Mumbai Court September 1997 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.
Anna Manikrao PeThe Vs. Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1997
Reported in: (1998)IILLJ39Bom
B.H. Marlapalle, J. 1. Teacher on purely temporary basis for a period from July 1, 1986 to April 30, 1987 vide appointment order dated June 30, 1986, issued by Respondent No. 3, who is the Head Master of Daduji Pethe Vidyalaya, run by Respondent No. 2, Education Society. At the end of academic year 1986-87, he was discontinued and a fresh appointment order dated June 30, 1987 was issued to him again on purely temporary basis for the period from July 1, 1987 to April 30, 1988, i.e. for the academic year 1987-88. The services of the petitioner was again discontinued from May 1, 1988 at the end of the academic year and for the next academic year 1988-89, he was issued a fresh appointment order dated June 30, 1988 on a purely temporary basis for the period from July 1, 1988 to April 30, 1989. The petitioner was not a trained teacher and he was appointed purely on temporary basis against a permanent vacancy. His temporary appointments, as mentioned hereinabove, were duly approved by the Edu...
Anna Manikrao PeThe Vs. the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1997
Reported in: 1998(3)ALLMR155; 1998(4)BomCR565
ORDERB.H. Marlapalle, J. 1. The petitioner, on passing his B.A. Examination, came to be appointed for the first time as an Assistant Teacher on purely temporary basis for a period from 1-7-1986 to 30-4-1987 vide appointment order dated 30-6-1986, issued by respondent No. 3, who is the Head Master of Daduji Pethe Vidyataya, run by respondent No. 2, Education Society. At the end of academic year 1986-87, he was discontinued and a fresh appointment order dated 30-6-1987 was issued to him again on purely temporary basis for the period from 1-7-1987 to 30-4-1988, i.e. for the academic year 1987-88. The services of the petitioner was again discontinued from 1 -5-1988 at the end of the academic year and for the next academic year 1988-89, he was issued a fresh appointment order dated 30-6-1988 on a purely temporary basis for the period from 1-7-1988 to 30-4-1989. The petitioner was not a trained teacher and he was appointed purely on temporary basis against a permanent vacancy. His temporary ...
Smt. Sheela Wd/O Vijay Choudhary and ors. Vs. Central Bank of India an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1997
Reported in: 1998(4)ALLMR173; (1998)100BOMLR609
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. M/s. Ajay Industry, A-14, M.I.D.C. Area, Wardha, through its proprietor Shri Vijay Wamanrao Choudhari, was sanctioned cash credit hypothecation limit of Rs. 95.000/- on 30.1.1986 by the Central Bank of India, Branch Office at M. I. D. C. Area, Wardha and the proprietor had executed a demand promissory note for the said amount in favour of the Bank and agreed to pay interest at the rate of 14% per annum with quarterly rests and by another letter, the proprietor had accepted the terms and conditions of the loan facility. He had also executed a letter of continuity and agreement of hypothecation in favour of the Bank. S/Shri Ajabrao S. Raut and Shankar Hari Nikam were the guarantors for the said cash credit granted by the Bank. The said limit was enhanced by the Bank by Rs. 65,000/- at the request of the proprietor on 13.4.1987 and for the same, he also executed a demand promissory note of Rs. 1,60,000/-, letter of continuity, letter of agreement of interest, letter ...
Indian Register of Shipping Vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1997
Reported in: (1998)61TTJ(Mumbai)329
ORDERM. A. BAKSHI, J.M. :These five appeals of the assessee relating to the asst. yrs. 1987-88 to 1991-92, involving common issue, are disposed of by this consolidated order, for the sake of convenience.2. The dispute involved in these appeals is relating to the exemption under s. 10(21) of the Act. Rival contentions have been heard and records perused.3. The relevant facts in this case are that the appellant is a company registered under s. 25 of the Companies Act 1956. The appellant company is rendering services in the field of classification of mercantile shipping, maintenance of machinery and equipment in mercantile shipping. Assessee had sought recognition under s. 31(1)(ii) as a scientific research association. Having its object, the undertaking of scientific research, assessee, claimed exemption under s. 10(21) and for the asst. yrs. 1987-88 and 1990-91 the exemption claimed was originally allowed. However, for the asst. yr. 1991-92, the AO observed that the appellant-company wa...
Precision Equipment Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-1997
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT998Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The assessee was a manufacturer of rolls for rolling mills, which were classifiable at the relevant period in 1986 under Heading 84.55 of the tariff at 12% ad valorem. It filed a classification list effective from 12th March, 1986 classifying the goods indicating the rate of duty payable at 15%. However during the period from 25th March, 1986 to 31st March, 1986 it cleared ten consignments of these goods at 12%. On these facts becoming known to the Department, notice was issued proposing recovery of duty and imposition of penalty. The Collector, after considering the contention raised before him by the assessee, confirmed the demand and imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/-. Hence this appeal.2. Advocate for the appellant says that the appellant was misled by reading newspaper reports about changes in the tariff into believing that the rate of duty has been reduced to 12% and therefore paid the duty. He says that it was never the intention of the assessee to pay duty lower than the rat...
M.A.E. Paes Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-1997
Reported in: [1998]230ITR60(Bom)
Dr. B.P. Saraf, J. 1. By this reference under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, at the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this Court for opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in holding that the perquisite in respect of the residential accommodation had to be valued by considering its fair rental value at Rs. 30,000 per annum ?' 2. This reference pertains to asst. yrs. 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1977-78. During the previous years relevant to these assessment years, the assessee was an employee of M/s Herdillia Chemicals Ltd., Bombay. As an employee, he was provided with free furnished residential accommodation by his employer. The value of the perquisite in respect of the said free furnished residential accommodation was determined by the employer of the assessee as Rs. 9,394 per annum. This amount included a sum of Rs. 2,389 in respect of furniture and Rs. 7,905 in respect of the accomm...
Satish S/O Baburao Dudhgaonkar and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-1997
Reported in: 1998(5)BomCR178
ORDERD.D. Sinha, J.1. The present Criminal Appeal is preferred by the appellants original accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 against the judgment and order dated 18-11-1994 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani, in Sessions Case No. 1 of 1992, whereby the present appellants are convicted for the offence punishable under section 304-B and 498-A read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years each and further directed to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default rigorous imprisonment for one month each.2. In order to consider the complicity of the appellants in the crime in question,in our opinion, it will be appropriate to consider few facts leading to the prosecution ofthe appellants for the offence charged.3. In the instant case it is alleged by the prosecution that the present case fallswithin the category of cases of dowry death. It is therefore necessary to consider thefacts of the prosecution case. That the deceased by n...
Mohammad Samiullah Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-15-1997
Reported in: (1998)(97)ELT112Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant imported a Pajero Mitsubhishi car, and claimed its clearance in terms of Public Notice No. 202/PN/92-97, dated 30-3-1994, claiming to be in category A. Category A provides for clearance without a specific import licence for motor car which have been in the use of the importer abroad for more than a year. The appellant claimed that he had purchased the car in United Arab Emirates (UAE) on' 20 January, 1995 and since he came to India only in April, 1996, the condition of one year possession and use were satisfied. Enquiries made by the Department led it to believe that the car was imported into Dubai on 14 February, 1995 by Al Habtoor Motors Co., and apparently sold by it to M/s. Georgina Trading, Dubai which in turn sold the car on 9 April, 1996 to Altaf Hussain. In the statements recorded by the investigating agency, Samiullah, the importer admitted that Altaf Hussain was his cousin; that he had said that he had not purchased the car in Dubai or registered it. He said...
Bank Karmachari Sangh Vs. the Cosmos Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd. and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)ALLMR255; 1998(2)BomCR692; 1998(1)MhLj297
ORDERS.S. Nijjar, J.1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to call (or the record and proceedings of Complaint (ULP) No. 296 of 1983 quashing the impugned order dated 11th July, 1988 passed by the fourth respondent. A declaration is prayed for to the effect that the first respondent has engaged in unfair labour practices. A direction is sought to the first respondent to reinstate M/s. A.M. Shingre, G.M. Joshi, S.L. Godbole and M.G. Shaligram with full back wages and continuity of service from the dates on which their services were respectively terminated.2. The petitioner is a Trade Union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and also registered as the representative and approved union under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 in respect of employees employed in the Co-operative Bank Industry in the local area of Pune Cantonment and Pun...
Bank Karmachari Sangh, Pune Vs. Cosmos Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-1997
Reported in: (1998)IILLJ372Bom
1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to call for the record and proceedings of Complaint (ULP) No. 296 of 1983 quashing the impugned order dated July 11, 1988 passed by the Fourth respondent. A declaration is prayed for to the effect that the first respondent has engaged in unfair labour practices. A direction is sought to the first respondent to reinstate M/s. A. N. Shingre, G. M., Joshi S. L. Godbole and M. G. Shaligram with full back wages and continuity of service from the dates on which their services were respectively terminated. 2. The petitioner is a Trade Union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and also registered as the representative and approved Union under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 in respect of employees employed in the Co-operative Bank Industry in the local area of Pune Cantonment and Pune Municipal Corpo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »