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.
Shahideep Plastic Processors Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-1999
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT206Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant availed of Modvat credit of the additional duty of Customs paid on a quantity of polystyrene which was imported by M/s.Bharat International and sold to it. Notice was issued proposing to deny the credit on the ground that it had not been shown that the sale was on the high seas and that endorsement, prescribed by instructions issued by the Board had not been made on the bills of entry relating to Modvat credit refund. The Assistant Commissioner came to the conclusion that the sale was on high sea and that the procedure prescribed had been followed and vacated the show cause notice. The department appealed this order. The Collector (Appeals) was of the view that the requisite declaration had not been made before the Assistant Collector of Customs by the importer that the goods had been sold on high seas sales and that no refund of duty would be claimed. He therefore set aside the Assistant Commissioner's order and hence this appeal by the department.2. It is not in dis...
Dharavi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Shri Dhanraj Pukharaj Ja ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)ALLMR547; 2000(1)BomCR601; (2000)2BOMLR915
ORDERDr. PRATIBHA UPASANI, J.1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner society, namely, Dharavi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., having its office at Dr. Baliga Nagar, Jasmine Mill Road, Dharavi, Bombay 400 017, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 15th January, 1986, passed by the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court, Bombay, rejecting the appeal filed by them against the present respondent, Dhanraj Pukharaj Jain. 2. Few facts, which are required to be stated are as follows :The petitioner/society bearing Registration No. BOM/HSG/1540 of 1967, was constituted as a Housing Society for the purpose of constructing buildings for their members. There are about 330 members of the petitioner/ society. It constructed about 8 buildings at Dr. Baliga Nagar, Jasmine Mill Road, Dharavi, Bombay 400 017. All these buildings are multi-storied buildings. The society planned to have shops on the ground floor of Building Nos. 5, 7 and 8. Building Nos. 5 and 7 were construc...
Jagdish Electronics (India) Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Appropriate Authori ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-1999
Reported in: (2000)161CTR(Bom)533; [2000]242ITR326(Bom)
D.K. Deshmukh, J. 1. By these two petitions, the same petitioner, namely, Jagdish Electronics Pvt. Ltd., challenges two orders passed by the appropriate authority under Chapter XXC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for compulsory purchasing of flats Nos. 13 and 14 in the building known as 'Belmont Co-operative Housing Society'. As the ground for challenging both the orders is identical both the petitions can be conveniently disposed of by a common order.2. The facts that are material and relevant for deciding these two petitions are as under :Flats Nos. 13 and 14 in the building of Belmont Co-operative Housing Society were owned by respondents Nos. 5 and 6 in both these petitions. The petitioner entered into an agreement to purchase both these flats with their respective owners on January 28, 1994. As required by the provisions of Chapter XXC of the Income-tax Act, application in Form No. 37-1 was submitted to the appropriate authority. The appropriate authority on March 31, 1994, issued sh...
Association of Engineer Workers Vs. Empire Industries Ltd. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-1999
Reported in: [2000(84)FLR150]; (2000)IIILLJ379Bom
P.S. Patankar, J.Heard both sides.1. I must note at the outset that the learned counsel for respondent No. I (hereinafter referred as respondent) made a fair offer that the respondent is prepared to pay as per V.R. Scheme last introduced by the respondent in 1997 to about 70 remaining workmen, but it is not accepted by the petitioner-Union.2. Complaint of unfair labour practice under Section 28 read with item 6 of the Schedule 2 and item 9 of Schedule 4 of MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 came to be filed by the petitioner, By the impugned order dated February 24, 1999 the said complaint is partly allowed by the industrial Court, Thane. It has been held that closure of undertaking on the basis of notices dated February 24, 1998 is not illegal but the Court directed payment of wages for July 1991 to all workmen involved in the Complaint ULP No. 431/91. Further closure compensation to workmen as per Section 25-FFF of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is also directed to be paid, if not paid. This is ...
Govind Punjaji Kute Vs. Additional Commissioner and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-1999
Reported in: (2000)102BOMLR448
R.M. Lodha, J.1. The question, an important one, that arises for consideration in this Writ Petition is whether in absence of any order or direction by the Commissioner directing Election Petitioner to deposit the amount towards costs not exceeding Rs. 500/- under Section 144-U of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (for short Act of 1960) and the Maharashtra Specified Co-operative Societies Elections to Committee Rules, 1971 (for short Rules of 1971) and in absence thereof no deposit of costs being made by the Election Petitioner at the time of presentation of Election petition challenging the election to the Management Committee of the Specified Cooperative Societies, the Election Petition is liable to be summarily dismissed.2. The aforesaid question arises from the following facts:The elections of Managing Committee of Niphad Sahakari Karkhana Ltd., (for short Specified Society) took place on 25th January, 1997. The present Petitioner Govind Punjaji Kute (for short 'Elec...
Jagdish Electronics (India)(P) Ltd. Vs. Appropriate Authority
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-1999
Reported in: [2000]108TAXMAN587(Bom)
Deshmukh, J.By these two petitions, the same petitioner, namely, Jagdish Electronics (P) Ltd., challenges the two orders passed by the appropriate authority under Chapter XX-C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for compulsory purchase of flat Nos. 13 and 14 in the building known as 'Belmont Co-operative Housing Society'. As the ground for challenging both the orders is identical, both the petitions can be conveniently disposed of by common order. 2. The facts that are material and relevant for deciding these two petitions are as under: Flat Nos. 13 and 14 in the building of Belmont Co-operative Housing Society were owned by the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in both these petitions. The petitioner entered into an agreement to purchase both these flats with their respective owners on 28-1-1994. As required by the provisions of Chapter XX-C, application in Form No. 37-1 was submitted to the appropriate authority. The appropriate authority on 31-3-1994 issued showcause notices to the petitioner as als...
Sneha Mandal Co-operative Housing Society Limited and Others Vs. the U ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Bom121; 2000(1)ALLMR659; 2000(1)BomCR395; (2000)1BOMLR13
ORDERPer S.H. Kapadia, J.1. By this Public Interest Writ Petition, the petitioners pray that the constructions and the development activities carried out or proposed to be carried out on Plot Nos. 146, 147 and 148 of Backbay Reclamation area is illegal as the same contravenes the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Notification dated 19th February 1991 issued thereunder (hereinafter referred to, for the sake of brevity, as the 'CRZ Notification'). Before coming to the facts and the points for determination, a short prelude is required to be stated. Greater Bombay comprises of the City of Bombay and the suburbs. The island city came into being due to joining of seven (7) islands through a massive programme of reclamation carried out during the last two centuries. The island city is a narrow North-South strip of land with two bays viz. Backbay in the South and Mahim in the North, both along the Western coast. Almost the whole of the Eastern coast is in use as Port. The whole of th...
M/S. Dhoot Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aurangabad Municipal Corporation and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)ALLMR421; 2000(1)BomCR469; (2000)2BOMLR713; 1999(3)MhLj766
ORDERB.H. Marapalle, J.1. The petitioner M/s. Dhoot Agencies Private Limited was a dealer of Premier Automobiles Limited, a company manufacturing Premier Padmini Cars. On 3rd September, 1985 the Octroi Superintendent alongwith some inspectors was on general checking in the night and at about 3.00 a.m. they noticed that four brand new Premier Padmini Cars crossed the Naka without payment of octroi. The cars were chased and the squad caught hold of two cars near the Lohekapul, Cantonment, Aurangabad. The drivers were interrogated and they stated that under the instructions from the local dealer i.e. the petitioner, the cars were being rushed without payment of octroi. The squad also went to the Dealer's premises and noticed two more vehicles i.e. Premier Padmini Cars which had been brought in without payment of octroi. The drivers were interrogated and a written panchanama was made on 3rd September, 1985.2. It appears that the Municipal Authorities called upon the petitioner to pay octro...
Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Siddheshwar Shivaji Kamble ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)BomCR593; (2000)2BOMLR249; [2000(84)FLR71]; (2000)ILLJ398Bom; 2000(1)MhLj674
ORDERR.J. KOCHAR, J.1. The petitioner, a statutory corporation constituted under the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, caters inter alia the needs of the people in Mumbai for Electric Supply and Road Transport. In the present petition we are concerned with its Public Transport Undertaking through which it employs a large number of persons as Conductors and Drivers to run the Buses on the roads of the City for the benefits of the public. The management of the Undertaking has always tried to render its B.E.S.T. services through its ever vigilant efforts to discipline its employees in the interest of efficiency in the services with the help and co-operation of the representative Union i.e. B.E.S.T. Workers Union functioning in the B.E.S.T. To maintain efficiency and discipline in such a large organisation is a herculean task which the Management is performing. The Public Transport Industry of the petitioner is a class by itself and it cannot be compared with other Industrial activit...
Srushti Vision and Others Vs. Shri Ulhas Buyao
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)ALLMR530; 2000(1)BomCR873
ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. This revision application arises from the order dated 17th February, 1999 passed by the District Judge at Margao in Civil Suit No. 1/96. By the impugned order, the trial Court has dismissed the application dated 29-3-1997 filed by the petitioners herein for rejection of the plaint in the said Civil Suit No. 1/1996. The application was filed under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code complaining that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action. 2. The petitioners as well as the respondent have filed written submissions, apart in addition to the oral submissions made by the learned Advocates for the parties. In support of their submissions, they have relied upon the decisions in the matter of Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v. Eastern India Motion Picture Association and others, reported in : [1977]3SCR206 ; Burroughs Wellcome (India) Ltd. v. Uni-Sole Pvt. Ltd. and another, re-ported in : 1998(3)BomCR481 ; Smt. Mannu Bhandari v. Kala Vika...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »