Mumbai Court September 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.
Savani Transport Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-1996
Reported in: (1997)60ITD513(Mum.)
1. The assessee, a limited company, has filed this appeal aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax dated 28-9-1993 passed under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee in this appeal has challenged the jurisdiction of the Commissioner exercising his powers under section 263 of the Act and on merits as well.2. The learned counsel for the assessee, Mr. Pardiwala, referred to the notice of the Commissioner which has been placed at page 26 of the paperbook. He submitted that the Commissioner in this notice has referred to the search and seizure operation carried out at the business premises of the assessee on the 21st and 22nd August, 1990 resulting in seizure of books of account, loose papers, note-books and diaries. The notice also stated that the statement of full-time Director, Mr. N.M. Savani was taken and that he had admitted that the jottings on the loose papers, note-books and diaries represented part of the undisclosed income. It was further noted th...
Dilip Karambelkar Vs. Rear Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Bom131
ORDERM. B. Shah, C. J.1. It is the contention of the petitioner that at present he is Editor, Printer and Publisher of Daily Mumbai 'Tarun Bharat' and Managing Editor Printer and Publisher of 'Vivek Weekly'. This petition is filed in public interest and he has prayed as under:--'(a) this court may issue direction to the Union of India to satisfy that the thick clouds of suspicion regarding the integrity and/or competency of all the three candidates namely respondent Nos. 1, 7 and 8 who are now being considered for the post of Chief of the Naval Staff, have been looked into in order to ensure the safety, security and integrity of the Nation and also to preserve the morale of the Indian Navy.(b) to issue appropriate direction that the HDW/SSK Submarine deal and the alleged corrupt practices should be investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation and necessary follow-up actions taken thereafter.(c) the Union of India should satisfy that the alleged contact with foreign national and ...
Yeshwant Redkar Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-1996
Reported in: 1998(1)ALLMR656; 1998(3)BomCR743; 1997(3)MhLj357
ORDERA.P. Shah, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution takes exception to the order dated 7th April, 1992 passed by the disciplinary authority dismissing the petitioner from service as well as the order of the appellate authority dated 20th October, 1992 confirming the said order of dismissal. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner was in the employment of the respondent No. 1 Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and at the material time was working as Deputy Manager (Acting), Oil Movement & Storage Department. The petitioner's duly included carrying out random checking of the weight of the tankers that were loaded in the refinery. On 14th February, 1986 the petitioner was on duty in the shift described as 8 x 4 shift. As part of his duty, the petitioner had carried out random checking of 8 tankers on that day and had countersigned on the weighment slips in respect of the said 8 tankers. On the same day another tanker bearing registration No. MCU-1914 was also...
Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation Vs. Prabhakar V. Vibhandik
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-1996
Reported in: (1998)IIILLJ1125Bom
V.H. Bhairavia, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned counsel contended that the learned judge, E.S.I. Court, Bombay has committed an error in holding that there was loss of earning capacity of 100% for the period from February 15, 1984 though the Medical Board has opined that the respondent-claimant has suffered a partial disablement of a permanent nature where his physical capacity was reduced by 20% as determined by Special Medical Board. Further, it ] has been contended that the respondent-claimant has resigned from the job and the company had not terminated him from service. The learned Judge has considered the case on the basis of occupational disease under Section 52-A of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1984 for the purpose of assessing the rate of physical disability. It has been submitted that the learned Judge ought to have remanded back the matter for review of the decision by Medical Board under Section 55 of the Medical Tribunal. The report of ...
Mhoamed Aslam Musliya Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-1996
Reported in: 1997BomCR(Cri)330
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. By means of this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who is the brother of the detenue Fazlur Rehman, has impugned the detention order dated 30th January, 1995 passed by respondent No. 2, in exercise of powers vested in him under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (52 of 1974), read with Government Order, Home Department (Special) No. SPL.-3(A)/P.S.A./1094/I, dated 16th May, 1994. The said Act is herinafter referred to as the 'COFEPOSA ACT'.2. The prejudicial activities of the detenue are contained in the grounds of detention which were served on the detenue on 15-10-1995.The grounds of detention briefly read thus:On 15-6-1994, officers of Customs Air Intelligence Unit, intercepted a passenger named Ahmed Abdulla in the arrival hall, Modulla II, N.I.P.T., Sahar Airport, Bombay. Abdulla was alleged to be holding Indian passport issued in Bo...
Bharat Palverising Mills Ltd. Vs. Collr. of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-1996
Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT628Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Original No. S/ 10-23/94 Gr.I, dated 20-12-1994 of the Collector of Customs, Nhava Sheva confiscating 36000 Kgs. of Methyl Parathion under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 with an option to pay fine of Rs. 10,00,000/- in lieu of confiscation and also imposing penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- Under Section 112(a) of the Act.2. The Appellants imported Methyl Parathion and sought clearance thereof under OGL. They initially filed Into Bond Bill of Entry. The item imported was covered under Insecticides Act, 1968. The appellants were holding Registration Certificate issued under Section 9 of the said Act. The said Certificates however did not specify the approved source of import. Instructions were issued vide letter dated 3-12-1993 addressed to the Collector of Customs from Central Insecticide Board and Registration Committee that no clearance of Insecticide be allowed on the Registration Certificates, where the country from which the impor...
Bajaj Auto Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT763Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The matter was listed for admission. However, considering the issue involved, admitting the appeal, the same is taken up for decision on merits.2. Heard Shri K.B. Kotian, Manager of the appellants and Shri K.M.Mondal, the ld. SDR for the Respondent.3. The appellants filed a claim for refund of Rs. 22,403/-. The same was initially rejected by the Assistant Collector. The Collector (Appeals) allowed the same vide his order dated 19-5-1991. The claim was filed on the ground that the goods were lost and duty paid was refundable. Pursuant to the order of the Collector (Appeals), where refund was claimed, the same was rejected on the ground that the duplicate copy of the Bill of Entry was not submitted. The appellants claimed that they had already submitted the duplicate Bill of Entry at the time of claiming refund which was ultimately sanctioned by the Collector (Appeals). The Assistant Collector (Refund) however, rejected the same. In the appeal before the Collector (Appeals), the appe...
Steelage Inds. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-1996
Reported in: (1998)(100)ELT512Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The issue for decision in this appeal is whether the cylinders which comprised the fire extinguishers manufactured by the appellant would be entitled to Modvat credit or not. In the case of the fire extinguisher under consideration, it was only carbon dioxide under pressure which was contained in the cylinder. The Assistant Collector whose order has been confirmed by the Collector (Appeals) has held that these cylinders would fall within the ambit of Explanation (iv) to Rule 57A, which provided that credit would not be available on cylinders for packing gases.3. The reliance by the representative of the appellant on the clarification issued by the Board in its letter No. 267/38/88 & 88/26488 is well founded. In that clarification, the Board has explained how the cylinders in the present type of goods are a part of fire extinguishers and their value included in the assessable value of fire extinguishers. It is further explained that after the extinguishers are used the cylinders...
A.K. Patil Company and Another Vs. Tata Finance Limited and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-1996
Reported in: 1997(2)BomCR91; 1997(1)MhLj576
Dr. B.P. Saraj, J. 1. By this appeal, the appellants seek to challenge the order of the learned single Judge dated 15th December, 1994 rejecting the arbitration petition of the appellants for setting aside the award of the arbitrator dated 28th December, 1990. 2. The material facts of the case, briefly stated, are as follows. Appellant No. 1, M/s. A. K. Patel & Company is a partnership firm and appellant No. 2 is its partner. Respondent No. 1, Tata Finance Limited is a company carrying on the business of financing. The respondent No. 2 is the arbitrator. Appellant No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant-firm') wanted to purchase a Tata-Hitachi Hydraulic Bachelor Excavator (for short 'machinery') manufactured by Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Limited (for short 'TELCO') and for that purpose approached the respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to 'the respondent-company') to finance the said purchase. The respondent-Company accepted the above proposal of the appellant-...
Potey Brothers and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-1996
Reported in: 1997(3)ALLMR160; 1998(1)BomCR497
B.U. Wahane, J.1. A bunch of 17 appeals, conveniently, with the consent of the learned Counsel of the parties, is disposed of by the common judgment, as the consignments of betel leaves (Mitha Pan) were despatched on 21-4-89 at Hawrah, the same were received at it's destination i.e. at Nagpur on 25-4-89 and thereby the facts and the legal issues involved are one and the same except the claim differs.2. The claims claimed by the appellants, allowed and disallowed in each case by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, are detailed as under:Details are omitted.Details are omitted.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------S.N. First Claim Name of AmountAppeal Application the ----I------------------------------------------No. No. & its appellant/ Claimed Awarded Disalloweddate of applicantdecision1 2 3 4 5 6 7------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1. 243/ 16/OAI/RCT/ M/s. Potey 1467.00 D...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »