. The ITO did not accept the return and treated it as non est in the eye of law. In the said return, no doubt, unabsorbed investment allowance was shown at Rs. 24,74,385 and unabsorbed depreciation allowance was shown at Rs. 2,19,395. The Dy. CIT, Spl. Range 21, Mumbai, passed the follo...
indus Air-conditioning Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-12-1996
Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT265Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 4743/87-BCH, dated 10-11-1987 of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) confirming the Order-in-Original No. S/10-19/86-H, dated 11-3-1986 of the Dy.Collector of Customs 'H' Group at Bombay.2. The appellants imported a consignment of Remote Switches for air conditioner and wire harness totally valued at Rs. 1,24,506/- and sought release thereof under the provisions of OGL pleading the same to be covered under Appendix 6(1) read with entry Sr. No. 565 (18) of Appendix 6 List 8 Part I of the Import and Export Policy Book AM 1985-88. The clearance was objected to on the ground that the Switches imported were not ordinary switches, but were specific components of Air Conditioners performing functions of temper-ature control, air speed control, auto-relay and auto/manual switch, and hence fell within Entry No. 469 of Appendix 3A of the said Policy Book. The wire harness were found to be basically wires hit by Entry No. 462 of Appendix ...
Gaurish, S/O Shamba Haldankar Vs. State of Goa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-12-1996
Reported in: 1997BomCR(Cri)580; 1997CriLJ1018
Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. The appellant was charged under Sections 363 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and tried in Sessions Case No. 8/94. By judgment dated 28th April, 1995, the accused/appellant was found guilty of the offences for which he was charged and he was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of five years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and, in default, to undergo three months of Rigorous Imprisonment under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code and he was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, and in default, to undergo three months of Rigorous Imprisonment under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court has ordered both the sentences to run concurrently. The appellant challenges this judgment in this appeal. 2. According to the prosecution, on 22nd May, 1993, at 3 p.m. one girl by name Ujwala had left her house as usual in order to attend the stitching classes. She did not ...
Chattu Jathan Vs. Bombay Dock Labour Board and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-12-1996
Reported in: 1996(4)BomCR658; (1997)IILLJ1146Bom
F.I. REBELLO, J. 1. The petitioner is an employee of the first Respondent. The petitioner is also a Member of the Bombay Transport and Dock Workers Union. 5 On April 26, 1991, the petitioner approached the Board office and met one Mr. M. B. Shinde in the matter of a call letter pertaining to allotment of accommodation to the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that Mr. Shinde ore 10 off the call letter. The Petitioner thereafter collected pieces of paper which were tom and went to Yellow Gate Police Station and lodged complaint against MY. Shinde about threats given by Mr. Shinde to the petitioner and the rude behaviour of Mr. Shinde. 2. It is the contention of the petitioner that therefore, he was shocked to - receive a memo dated April 29, 199 I, on May 2, 1991 whereby 20 the petitioner was suspended pending enquiry under Clause 44(3) of the Bombay Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme, 1956. By the said memo, petitioner was also called upon to submit his explanatio...
Ram Shiromani Son and Another Vs. the Bombay Dock Labour Board and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-12-1996
Reported in: 1996(4)BomCR663; (1997)IILLJ448Bom
F.I. Rebello, J. 1. The petitioner No. 1 is a workman employed with the first respondent. Petitioner in his petition has set out that he is a senior and active member of the Bombay Transport and Dock Workers Union. Petitioner was served with a letter dated April 29, 1991 on May 4, 1991. The said letter was issued by the Labour Officer, suspending the petitioner No. 1 pending enquiry in terms of Regulation 44(3) of the Bombay Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme, 1956. The order of suspension also called on the Petitioner No. 1 to submit his explanation in writing within three days of the receipt of the order why severe disciplinary action should not be taken against the petitioner No. 1 in respect of the incident that occurred on April 26, 1991 at about 1.00 p.m. In the said letter, it was also set out that the Secretary of the first respondent had forwarded a complaint lodged by Shri M. N. Shinde, Senior Assistant and Shri S. B. Chunekar, Clerk-cum-Typist of the Welfare Sect...
Batliboi Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-11-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT90Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Today, only the stay application was listed for hearing. However, considering the appeal filed, it appears that the demand is hit by period of limitation, the entire appeal is taken up for disposal by granting waiver against pre-deposit.2. The Modvat credit is sought to be denied on grinding wheels and certain other tools specified in the impugned order and also because, higher notional credit was subsequently taken. The demand is raised for the period April, 1989 to September, 1989 by a show cause notice dated 18-4-1994.3. Shri Patil, the ld. Advocate, appearing for the appellants, submits that right from the time they filed the declaration, these items were shown as having indirect use. They were neither shown as components nor as raw-materials used in the manufacture and the very mention of use as indirect material was enough to mention that they were tools for which they were availing Modvat credit. He also refers to the entry in RG 23 Part I and II and also refers to the endor...
Adhikrao Vithal Desai and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-11-1996
Reported in: 1996(4)BomCR560
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Vide Judgment and order dated 27th November, 1981 passed in Sessions Case No. 31 of 1981 the Additional Sessions Judge, Satara convicted each of the three appellants under section 304 Part (II) of the Indian Penal Code. He sentenced the appellants in the manner stated hereinafter:--Appellant Adhikrao Vithal Desai:--- to three years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to further undergo R.I. for three months;Appellant Mahadeo Vithal Desai:---to suffer R.I. for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to undergo R.I. for two months; andAppellant Parvatibai:---to six months R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to undergo R.I. for one month. Through this appeal the appellants have challenged the aforesaid conviction and sentences.2. The prosecution case in brief is as under:---Informant Nivrutti Kundalika Desai and witnesses of this case are residents of a common village viz. Paparde. Deceased Shankar was the younger brother of the infor...
Pramod Murlidhar Jagtap and Etc. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-10-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Bom429; 1997(3)BomCR549; 1997(1)MhLj365
ORDERDeshmukh, J. 1. The counsel for petitioners seek leave to amend the writ petitions. The counsel for respondents have no objection. Leave granted. 2. These three writ petitions involve common question of law. The petitioners were elected as members of the Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad. The petitioner in Writ PetitionNo. 5825/1995 was elected as Chairman of Building and Finance Committee of the Zilla Parishad as far back as in the year 1992. The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 5826/1995 were elected as Chairman of Social Welfare Committee; and Agriculture & Animal Husbandary Committee respectively, white petitioner in Writ Petition No. 5864/1995 was elected as Vice-President of the Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad, and was, therefore, automatically Chairman of Education and Health Committees. 3. On 2-12-1995, a requisition for no confidence motion was submitted against all these petitioners in respect of the posts held by them. On 5-12-1995, the Collector, Aurangabad, issued notices for con...
Bharat Containers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Engineering Worker's Union and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-10-1996
Reported in: (1998)IIILLJ926Bom
Tipnis, J.1. This petition filed by the employer M/s. Bharat Containers Pvt. Ltd. impugnes the legality and corrections of the award dated 17th June, 1993 passed by the Member Industrial Tribunal, Bombay in Reference (IT) No. 87 of 1987. 2. The dispute was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay between the petitioner M/s. Bharat Containers Pvt. Ltd. and its workmen. By a letter dated 2.12.1986 the Union served the Charter of demands on the management. Having failed to reach any settlement by the conciliation, the matter was ultimately referred to the Tribunal under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. After hearing the parties and recording the necessary evidence the learned Member of the Industrial Tribunal by the impugned award was pleased to grant demand No. 1 (scales of wages), demand No. 2 (adjustment and service increment) and demand No. 3 (dearness allowance) with retrospective effect from 1.12.1986. The demand No. 5 (leave benefits of special pay...
Yogiraj Kishanrao Since Dead by Lrs. Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-10-1996
Reported in: 1997(4)ALLMR106; 1997(2)BomCR226; (1996)98BOMLR600
R.G. Deshpande, J.1. By the present petition, the petitioners are challenging the order, dated 22-1-1985, passed by the Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad, in Revenue Appeal No. 89/A-84-Beed, whereby the learned Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, rejected the appeal filed by the petitioners challenging the order, dated 22-8-1984, passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Beed, in Case File No. 80/ICH-7-R, whereby the learned Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Beed, held that the area of surplus land delimited from the holding of the petitioner was proper and that the delimited area of 7 acres 39 gunthas from Field Survey No. 209 deserved to be maintained.2. Aggrieved petitioners, therefore, have come up before this Court through the present writ petition, which definitely has a bit complicated history. The present litigation is standing on chequered platform, which would be clear from the facts, which are in nut- shell given as under.3. One Kishan s/o Dattatraya...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »