Mumbai Court October 1999 Judgments

B. Vijaykumar and Co. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)75ITD87(Mum.)

1. This appeal is directed against the order of the CIT(A) dt. 29th January, 1992, for the asst. yr. 1987-88. "On the facts of the case and in law the learned CIT-I, Bombay has erred in rejecting the contentions of the appellant on the point of shortfall in creation of reserve as per second proviso to s. 80HHC which the appellant had fulfilled in subsequent year by creating the additional reserve and directing the Dy. CIT, Special Range 19, Bombay to add the shortfall to the assessment income. The appellant submits that his action of creating additional reserve in the subsequent year by debiting to P&L a/c be held to be compliance of the condition prescribed in proviso to s. 80HHC." 3. The assessee filed a return on 31st July, 1987, claiming deduction under s. 80HHC of Rs. 1,26,74,458. The assessee, however, filed a revised return on 17th December, 1988, claiming a higher deduction under s. 80HHC of Rs. 1,30,80,482. The accounting year of the assessee for the asst. yr. 1987-88 end...

The Indian Card Clothing Co. Ltd. and Others Vs. Shaw Wallace and Comp ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2000(1)ALLMR14; 2000(2)BomCR82; 2000(1)MhLj431

ORDERT. K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. Heard both sides.On examination of the plaint and the reply, it is seen that the defendant has not seriously disputed the substantial claim made by the plaintiff inthe suit. Of course, a dispute has been raised by the defendants as to the rate of interest claimed by the plaintiff. I have examined the claim also and I noticed that interest on interest has been claimed in the plaint. In view of this excessive claim of interest made in the plaint, the Counsel for the defendants Mr. Tulzapurkar has argued to grant unconditional leave, on the basis of the judgment of this Court reported in 1998(I) LL.J. 793 Hydraulic and General Engineering Ltd. & another v. UCO Bank.2. He contended that the Division Bench of this Court in the above case has observed that if the interest claimed by the defendant is illegal two options are left for the plaintiff; one is to grant unconditional leave to defend the suit and another is to withdraw the Chamber Summons and afte...

Sanjay S/O Radhesham Ruhatiya Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)102BOMLR818

S.D. Gundewar, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/original accused No. 1 being aggrieved by the order dated 18.5.1999, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Washim, in Sessions Trial No. 20 of 1999, whereby the appellant/original accused No. 1 has been convicted under Section 304 Part II of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years with a fine of Rs. 1,500/-, and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months. He was, however, acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 of Indian Penal Code. The original accused Nos. 2 and 3 were also acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code with which they were charged.2. The prosecution case, as unfolded during trial, is as follows:-The deceased Sonu alias Sonali was married to Sanjay (appellant) on 19.4.1998. After the marriage Sonali went to her matrimonial home at Risod, District Wash...

Chokhani Pharma Vet Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(134)ELT101Tri(Mum.)bai

1. On hearing the stay application it appeared that the issue being very well settled, the main appeal itself could be taken up for disposal. This was done after granting waiver of the condition of pre-deposit of Rs. 2,52,930/-.2. The appellants imported "Rovimix AD3 500/100 (Feed Grade) (Poultry Feed Supplement) and claimed classification under Heading 2309.90 CTA and 2302.00 CETA. The Customs contested the classification. After issue of show cause notice and hearing the appellants the Additional Commissioner of Customs judged the classification under the CETA under subheading 2936.00 and demanded the differential duty referred to above. The Larger Bench judgment of the Tribunal (Misc. Order No.248/98, dated 13-11-1998) [2001 (138) E.L.T. 414 (Tribunal - LB)] in the case of Tetragon Chemie Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. was cited before the Commissioner in appeal proceedings. The Commissioner without taking cognizance of that judgment upheld the lower orders. Hence the present appeal.3. Shri J.C...

Berlia Chemicals and Traders (P) Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. The assesses is in appeal before us against the order of the learned CIT(A), dt. 18th Oct., 1993, for asst yr. 1990-91. First ground in the appeal is against disallowance of Rs. 26,00,000 being depreciation on wastage heat recovery boiler.2. The assessee-company is engaged in the business of trading in chemicals, It returned a loss of Rs. 6,88,375 after claiming deprecation of Rs. 28,97,697. The assessee was assessed at a positive income of Rs. 25,36,330 under Section 143(3) of the Act, the major disallowance being that of depreciation amounting to Rs. 26 lacs, the facts relating to which are narrated hereinafter. Assessee-company purchased waste heat recovery boiler, which is an energy-saving plant, from its sister concern M/s Barium Chemicals Ltd. for a consideration of Rs. 26 lacs. Payment was made by book entries. Barium Chemicals Ltd. in the fact owed some amount to the assessee-company and hence by adjusting the purchase price of the boiler, the debt due by Barium Chemicals t...

Shashikant Bhagwant Kulkarni Vs. Indian Red Cross Society and Another

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1999(4)ALLMR514; 2000(1)BomCR550; (2000)1BOMLR476; [2000(84)FLR114]; 2000(1)MhLj625

ORDERR.J. KOCHAR, J.1. The petitioner, who was in employment of the respondent No. 1 as an Analytical Chemist from 11-10-1974, was terminated fromemployment with effect from 1-9-1978. He challenged the said order of termination by rasing an industrial dispute which was referred by the Government for adjudication to the 1st Labour Court, Solapur.2. The parties completed their pleadings and adduced their respective oral and documentary evidence. The Labour Court framed issues in respect of legality and impropriety of the termination order and relief, if any, to be granted to the petitioner workman. The Labour Court held that the order of termination of the petitioner workman was illegal for non compliance of the mandatory provisions of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as the amount of retrenchment compensation was not offered. The Labour Court however, came to a conclusion that the retrenchment of the petitioner was necessitated and was bona fide action. It, however, fou...

Hirubhai Himabhai Patel and Others Vs. M/S. V.H. Patel and Co. and Oth ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2000Bom114; 2000(2)ALLMR361; 2000(2)BomCR47; (2000)1BOMLR883

ORDERD.K. Deshmukh, J.1. The petitioners have filed this petition challenging the findings on Issue Nos. 8, 13 and 17 recorded by the Sole Arbitrator in his award dated 25th January, 1999 under sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The facts that are material and relevant for deciding this petition are as under.2. The firm M/s. V.H. Patel and Co- is a registered partnership firm. The business of the firm is manufacturing and selling chewing tobacco. Initially, the firm had four partners, it was registered in the year 1948. Subsequently, the partnership was reconstituted from time to time. There were three trade marks registered in the name of this partnership firm. On 1st July 1987, a firm M/s. H.H. Patel and Co. was constituted with Hirubhai Patel, who was partner in the firm M/s. V.H. Patel and Co. and his two sons by name Pravinbhai and Dineshbhai as partners. In or about 1987, disputes and differences relating to the business of M/s. V.H. Patel and Co. arose between the ...

Bank of Maharashtra Vs. Konkan Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. and Others

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1999(4)ALLMR679; 2000(2)BomCR72; (2000)1BOMLR214; [2000]100CompCas307(Bom); 2000(2)MhLj435

ORDERT.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. The applicant seeks for Judge's order to the effect that the offer dated 5-6-1999 made by M/s. Umang Enterprises for purchase of the suit hypothecated plant machinery stocks and all other movables for Rs. 27,78,600/- be accepted and direct the Receiver to hand over to said M/s. Umang Enterprises all the hypothecated securities lying at the factory of the 1st defendant etc. 2. The matter arises under execution of a decree obtained by the applicant. No one appears for the respondent. During the course of hearing of the application, a question arose as to whether, by virtue of section 31 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks & Financial Institutions Act, 1993 hereinafter called 'the Act' be transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal as the amount involved is exceeding Rs. 10 lakhs. As per section 18 of the said Act, this Court has no jurisdiction to deal with those matters if the claim involves more than Rs. 10 lacs in respect of the claim of Bank. In th...

Suresh S/O Ramchand Gajbhiye and Others Vs. the Municipal Council and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2000Bom148; 2000(1)ALLMR502; 2000(4)BomCR203; 2000(2)MhLj76

ORDERD.D. Sinha, J. 1. Hears Shri Borkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri A. Shelat, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Shri Deopujari, A.G.P., for the respondents 2 and 3. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are restricting the challenge in the instant petition only to the notification dated 26th July 1949 issued by the Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause 30 of the Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 by which the Provincial Government was pleased to exempt from all the provisions of the order :--- (i) any house belonging to a Municipality, a Notified Area Committee or aJanpad Sabha; and(ii) any house used as place of entertainment within the meaning of Clause (b) of (XXX of 1936). 3. Shri Borkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that the erstwhile Provincial Government, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 2 of the Central Provinces and Berar Lett...

Prav Plast Private Ltd. Vs. Kaluram A. Chaudhari and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2000(1)ALLMR644; [2000(84)FLR122]; (2001)IIILLJ513Bom

R.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioner is a Private Limited Company engaged in the manufacture of Cable cover from plastic powder, plastic pipes etc. At the relevant time it employed only six workmen in its establishment at Pune. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner company Ms. Doshi informed me that now the company is closed forever. She gave that information to base her submission that there will be no reinstatement now in view of the closure of the company, if at all the petitioner company fails finally in the matter,2. This is a typical case which demonstrates how sometimes the Labour Laws work very harshly on very small employers like the present one, who are more or less self employed persons engaged in their private business activities. The respondent workman was employed as a casual/temporary helper on July 27, 1984 for the first time and his temporary employment was discontinued on completion of the work. Subsequently a settlement with the workmen was arrived at on December 3, 19...