Mumbai Court August 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.
C.A. Doshi Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1998
Reported in: (1999)70ITD25(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A) for asst. yr. 1986-87.2. The assessee is an individual. He was appointed as managing director of M/s. Amritlal Chemaud Ltd. vide special resolution passed by the shareholders in their 26th annual general body meeting held on 21st June, 1984, and approved by the Government of India vide letter No.1/119/84/CL VII, dt. 8th April, 1985. Besides the remuneration of Rs. 7,500 per month and 1 per cent commission on net profit, the assessee was allowed certain perquisites as enumerated in paras (a), (b) and (c) of the explanatory statement. We are concerned with part (c) which reads as under : It is clarified that provision of car for use of company's business and telephone at residence will not be considered as perquisite. Personal long distance calls on telephone and use of car for private purpose shall be billed by the company." The assessee was provided with a company owned car, but instead of providing a driver he was a...
Jalandar Jayaram Patil Vs. Collector, Thane and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)ALLMR453; 1999(1)BomCR530; 1998(3)MhLj577
ORDER1. By the present petition, the petitioner challenges the judgment and order passed by Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, by which his appeal under Rule 88(3) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Rules, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') has been dismissed. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Commissioner has not gone into the merits of the appeal but has dismissed the same on technical grounds namely non-joinder of necessary parties. Facts leading to the filing of the present petition are as follows.2. Elections to the 2nd respondent, Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee were held on 5th April, 1998. The result of the elections were declared on 16th April, 1998. Petitioner and respondent No. 3 were amongst the several candidates, who contested from the Co-operative Societies Constituency in which seven seats were reserved. 5 candidates who had secured more than 48 votes were declared elected. Petitioner, respondent No. 3 and...
Khandelwal Ferro Alloys Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1998
Reported in: I(1999)ACC211; 1999ACJ939; AIR1999Bom50; 1999(2)ALLMR79; 1999(1)MhLj86
S.D. Gundewar, J.1. By this second Appeal, the appellant/plaintiff challenges the judgment and decree passed against him by both the Courts below.2. Both the Courts below found that the claimfor compensation preferred by the plaintiff to theRailway authorities was not within the statutoryperiod of six months as contemplated under Section 78-B of the Indian Railways Act, 1890. In theresult, both the Courts below dismissed the plaintiff's claim. 3. Shri A. S. Kilor, the learned counsel for the appellant, by inviting my attention to the provisions of Section 78-B and Section 140(C) of the Indian Railways Act. 1890 urged that when a letter/notice is posted, it is presumed that the claim is preferred as contemplated in Section 78-B of the Indian Railways Act and, therefore,according to him, in the present case the claim preferred by the plaintiff from the date of posting of letter is well within time and both the Courts below erred in holding otherwise. 4. As against this, it is submitted b...
Pimpri Chinchwad Nagarpalika Vs. Giriraj Chiranjilal Sharma and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ4354
T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. This is an appeal against acquittal with leave filed by the Food Inspector, Pimpri, Pune against the acquittal of the respondent by the impugned judgment dated 6-1 -1984.2. The prosecution case was that on 18-8-1981 at about 10 a.m. the Food Inspector went to the hotel of accused No. 2. At that time the accused No. 1 was present in the hotel. After observing the formalities under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act in the presence of panch, sample of Bundi Ladu of 1500 grams were taken. After dividing into three and packed and sealed in compliance with the Rules of Food Adulteration Rules, sent sample to the Public Analyst. On the report of the Public Analyst, it was found that the ladu was adulterated. Therefore, the prosecution was launched against the respondent.3. The Court below on examining the evidence of oral and documentary, has found that the mandatory procedure laid down under Rule 9(A) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules had not been ...
C. A. Doshi Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1998
Reported in: (1999)64TTJ(Mumbai)599
ORDERGargThis is an appeal by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) for assessment year 1986-87.2. The assessee is an individual. He was appointed as Managing Director of M/s. Amritlal Chemaud Ltd. vide special resolution passed by the shareholders in their 26th Annual General Body Meeting held on 2-6-1984 and approved by the Government of India vide letter No. 1/ 119/ 84/CL VII dated 8-4-1985. Besides the remuneration of Rs. 7,500 per month and 1 per cent commission on net profit, the assessee was allowed certain perquisites as enumerated in paras (a), (b) and (c) of the explanatory statement. We are concerned with part (c) which reads as under:'Part - CUse of Company's Car with a driver for the company's business.Free telephone facilities at residence.It is clarified that provision of car for use of company's business and telephone at residence will not be considered as perquisite. Personal long distance calls on telephone and use of car for private purpose sha...
