Mumbai Court November 1998 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.
Balasaheb S/O Kondiram Pawar and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)ALLMR279; 1999(3)BomCR136; 1999(3)MhLj982
ORDERR.J. Kochar, J. 1. Heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties. 2. Rule, returnable forthwith. 3. The petitioners are praying for a writ to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 29-4-98 passed by the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Ahmednager, whereby the said authority has ordered to delete the names of 184 members of the respondent No. 4 Co-operative Society from the provisional Voters' last while exercising his powers under Rule 56-B(4) of the Elections Rules. Pursuant to the said order, the final or revised Voters' List was published on 12-5-98. The petitioners are aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 29-4-98 and the final Voters' List published on 12-5-98. 4. To appreciate the contentions of the petitioners, the following few relevant facts are required to be stated: On 19-12-1997 the Election programme was declared. On 22-12-1997 a provisional Voters' List was published and objections were required to be submitted to the said provisiona...
Ceat International S.A. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1998
Reported in: (1999)156CTR(Bom)165; [1999]237ITR859(Bom); 1999(1)MhLj867
B.P. Saraf, J. 1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following two questions of law to this court for opinion, one each at the instance of the assessee and the Revenue :At the instance of the assessee : '(1) Whether the consideration received by the applicant under the agreement of September 9, 1977, with Ceat Tyres of India Ltd.- (a) for allowing Ceat Tyres the use of the applicant's channels of distribution and after sale services in overseas markets, (b) for furnishing detailed market information to Ceat Tyres through the applicant's representatives in major international markets and at the applicant's expenses, (c) for permitting the benefit of advertising expenditure of the applicant to establish CEAT brands in overseas markets, is covered by the terms 'royalty' and 'fees for technical services' as defined in Sections 9(1)(vi) and 9(1)(iii), respectively of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' At the instan...
Magic Wash Industries (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. Asst. Provident Fund Commi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1998
Reported in: [1999(82)FLR772]; (1999)IILLJ792Bom
R.K. Batta, J. 1. Petitioner 1 is registered as a Small Scale Industrial Unit with the Directorate of Industries and Mines, Government of Goa. The manufacturing process of the petitioner commenced from May 26, 1986. Petitioner 1 was entitled to infancy period under Section 16(1) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter called the Act,) for five years in terms of Section 16(1)(b) as applicable at the relevant time. Section 16 was amended by the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Amendment Act) and in terms of Section 16(d) as amended, the infancy period has been reduced to three years. According to the petitioners even in spite of the said amended Act they are entitled to infancy period benefit of five years. However, by letter dated February 26, 1992 the office of the Provident Fund Commissioner informed petitioner 1 that it has been brought within the purview of the ...
Commissioner of Customs Vs. B. Arunkumar and Co.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1998
Reported in: (1999)(106)ELT141Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These three appeals have been filed by the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai against three adjudication orders passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai-II which relate to imports by respondent B. Arunkumar & Co. These relate to two consignments imported by them through the Mumbai Custom House. One consignment was of crude palm kernel oil under 2 Bills of Entry each for a value of Rs. 5,96,578 /-. The other consignment was of bulk crude stearin for the clearance of which six Bills of entry were filed totally valued at Rs. 66,84,352/-. These goods were canalised items according to the Import Policy of 1978-79 and in the 1985-88 policy. The clearance of the goods were claimed against additional licence issued to them as diamond exporter under para 176 of 1978-79 Import Policy as per Supreme Court order, dated 18-10-1985 for the clearance of the goods and in view of the Supreme Court judgment, dated 18-10-1985 wherein it was held that the additional licence issued to diamond exp...
M/S. Saudi Arabian Airlines Vs. Mrs. Shehnaz Mudbhatkal and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)ALLMR405; 1999(1)BomCR643; (1999)1BOMLR687; [1999(81)FLR767]; (1999)IILLJ109Bom; 1999(1)MhLj489
ORDERB. N. Srikrishna, J.1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the Award of the 2nd respondent. First Labour Court, Mumbai, dated 16th April, 1996, made in Reference (IDA) No. 439 of 1986.Facts:2. The petitioner is a foreign Airline Company incorporated under the laws of Saudi Arabia and owned by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It is engaged in the transportation of passengers, cargo and mail by air and has offices at various places all over the world including one at Mumbai. The 1st respondent is an ex-employee of the petitioner and the 2nd respondent is the Presiding Officer of the First Labour Court, Mumbai, exercising adjudicatory jurisdiction under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')3. The 1st respondent, Mrs. Shehnaz Mudbhatkal, joined the service of the petitioner on 16th November, 1978, as Secretary to the Station Manager. Prior to joining the petitioner's service, she was wor...
Sahebrao Haridas Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)ALLMR96; 1999(2)BomCR35; 1999(1)MhLj772
ORDERN. J. Pandya, J. 1. Petitioner entered the Government service in Industries Department as Industries Inspector in the year 1981. While in service, he applied for being directly recruited as Industries Officer (Technical) through Maharashtra Public Service Commissioner (in short 'MPSC') who came to be selected and appointed as such. Within a period of probation of two years, he was supposed to pass a qualifying examination for which he did appear in April 1992 as also in April 1993 without any success.2. He, therefore, applied for additional chance and was granted permission to appear in the examination held in 1994 and one more chance was given to him in October 1995 when the examination was held in the saidmonth with the same result. Making out a case for one more chance, he approached the authorities by way of representation -cum-application dated 4-4-1996, Annexure-V, page 31. This was never replied to. In fact, the grievance of the petitioner is that his form for examination w...
Shri PravIn Padmakar Kamatkar Vs. Mrs. Pratibha Ratanlal Goyal and Ano ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1998
Reported in: 1998(5)BomCR850; (1999)1BOMLR743; II(1999)DMC278; 1999(1)MhLj190
ORDERT.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. The petitioner was implicated in the Criminal Case No. 181 of 1982 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pune for commission of offence under section 114 of I.P.C. in the commission of offence of Bigamy of one Ratanlal Goyal and Nisha. Both Ratanlal and Nisha are the colleagues working in the petitioner's Bank. The allegation against Ratanlal and Nisha was that they entered into second marriage while Ratanlal's wife, first respondent herein, was alive. The allegation, in particular, against petitioner is that the said marriage was out of the conspiracy hatched and thepetitioner was party to the conspiracy. Therefore the allegation against the petitioner was that he was an abated to the marriage of Ratanlal and Nisha.2. I heard learned Counsel for the petitioner Shri. Anturkar and Mrs. Usha Kejriwal for respondent No. 2.3. At the time of admission, there was interim stay of further proceedings of M.A. No. 181 of 1992, against applicant alon...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shah Construction Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1998
Reported in: [1999]237ITR814(Bom)
Dr. B.P. Saraf, J. 1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions of law to this court for opinion at the instance of the Revenue : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that the business of construction carried on by the assessee is an 'industrial undertaking' ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the business of construction (of this industrial undertaking) is by itself not eligible to investment allowance under Section 32A(2)(b)(iii) 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the assessee's business activity is also business of construction of thing to be entitled to investment allowance under Section 32A(2)(b)(iii) 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that the dumpers used by the asses-see...
thermax Ltd. and ors. Vs. Raigad Zilla Kamgar Kranti Sanghatana and an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1998
Reported in: [1999(81)FLR119]; (1999)IIILLJ1408Bom
B.N. Srikrishna, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Mr. Pakale waives service for the first respondent. Second Respondent being a formal party, need not be served.2. By consent, Rule called out and heard.3. The petitioner impugns by this writ petition an order dated August 11, 1998 made by the Industrial Court at Thane in Complaint (ULP) No. 429 of 1998 under the provision of Section 30(2) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').4. The impugned order is an interlocutory order and under normal circumstances, I would be extremely reluctant to interfere with it. But, as the facts show, interests of justice warrant interference even at this stage.5. The short facts necessary for disposal of this writ petition at this stage are:On July 3, 1998 charge-sheets were issued to several employees working in the factory of the petitioner at Village Paudh. The charges, in essence, were that the delinquent...
J.K. Helene Curtis Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1998
Reported in: (1999)153CTR(Bom)459; [1999]236ITR403(Bom)
B.P. Saraf, J. 1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions of law to this court for opinion at the instance of the assessee :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in including excise duty paid on goods lying at the company's depot at the end of the year in the value of the closing stock of finished goods ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in treating the amount of Rs. 1,00,000 paid to Shri I.K. Agarwal as 'profits in lieu of salary' under Sub-clause (i) of Clause (3) of Section 17 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and thereby disallowing the same under Section 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. So far as the first question is concerned, Ms. Patel, learned counsel for the assessee, stated before us that since the controversy therein has now become academic f...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »