Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1996(4)BomCR451; 1997CriLJ111
Dr. B.P. Saraf, J.1. This Bench has been constituted by the learned Chief Justice at the instance of the Division Bench to decide the following issues arising under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 ('COFEPOSA Act') : (1) Whether the detenu has a constitutional right to make a representation against the declaration under Section 9(1) of the COFEPOSA Act made by the officer specially empowered by the central Government (2) In a case where the declaration is made by an officer specially empowered, in that behalf, under Section 9(1) of the COFEPOSA Act, whether it is incumbent on the part of such officer to inform the detenu of his right to make a representation before him in addition to a right to make representation before the other authorities including the Central Government (3) Whether it is open for the State, after the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kamleshkumar, : 1996(53)ECC123 (supra), to contend that the office...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1996)98BOMLR789
R.C. Vaidyanatha, J.1. This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 1.2.96 in Cr. Appeal No.48/95 on the file of learned Sessions Judge, Bhandara. Heard learned special Counsel for petitioners and learned Counsel for first respondent.2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are as follows:The first respondent is a trader in bamboo mattings. It appears that he had purchased some bamboo mattings and transported them on 3.5.95 by taking a pass from the Forest Department. By using the same pass, he again transported 170 bundles bf bamboo mattings, which came to be intercepted by the police. Since there was no transport pass for transporting the bamboo mattings, police handed over the seized truck MP-23/B-4345 alongwith bamboo mattings to the concerned Forest Officer. The Range Forest Officer, in turn, seized the same under Panchnama. He recorded the statement of first respondent. After making enquiry, he s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1997)60ITD256(Mum.)
1. These are two appeals filed by the assessee and both relate to assessment year 1983-84.2. The first appeal is filed against the orders of the CIT, City-III, Mumbai, dated 19-3-1987 passed under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, under which he had set aside the assessment originally framed by the ITO and directed the ITO to re-do the assessment with the following directions : "7. In view of the foregoing discussion, I hold that the business carried on by the assessee-company cannot be regarded as a business of manufacture or production of any article or thing. The Income-tax Officer, therefore, erred in allowing investment allowance in respect of machinery and plant used by the assessee-company for purposes of its business. 8. Accordingly, I set aside the assessment order fort the assessment year 1983-84 insofar as it relates to the aforesaid issue, and direct the Income-tax Officer to make a fresh assessment for the said year without granting investment allowance to the assessee-c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1997)(91)ELT372Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Today the matter was listed only for admission and if admitted for grant of stay of recovery. An application for adjournment is received.However, going through the record, it appears that the matter calls for a remand and hence, admitting the same and granting waiver against pre-deposit, entire appeal is taken up for hearing.This appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming Order-in-Original No. D-26/Division VI/93, dated 20-5-1994.From the records it appears that the adjudicating authority has mentioned that even reply to the show cause notice has not been received. The appellants however have produced a copy of the reply along with postal acknowledgement showing due receipt thereof by the department. When the said point was urged before the Commissioner (Appeals), she accepted that some communication was received but held that it could not be presumed that the communication was in the form of reply to the show cause notice. When a communication is received...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1996)(88)ELT64Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal against the order in appeal captioned above rejecting the appellant's appeal. There is no dispute that the appellants have taken the Modvat credit on the basis of the subsidiary gate pass issued by the Proper Officer. We find that these gate passes have been issued in the name of the appellant. The basic document is found to be the challans issued by the stockyard of SAIL Bombay.2. There is no dispute from the ld. DR that the Board have recognised the challans of stockyards of SAIL as equivalent to gate pass. In the circumstances, when the Proper Officer has issued subsidiary gate pass on the basis of challans of stockyard, which are also recognised equivalent to gate pass and the subsidiary gate pass is also a prescribed document as per the Notification issued by the Board, we do not find any merit in the objection taken by the lower authorities. We therefore allow the appeal with the direction to restore the credit....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1997)IILLJ573Bom
1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India impugns an Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. II, Bombay, dated January 13, 1989, in Reference No. CGIT-2/63 of 1987 under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The petitioner is a Nationalised Bank constituted under the provisions of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 carrying on the business of Banking in different Branches all over the country. The Second Respondent is a clerical employee in its service. 3. The Second Respondent joined the service of the Petitioner Bank some time in 1966 as a Clerk. At the material time in 1981 he was working as Head Clerk at Dehu Road Branch of the petitioner Bank and one of his duties consisted of Accepting value payable parcels and receiving them on behalf of the Bank. He was also authorised to sign cheques not in excess of Rs. 1,000/-. 4. The Second Respondent was served with a charge-sheet da...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1982)1ITD390(Mum.)
1. This appeal has been placed before the Special Bench in view of the conflicting opinions expressed by the Tribunal as noticed by the Bench referring the matter to the President for constituting a Special Bench.We will deal with those decisions at the appropriate stage.2. The assessee is a member of co-operative society by name "Rajab Mahal Co-operative Housing Society Ltd." with its registered address at 145, Queens Road, fort, Bombay-1. As a member of the Co-operative housing society, who held shares, the assessee was is possession of two flats, flat No. 4 and flat No. 5 with a garage. The building, in which the flats are situated, belonged to the co-operative society. By an agreement dated 28-10-1974 the assessee agreed to sell flat No. 4 and garage No. 4 to Mr. and Mrs. Narandas Vithaldas Badyani. The total consideration is stipulated at Rs. 2,50,000 made up of as follows : "a. Rs. 45,625 : value of shares and deposits paid by the vendor to the said society which the said societ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1997(1)BomCR475
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. By means of this appeal, preferred under section 378(1) Cr.P.C. the State of Maharashtra (appellant) seeks to impugn the judgment and order dated 13-8-1982, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No. 120 of 1981, acquitting the respondent for offences under section 302 I.P.C. and 323 I.P.C.; the latter on two separate counts, one for causing injuries to Parvati Govindraj, P.W. 4 and the other for inflicting injuries on Kanamma Aarumugam, P.W. 7.2. Briefly stated the prosecution case runs as under :---The informant Parvati Govindraj P.W. 4, is the wife of the deceased Govindraj. Kanamma Aarumugam P.W. 7, is the mother of Parvati. Tangamani Katmuttu P.W. 6 being the real brother of the deceased Govindraj, is the brother-in-law of Parvati. Parvati, Kanamma and Tangamani along with the deceased Govindraj lived in a hut in front of B.M.C. (Bombay Municipal Corporation) Building No. 20, Opposite Post Office, Sion Koliwada, Bombay. The resp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1998(1)BomCR229; (1997)IILLJ1083Bom
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. By the instant writ petition, five petitioners who are working as the clerks with the respondent No. 2, are challenging the award passed by the Industrial Court, Maharashtra, Nagpur Bench. By this award, the Industrial Court recorded the amicable settlement between the management and the employees who were represented through the elected representatives, and converted it into an award. The petitioners prayed that the said award is liable to be modified and should be made binding and applicable to all the workmen of respondent No. 2 Industry. Few facts should be necessary.2. The respondent No. 2 is an industry. It is an admitted position that there is no representative union under the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (hereinafter called 'the B.I.R. Act' for the sake of brevity). There is only panel of elected representatives. A Charter of Demands was presented asking for various benefits including the pay revision, washing allowance, dear...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1997(2)BomCR145; (1997)IILLJ1068Bom; 1996(2)MhLj922
1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns an order of the Industrial Court, Solapur, dated September 28, 1988 made in Complaint (ULP) No. 187 of 1986 under the provisions of the Maharashtra i Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') 2. The petitioners are the Officers of the 10 State Government. The first respondent is an 1 employee working as 'Helper' on Ujjani Calial Division, Mechanical sub-division, Pandbarpur. By office Order No. 950 dated October 31, 1986 the first respondent was transferred to the office of the Executive Engineer, Vishnupuri Pump House Division, Nanded, and directed to report there within the given time. Instead of complying with the transfer order, the first respondent rushed to the Industrial Court at Solapur and moved Complaint No. 187 of 1986 invoking Item 3 of Schedule IV of the Act and obtained an order restraining the petitioners from transferr...
Tag this Judgment!