Peico Electronics and Vs. Commr. of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-1998
Reported in: (1999)(63)ECC39
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 21-5-1991 of the Commissioner (Appeals), Mumbai by which he had held that the rejection of the refund claim of the appellant's for exemption under Notification No. 347/86 is in order and upheld the Assistant Commissioner's order.2. The appellants filed a refund claim on the ground that they are eligible for exemption under Notification 347/86 in respect of ink imported by them against the bill of entry on which duty was paid on 12-9-1986. The ink' was claimed as raw material for the manufacture of their electronics products and the end use was certified by the Central Excise authorities. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs rejected their claim for the reason that they have not submitted the necessary certificate for the duty exemption from DGTD as specified in Clause No.1 of the Notification. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the benefit of the Notification can be given to the appellants and held that the ink imported by them is ...
The Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Par ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-1998
Reported in: 1999(4)BomCR7
ORDERSmt. K.K. Baam, J.1. This Notice of Motion has been taken out by the applicants, who claim an interest in respect of the machinery described in the schedule annexed to the Notice of Motion, which, according to the applicants, is listed in the Court Receiver's inventory on page 151 at Serial No. 13, praying that the respondent be directed to take physical possession of the machinery described in the schedule to the Notice of Motion and hand over the same to the applicants; that the respondents and or defendant No. 1 be directed to pay to the applicants the arrears of lease rentals and further lease rentals and for ad-interim reliefs. The applicants have also sought permission to commence examination pro interesse suo.2. So far as the relief under prayer Clause (b) is concerned, the applicants , would not be entitled to the same by virtue of the fact that defendant No. 1 has adopted the proceedings under B.I.F.R. and as per the order of the Division Bench of this Court dated Februar...
Jamilabi Mohd. Salim Shaikh Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-1998
Reported in: 1999(5)BomCR56; 1999BomCR(Cri)57
ORDERT.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. This is yet another instance of the police interfering unnecessarily in a genuine civil dispute where both the rival parties had dispute regarding possession of a room and resorted to section 145 of Cr. P.C. under the guise that there is likelihood of a breach of peace.2. The matter arises out of a complaint made before the P.I., Pydhonie Police Station by one Smt. Zubeda Kasam, third respondent herein. She claims to be residing on the 4th Floor (Northern Side) of Haji Ahmed Devji Building situated at 99, Mohammed Ali Road, Bombay-3. She went to the police station on 28-3-1991 and lodged complaint that she has been using disputed room for the last several years and an attempt was being made to dispossess her by one Majid who is the son of Jamilabi, the petitioner herein. It was alleged that Majid and 2/3 unknown persons came to her room and broke open the lock put on the room and took away Rs. 95,000/- kept in the cup-board which was kept in the said...
Smt. Parvoti Shankar Mirajkar and ors. Vs. Shri Kamalakant Govind Nate ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-1998
Reported in: (1999)101BOMLR641
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. This is a Revision Application against the Order dated 18th December, 1997 passed in Execution Application No. 16/1993/C by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Margao. By the impugned Order, the Executing Court has dismissed the application filed by the petitioners under Section 47 read with Order 21, Rule 29 and Section 151 of C.P.C.2. The facts in brief relevant for the decision are that the Respondent herein filed Regular Civil Suit No. 89 of 1968 in the Civil Court at Margao for eviction of the petitioner from the suit premises. The suit was decreed by the Trial Court on 29.4.1986 and the decree was confirmed by the lower Appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal No. 43 of 1986 on 13.12.1991. The Second Appeal No. 9/92 filed in the matter was also dismissed by this Court by its Judgment and decree dated 2.2.1993. Consequently the Respondent filed the execution application being the proceedings No. 16/93/C. The execution of the decree was sought to be objected ...
Greaves Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-1998
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT270Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants herein manufacture rock roller bits falling under Chapter 82 of the Central Excise Tariff Act and are availing of Modvat credit. They had filed declaration for Modvat purposes wherein forgings and forging test pieces have been declared as inputs. The appellants received forgings from the suppliers along with forging test pieces.The forging test piece undergoes various tests like heat treatment along with machined forgings and while the machined forgings after they are found acceptable qualitatively are taken for further grinding, the forging test pieces are discarded as scrap. Proceedings were initiated against the appellants by the jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner on the ground that forging test pieces which are used for testing purposes in their factory cannot be considered as being used in the manufacture of their final product and hence are not inputs. The Asstt. Commissioner adjudicated the case confirming the demand of Rs. 3,274.72 and this order of the Asstt...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »