Mumbai Court June 1998 Judgments

Rusy Noshirvan Mody and Another Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Other ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1999(5)BomCR780

ORDERP.S. Patankar, J.1. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have made diverse prayers. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioners has pressed only two prayers prayer (a) (i) of the petition prayed that the interim order dated 15-6-96/16-6-96 passed by this Court be continued to enable the petitioners to complete the fencing in the facts and circumstances of the case. Prayer (a) (i) reads as under:'a) That this Hon'ble Court may pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or a writ in the nature of Mandamus and or any other appropriate writ, Order or direction directing the respondents herein as well as the such police officers who may be on duty at the site to:-i) To direct the respondents No. 1 to issue notification under section 51 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 inviting claims from affected persons of loss/damage in the riots and fire that took place in Greater Bombay during the month of January 1993;'2. First we shall give the relev...

Subhash Mallikarjun Menase Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1998)100BOMLR533

Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Since these four connected matters arise out of the same set of facts and a common impugned Judgment, we are disposing them off by one Judgment.Subhash Mallikarjun Menase the Original Accused was tried by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur in Sessions Case No, 127 of 1984 for offences punishable under Sections 302/324/326 of IPC and was convicted and sentenced vide Judgment dated 22-1-1985 in the manner stated hereinafter :-(i) Under Section 304 Part II IPC to 5 years R.I.(ii) Under Section 324 IPC to 1 year R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default to undergo R.I. for 2 months.(iii) Under Section 326 IPC to 3 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- in default to undergo R.I. for 3 months.Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 1985 has been preferred by Subhash Menase, assailing his said conviction and sentence.Criminal Appeal No. 184 of 1985 has been preferred by the State of Maharashtra against his acquittal for offence under Section 302 IPC.Criminal Appeal No. ...

Godrej Foods Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT449Tri(Mum.)bai

1. We are concerned in these three appeals with the applicability of Notification 115/75. This notification inter alia exempts (other than fixed vegetable oils of Heading 1503 and vegetable fats and oils of Heading 15.03) and manufactured in factories covered by oil mill and solvent extraction industry from payment of duty. Appellant in its factory extracted oil from oil seeds by solvent extraction and refined such oils. In the course of such refining, it obtained soapstock. The benefit of Notification 115/75 has been denied to this product.2. The licence issued to the appellant by the Directorate of Vanaspati Vegetable Oils and Fats makes it clear that it was installed with a solvent extraction plant and that it was obtaining the oil in question by this method. Soapstock is obtained by treating the solvent extracted oil with caustic soda. The benefit of the notification has been denied in the impugned order on the ground that this process is not part of the oil mill or solvent extrac...

Vegetable VitamIn Foods Co. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1999)(80)LC172Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Order-in-original No. 121/89 dt. 25.10.1989 passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Bombay is under challenge in this appeal.2. The appellant was engaged in the manufacture of Stearic Acid falling under erstwhile Tariff Item 68 and had opted for assessment on invoice value under Notification 120/75 for factory gate sales and also had depot sales. The factory gate sales were governed by Notification No.120/75. Regarding the goods stock transferred to sales depot, appellant filed price list No. 1/84-85 as required by the Department, declaring Rs. 12,000/- PMT as the price. The price list was approved subject to the condition that differential duty will be paid after actual sale if the factory gate sales were at higher prices. On account of various problems factory was shut down during the period 7.6.1984 to 13.1.1986.On reopening of the factory, 527.050 m.t. of Stearic Acid was transferred to the sales depot in January and February, 1986 paying duty on the approved pric...

Patel India (P) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This appeal is directed against the order of the CIT(A) dt. 13th October, 1997 for the asst. yr. 1994-95. The first ground taken reads as follows : "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of the amount of interest not charged from sister concern Designers (P) Ltd. & Patel India (Delhi) (P) Ltd. against interest-free advances made to them amounting to Rs. 2,74,430".2. The assessee has advanced certain loans to its sister concerns, (1) A.J. Patel (P) Ltd., (2) Designer (P) Ltd. and (3) Patel India (P) Ltd. The AO made an addition of Rs. 5,15,682 on the ground that the interest on borrowed funds claimed to have been paid by the assessee has to be disallowed to the extent of diversion of funds interest-free to sister concerns. The CIT(A), in principle, agreed with the findings of the AO but restricted the addition to only Rs. 2,74,430 on the ground that the amount debited to the P&L a/c is only this amount.3. Befor...

Mont Blanc Properties and Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Appellat ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [1999]240ITR154(Bom)

1. By this writ petition, the petitioners seek to challenge the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay Bench 'E', Bombay ('the Tribunal'), dated March 16, 1996, by which, the Tribunal rejected the miscellaneous application of the petitioners praying for recalling the order passed in one miscellaneous application filed by the petitioner earlier for rectification of the order of the Tribunal dated April 28, 1994.2. We have heard Mr. Dastur, learned counsel for the petitioners. The uncontroverted factual position in this case is that the appeal of the petitioners was decided by the Tribunal by order dated April 28, 1994. Against the said order, the petitioners filed application for reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the 'Act'), before the Tribunal. That was also rejected by the Tribunal by order dated January 29, 1996. Further application of the petitioners under Section 256(2) of the Act was also rejected by this court on October 10, 1996. The petitio...

Omprakash Agarwal Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(166)ELT158(Bom)

ORDER1. Rule returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent petition taken on board for hearing.2. By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the undated order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) (Ex. 'P' to the writ petition), by which, the Commissioner (Appeals) directed the petitioner to deposit the duty of Rs. 15,12,500/- and penalty of Rs. 15,00,000/- imposed on M/s. Jupiter Chemical Industries as a pre-condition for admission of the appeal. We have heard Mr. Vahanvati, learned Counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the above order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is harsh and unreasonable. According to him, the Commissioner (Appeals) should have admitted the appeal without any requirement of pre-deposit of duty or penalty. Mr. Vyas, learned Counsel for the respondents submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner was justified in insisting on pre-deposit of the amount of duty and penalty. He further submits tha...

Smt. Vandana Vikas Waghmare and Etc. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1998CriLJ4295

N. Arumugham,. J1. These Criminal Writ Petitions involve common questions of law and facts. Contentions raised and submissions made in these petitions are identical. Hence, these petitions are heard together and disposed of by delivering this common judgment.2. The petitioners, in the present two writ petitions, are the wives of one Vikas Waghmare and Lahoo Angare who, along with one another, by name Yeshudas Gangawane, claimed to be the vegetable vendors, use to carry on their business at New Mumbai, Vikas Waghmare was residing with the petitioner at Sector No. 18, Room No. 802, Koparkhyrane, New Mumbai, Lahoo Angare is claimed to have been residing with his wife the petitioner, in writ petition No. 228 of 1998 at Kharat Chawl, Room No. 2, Ashok Tekdi, Hanuman Nagar, Bhandup (W), Mumbai 400078. There was no writ petition filed by and on behalf of the third person, by name, Yeshudas Gangawane.3. It is also stated that at about 9 a.m. on 19-3-1997, one Lahoo Angare and Yeshudas Gangawan...

Mont Blanc Properties and Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Appellat ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1998)150CTR(Bom)23

Head Note:INCOME TAXWrit--MAINTAINABILITY--Special leave petition against Tribunal order rejected. Ratio :Where the Supreme Court rejected the special leave petition of the petitioner against the Tribunal order rejecting reference application under section 256(2), the Tribunal's order became final and hence, the writ petition was liable to be dismissed at the admission stage itself. Held :The challenge to the order of the Tribunal having been turned down by the Supreme Court by the rejection of the Special Leave Petition, that order has become final. Despite that, the petitioners tried to get that very order set aside by the Tribunal by taking out another round of litigation before the Tribunal by filing miscellaneous petitions. That attempt also was foiled by Tribunal by rejecting the applications and also the reference application taken out by the petitioners against the same. The petitioners did not proceed further in the matter and, rightly so. By this writ petition, the petitioner...

Patel India (P) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1999)63TTJ(Mumbai)1

ORDERM.V.R. Prasad, A.M.This appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 13-10-1997 for the assessment year 1994-95. The first ground taken reads as follows :'On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of the amount of interest not charged from sister concern Designers (P) Ltd. & Patel India (Del) (P) Ltd. against interest-free advances made to them amounting to Rs. 2,74,430'.2. The assessee has advanced certain loans to its sister concerns, (1) AJ. Patel (P) Ltd., (2) Designer (P) Ltd. and (3) Patel India (P) Ltd. The assessing officer made an addition of Rs. 5,15,682 on the ground that the interest on borrowed funds claimed to have been paid by the assessee has to be disallowed to the extent of diversion of funds interest-free to sister concerns. The Commissioner (Appeals), in principle, agreed with the findings of the assessing officer but restricted the addition to only Rs. 2,74...