Court : Mumbai
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...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1997)57TTJ(Mumbai)302
ORDERM. V. R. PRASAD, AM :This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A), dt. 7th June, 1995, for the asst. yr. 1992-93 in which he confirmed, inter alia, the addition of Rs. 34,08,275 under the short-term capital gains computed under the provisions of s. 50 of the IT Act, 1961.2. This appeal throws up an interesting but a complicated issue. However, the facts of the case lie in a narrow compass.3. The assessee-company sold certain premises and the sale proceeds were of the order of Rs. 52,21,000. The written down value (WDV) of the assets sold was Rs. 7,88,738. The assessee sought to purchase two premises vide two separate agreements within the financial year as per the details given below :Date of AgreementPremises No.Purchased FromAmount24-2-19921407, Prasad ChambersMrs. Chitralekha P. Shah40,41,001 30-3-1992134, PancharatnaRamesh D. Shah 6,60,000 Total Purchase Value 57,01,001 The above agreements are at pages 57 to 70 of the assessees paper book. The rele...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1997BomCR(Cri)587; 1997CriLJ922
Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. The two accused in Sessions Case No. 17/90 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Panaji, file these appeals against the judgment of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge passed on 7th November, 1994, whereby they were convicted under Section 395 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years. They were also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and, in default, to undergo a further period of six months of Rigorous Imprisonment. Accused No. 1 filed Appeal No. 44/94 and accused No. 2 filed Appeal No. 45/94. Since the matter arises out of a common judgment, we propose to dispose of both the appeals by this common judgment. 2. The appellants along with four other accused were charge-sheeted for offences of Sections 395, 397, 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. According to the prosecution, on 25th November, 1989, between 10 and 10.30 a.m. the appellants along with other perso...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1996(4)BomCR582; 1997BomCR(Cri)11
A.V. Savant, J.1. This is a petition by the wife of the detenu who is known by six different names such as Abdulla Muthalib @ Ahmed Muthalib @ Ahmed Koya @ Abdulla Ahmed Muthalib @ Abdulla Ahmed Arancada @ A.C. Abdulla who was residing at Nagdevi, Bombay. By virtue of an order issued on 29th April, 1995 in exercise of the powers conferred by section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (for short 'the PITNDPS Act') the said detenu has been detained with a view to preventing him from engaging in illicit traffic in psychotropic substances. The said order of detention dated 29th April, 1995 was served on the detenu on 3rd May, 1995 alongwith the grounds of detention. The detenu had made his representation to the detaining authority viz. respondent No. 2 - the Principal Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department (Special), Mantralaya, Bombay-32 on 16th May, 1995 which was rejected by the detaining authority on 17...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1996(5)BomCR478
A.P. Shah, J.1. This appeal by the State of Maharashtra is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge whereby the learned Judge has set aside the order of cancellation of Form BRL licence issued to the respondent and further directed restoration of the said licence to the respondent. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the respondent is a private limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing beer and is having its brewery at MIDC, Satara. The respondent was granted licence in Form BRL under Rule 3 of the Maharashtra Manufacturers of Beer and Wine Rules, 1966 ('Rules' for short) for the manufacture of beer. The said rules have been framed by the State Government under section 143(2) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 ('Act' for short). Originally the licence came to be granted to the respondent in or about 1972 and the same was renewed from time to time every five years. The last of such renewal was made on 1st April, 1982 and the said licence was valid upto ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1997)60ITD87(Mum.)
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A), dt. 7th June, 1995, for the asst. yr. 1992-93 in which he confirmed, inter alia, the addition of Rs. 34,08,275 under the short-term capital gains computed under the provisions of s. 50 of the IT Act, 1961.2. This appeal throws up an interesting but a complicated issue.However, the facts of the case lie in a narrow compass.3. The assessee-company sold certain premises and the sale proceeds were of the order of Rs. 52,21,000. The written down value (WDV) of the assets sold was Rs. 7,88,738. The assessee sought to purchase two premises vide two separate agreements within the financial year as per the details given below : Date of Agreement Premises No.Purchased From Amount 24-2-1992 1407, Prasad Mrs. Chitralekha 40,41,001 Chambers P. Shah 30-3-1992 134, Ramesh D. Shah 16,60,000 Pancharatna The above agreements are at pages 57 to 70 of the assessee's paper book. The relevant portion of the agreement dt. 24th Feb.,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1997BomCR(Cri)741
M.B. Shah, C.J.1. The petitioner, Hindustan Lever Limited, has filed this Revision Application against the judgment and order dated 7th October 1989 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 7th Court, Dadar, Bombay, in Case No. 465/N of 1989 dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of Flats Nos. 4 and 5 in the building known as 'Prakash', 2nd floor, 611/3, Sion-Trombay Road, Chembur, Bombay (hereinafter referred to as 'the disputed flats'). Shri P.V. Ramanathan, who is the Administrative Manager of the Company, filed application under section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code against respondent No. 1 and 2 as they forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed the petitioners from the disputed flats on or about 17th or 18th January 1968.2. It is the case of the petitioner-Company that the disputed flats were taken on lease from 1st February 1972 from its owner Ramlal Wadhawan. Thereafter the owner Ramlal Wadhawan sol...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1996(4)BomCR571; 1997BomCR(Cri)1
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Since these three connected appeals arise out of the same facts and a common impugned judgment, they are being disposed off together.2. Vide the judgment and order dated 24th November, 1981, passed in Sessions Case No. 146 of 1981, the Additional Sessions Judge, Thane convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner stated hereinafter :---All the appellants :---(i) Under section 302 r/w 149 I.P.C. to imprisonment for life;(ii) Under section 454 I.P.C. to one year's R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default to further undergo two months' R.I.;(iii) Under section 147 I.P.C. to six months' R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default to further undergo two months' R.I.In addition :---(i) Appellants Gangaram Munnalal Shakti, Ramu Prabhu Teji and Raju Sukhdeo Dethi were convicted under section 148 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo six months R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default to further undergo two months R.I.;(ii) Appellant Gangaram Munnalal Shakti w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1996Bom366; 1996(5)BomCR493; (1996)98BOMLR73; 1996(2)MhLj535
ORDERRane, J.1. The State through the Special Land Acquisition Officer is the appellants for and on behalf of the acquiring body -- the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay in these appeals which are filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for brevity's sake) challenging the common Judgment and decree of the learned single Judge of the Court passed on 30th Oct. 1991/3rd March 1992 is various Land Acquisition References including in the Reference under the Appeals herein as mentioned in the title, filed under Section 18 of the said Act by the respondents -- the original claimants. The learned single Judge by the impugned Judgment enhanced the compensation as also awarded benefits to the claimants under the amended provisions of the said Act. The appellants are challenging the said finding of the learned single Judge in these appeals. The plot of land under acquisition in both the appeals related to one and the same Notification, the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1997)140CTR(Bom)448
M. B. SHAH, C.J. :The petitioner, who is the purchaser of flat No. 2 situate on the first floor of the building called 'Garden Homes', Khar, Bombay, has challenged the order of compulsory purchase, dt. 25th March, 1994, passed by the Appropriate Authority, Bombay. By the impugned order, the Appropriate Authority arrived at the conclusion that the fair market value of the subject property is Rs. 46 lakhs on the date of the agreement (22nd June, 1992) as against the disclosed consideration of Rs. 38 lakhs and, therefore, the difference is much more than 15 per cent.2. The aforesaid order is passed with regard to a residential flat, being flat No. 2, admeasuring 1,347 sq. ft. on the first floor of 'Garden Homes', Khar, Bombay. It is the contention of the petitioner that he was the owner of another flat situated at Worli and that in June, 1992, he entered into an agreement for the sale of the said flat for a consideration of Rs. 45 lakhs and in view of the provisions of s. 54 of the IT Act...
Tag this Judgment!