Mumbai Court October 1999 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.
Toepfer International Asia Pte. Ltd. Vs. Thapar Export Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)BomCR455; 2000(2)MhLj331
ORDERS.S. NIJJAR, J.1. This is a petition under section 47 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', applying for enforcement of the Award dated 29th September, 1997. 2. The petitioner is a Company incorporated under the laws of Singapore carrying on business of imports and exports of, infer alia, Indian commodities and in particular import of Indian toasted soyabean extractions. The respondents are a Company carrying on business of export of Indian Commodities and in particular Indian toasted soyabean exports. The petitioners at all material times in respect of the transaction, which is the subject matter of this petition, acted through their Brokers Alfred C. Toepfer Export (India) Pvt. Ltd. The respondent in respect of the transactions acted through M/s. Reliance Brokers. After negotiations the contract was finalised and executed between the brokers. It is the admitted case of both the sides that the contract has been neither signed by the ...
Anil Tatyarao Solunke Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Bom244; 2000(1)ALLMR625; 2000(2)BomCR137; (2000)1BOMLR494; 2000(1)MhLj457
ORDERS.B. Mhase, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties.2. Initially, while granting rule in this petition, it was directed to hear this petition along with Writ Petition No. 1 of 1999, in which challenge is made to the President's election. Whereas, the present petition is in respect of the disqualification incurred by the present petitioner under sections 16(1)(g) and 44(3) of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Township Act, 1965 (for the sake of brevity, hereinafter, referred to as the 'said Act'). The issues involved in both these matters are different and therefore, the petitions are segregated and present petition i.e. Writ Petition No. 11 of 1999 is taken up for final hearing.3. The petitioner has also filed Civil Application No. 4844 of 1999 requesting this Court to hear the writ petition finally today, because the process of election to fill in the vacancy of the petitioner has commenced and the last date for filing the nominati...
Superintending Engineer, M.i.D.C. and Others Vs. Rajurkar Brothers
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)BomCR635; 1999(3)MhLj893
ORDERB.B. Vagyani, J.1. Heard learned Counsel Shri K.G. Nawandar, holding for Shri S.G. Thombre, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Shri H.M. Karwa, learned Counsel for the respondent.2. Rule, made returnable forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.3. The respondent-plaintiff was registered contractor for Public Works Department. The construction business was carried under the name and style as 'Rajurkar Brothers' at Aurangabad. The respondent is a registered partnership firm. The Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation is a body corporate established under the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 and is represented through its principal contract authorities. The Superintending Engineer was in-charge of the circle for all contract works in the districts of Aurangabad and Jalgaon. The Executive Engineer In-charge was the authority to accept and execute a contract. The contract for the work of construction of SICOM Sheds and ancillary works a...
Titan Investment and Finance Co. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1999
Reported in: [2001]75ITD441(Mum)
ORDERM. V.R. Prasad, A.M.This appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 20-2-1991 for the assessment year 1984-85.2. The ground taken is that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding that the assessee had made short term capital gains of Rs. 1,37,000.3. The assessee subscribed for 10,300 convertible debentures of Maheshwari Mills Ltd. on 26-4-1983 at the aggregate cost (inclusive of cost of right purchased of Rs. 5,17,575 of Rs. 18,05,075. Pursuant to the terms of the issue of the said debentures, the assessee was allotted 10,300 fully paid-up equity shares of the face value of Rs. 12.50 each. The assessee has sold on different dates during the year of account relevant for the assessment year 1984-85 the said debentures with residual rights, i.e., rights after the allotment of the shares on 30-6-1983, for Rs. 9,25,309 in the aggregate. The assessee has sold the equity shares received against the convertible debentures for Rs. 10,17,125.4. In the return...
Jalyan Udyog Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1999
Reported in: (2000)LC36Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants imported one Drill Ship for scrapping and filed Bill of Entry on 20-8-1992 for clearance thereof. At the material time the quantum of duty was to be determined by reference to the "Light Displacement Tonnage (L.D.T)" of such vessels. The definition of LDT reads as under : "Light Displacement Tonnage (LDT) means LDT in MTs as per builder's registered L.D.T. referred to in the Stability Book or the Builder's Certificate." 2. They produced a certificate dated 29-6-1992 from American Bureau of shipping. The Certificate reads as follows : "This is to confirm that on the basis of documents already in our records, the light ship weight of the vessel after being converted in 1975 is 9,609.25 long tons without any ballast." 3. The Memorandum of agreement witnessing the purchase by the appellants described the price as US $ 176 per long tons of LDT, excluding permanent blast, in accordance with the certificate from the ABS referred to above. A report of M/s. Ericson & Rich...
Plastipeel Chemicals and Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1999
Reported in: (2000)LC395Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Applicant M/s Plastipeel Chemicals & Plastics Pvt. Ltd. have sought for the grant of unconditional stay of the operation of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-VI, dated 18-1-1999 under which Central Excise duty of Rs. 30,80,132/- is confirmed under Section 11A(2) of the Central Excise Act and equal amount of penalty imposed under Rule 173Q read with Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act on the applicant and to dispense with the pre-deposit of the duty and penalty as above.2. The case of the applicant is that a differential duty in respect of clearances for the period 1-7-1992 to 30-6-1997 is demanded alleging suppression of facts on the ground that they had declared the products falling under Heading 34.03, but not declared anti rust chemicals in their rusguard series, contained more than 70% of the mineral oil. The finding of suppression of facts and malafides in the impugned order is patently wrong. The very fact that the product containing more than 70...
Megji Mathradas Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1999
Reported in: (2000)75ITD52(Mum.)
1. The assessee in this appeal is a partnership firm engaged in the business of processing of textiles. It runs a unit in the name of M/s Bombay Union Dyeing Mills. The business was carried on in the premises at No. 71, Dr. S. S. Rao Road, Lalbaug, Mumbai. In fact, the assessee is a tenant of the aforesaid premises admeasuring in the aggregate 20,739.49 sq.mts. or thereabouts, inclusive of two separate portions of setback areas admeasuring 2,679.04 sq.mts. The owner of the premises is a trust by name Seth Megji Mathradas Trust. The assessee became the tenant of the aforesaid premises under an indenture of lease dt. 20th December, 1954.2. By a tripartite agreement, dt. 15th September, 1994, which date falls during the previous year ended 31st March, 1995, relevant to the asst. yr. 1995-96 which is the year under appeal, entered into between the trust, which is the owner of the premises and described in the deed as first vendors, the assessee-firm which was described as the second vendo...
Sakina Mohammedally Mulla and Another Vs. Sulphur Refinery Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)BomCR449
ORDERPer D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. By this appeal, the appellants challenge the judgment and decree passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in ShortCause Suit No. 603 of 1977. That suit was filed by the present respondentsclaiming a decree of specific performance of the agreement. The plaintiffs inthe plaint claimed that the defendants are the heirs of late Lalmiya MullaAmiruddin and Mahomedally Mulla Amiruddin and that the plaintiffs, whichis the company incorporated under the Companies Act, had entered intoindenture of lease dated 17-1-1962 with the abovenamed Lalmiya MullaAmiruddin and Mahomedally Mulla Amiruddin, whereby the lease of the landdescribed in the schedule of the agreement of lease dated 17-1-1962 wasgranted for a term of 99 years at a monthly rent of Rs. 1400/- on the termsand conditions mentioned therein.2. The suit of the plaintiffs was based on Clause (4) of the agreement dated 17-1-1962. Clause (4) of the agreement dated 17-1-1962 reads as under :---'4. It is agr...
Ramdas Maneklal Gandhi Vs. the Union of India and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)ALLMR539; 2000(1)BomCR581; (2000)161CTR(Bom)398; [2000]241ITR437(Bom); 2000(2)MhLj74
ORDERDr. B.P. Saraf, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the notice dated 29th March, 1988 issued by the Income-tax Officer under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act') for the assessment year 1985-86. The case of the petitioner is that the condition precedent for the issuance of the notice under section 148 of the Act does not exist in this case and hence the notice is without jurisdiction. 2. The respondents have filed affidavit wherein they have given the reason for issue of the notice under section 148 in the instant case. The reason shown is that the assessee had claimed deduction under section 35-CCA of the Act in respect of donation of Rs. 1,00,000/- made to the Society for Integral Development which was approved by the prescribed authority at that time. Later, the certificate issued to the said society was withdrawn by the prescribed authority on 3rd March 1987 with retrospective effect from 13th December 1982. The impugned notice under sectio...
Zambar Rajaram Patil and Another Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)BomCR128; 2000(2)MhLj213
ORDERS.B. Mhase, J.1. Heard Counsel for the respective parties.2. Rule returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties3. The petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the proceedings of the special meeting of the Board of Directors of respondent No. 6 co-operative society dated 2-7-1999, wherein the respondents No. 5 and 9 were elected as Chairman and Vice Chairman respectively of the respondent No. 6 Co-operative society.4. The respondent No. 6 is a specified Co-operative Society under section 73-G of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act of 1960 and the elections of the managing committee of the said society, of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman are regulated under Chapter XI-A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and the Rules thereunder. The elections of the respondent No. 6 society were held in 1998 for the period of five years and the managing committee consisting of 23 members was elected. The Election petit...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »