Mumbai Court December 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.
S.P. Capital Financing Ltd. Vs. Bagade (India) Engineering Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-15-1999
Reported in: [2002]109CompCas657(Bom)
S.S. Nijjar, J.1. On an application filed by the petitioners, by order dated December 7, 1999, the petition was permitted to be withdrawn. The facts relating to the conduct of the company are narrated in the order dated December 7, 1999 and they need not be repeated here. The official liquidator has submitted the report dated December 13, 1999. In this report, it is stated that the order dated December 7, 1999, suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record. It has been passed in ignorance of the provisions of Section 447 of the Companies Act, 1956.2. In view of the above, the court treats the report of the official liquidator dated December 13, 1999, as a review petition of the order dated December 7, 1999. Counsel for the company as well as the petitioner were given due notice of the report. Mr. Diwan appearing on behalf of the company has submitted that Section 447 has no applicability to the facts and circumstances of this case. He submitted that no creditor or contributo...
Longuram Tariram Thakur and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-15-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ1654
D.G. Deshpande, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by both the appellants i.e. the original accused against their conviction in NDPS Special Case No. 126 of 1993 by the Special Judge T.N. Nalawade, Pune, for offences under Section 20(b)(ii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the N.D.P.S. Act') by which they were sentenced to suffer R.I. for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- in default R.I. for two years.2. Since Mr. Gupte counsel for the accused raised mainly two legal questions, we are narrating the facts of the case in brief.P.W. 4 PSI Parameshwar Baburao Bhagat was attached to police chowky under Bundgarden police station on 12-10-1992. At about 19.00 hours he received an information that two persons were carrying a suit case containing large quantity of narcotic drugs at Pune S.T. stand and would shortly leave Pune by S.T. bus for Goa. PW 4 therefore called two panchas, sent intimation to the P.I. of the police stat...
Narayan Nagu Gopale Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-15-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ2700
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. The appellant aggrieved with the judgment and order dated 8-9-1994 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, in Sessions Case No. 465 of 1992, convicting and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, has come up in appeal before us.2. Shortly stated the prosecution case runs as under :-Deceased Ranjana was the wife of the appellant. She was married to the appellant about ten years prior to the incident. She stayed with him for three years. Thereafter she went, to her father's house and did not return for four years. Hence the appellant married one Laxmibai from whom three daughters were born. However, on account of dispute between her and the appellant, she went away. Thereafter the appellant brought back Ranjana to his house. He took her to Bombay and spent some time with her there. About a week prior to the inci...
Jagdish Cancer and Research Vs. Cc (import)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-1999
Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT97Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is the party's appeal against the above captioned impugned order dated 23-7-1998 praying for setting aside the same, with deemed suitable relief.1. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellant imported a consignment of Teletherapy unit - Theratron 980C valued at Rs. 45,38,597 (assessable value) and filed Bill of Entry No. 9293/23-8-1989 claiming duty free clearance under Notification No. 64/88-Cus., dated 1-3-1988 by furnishing NMIC and CDEC No. NMI/ENGG/389/88/506, dated 23-8-1989 and Z-37011/ 16/88-MG, dated 21-10-1988. The goods were allowed clearance without payment of duty. Department found that the appellant failed to produce installation certificate in terms of para 4(iii) of the notification, and so goods were liable to confiscation under Section 111(o) of Customs Act. Jurisdictional authority was requested to seize the same. It was found by it (jurisdictional authority) that the imported goods was found in the treatment room of the Importer's premises. Under ...
Ankit Diamonds Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-1999
Reported in: (2000)75ITD329(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal against the order dated 14-10-1996 of the CIT(A) XXV III Bombay pertaining to the assessment year 1992-93.2. The assessee is a firm of two partners engaged in the business of importing rough diamonds, getting them cut and polished through outside agencies and exporting the polished diamonds. The assessee is also engaged in undertaking cutting and polishing of diamonds on commission basis wherein rough diamonds are taken from the principals and given to outside agencies for cutting and polishing. For assessment year 1992-93 the assessee filed return on 23-10-1992 declaring total income at Rs. 1,91,390. The assessee had, inter alia, claimed deduction of Rs. 6,62,618 under section 80HHC. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment on 8-2-1993 under section 143(3) on total income of Rs. 2,02,670 allowing the deduction under section 80HHC as claimed. The Assessing Officer, vide notice dated 17-8-1994 sought to rectify the assessment in so far as it related to deduct...
Cetaco Sa Vs. Bombay Export International
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)ALLMR474; 2000(3)BomCR97; 2000(3)MhLj311
ORDERD.K. Deshmukh, J.1. This petition has been filed for enforcing a foreign award under the Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). Section 5 of the said Act lays down that any person interested in foreign award can apply to the competent Court for filing of the award. Section 6 of the said Act lays down that if the Court is satisfied that the foreign award is enforceable under the Act, then the Court shall direct to file the award and the Court shall proceed to pronounce the judgment according to the award. The present petition therefore has been filed for filing of the award dated 30th October 1995 and also for an order in terms of that award. By the said award dated 30th October 1995, the arbitrators have awarded a sum of 1,50,000 U.S dollars to the petitioners with interest.2. The petition has been opposed by the respondents. The first objection that is raised by the respondent is that the petitioners have not complied wit...
C and M Farming (P) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-1999
Reported in: (2000)159CTR(Bom)258
ORDERS. H. Kapadia, J.Appeal admitted.2. Mr. Desai waives service for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4.3. Respondent No. 3 is deleted since he is not a necessary party to this appeal and no relief is claimed against him.4. We have perused the order of the Tribunal dated 20-11-1998, and, in our view it is somewhat cryptic. The issue canvassed by the appellant before the Tribunal was that the appellant was carrying on, mainly, the activity of manufacturing or processing of goods so as to fall within the exclusion provided in sub-section (4) of section 104 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The learned counsel for the appellant also cited before us the judgment in CIT v. Deejay Hatcheries : [1995]211ITR652(Bom) which was approved by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Venkateswara Hatcheries (P) Ltd. : [1999]237ITR174(SC) and other judgments. In our view, a detailed consideration of these judgments would be necessary in order to correctly decide the appeal of the appellant before the Tribunal.5. We refrain f...
Ankit Diamonds Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-1999
Reported in: [2001]75ITD329(Mum)
ORDERSatish Chandra, A.M.This is an appeal against the order dated 14-10-1996 of the Commissioner (Appeals) XXV III Bombay pertaining to the assessment year 1992-93.2. The assessee is a firm of two partners engaged in the business of importing rough diamonds, getting them cut and polished through outside agencies and exporting the polished diamonds. The assessee is also engaged in undertaking cutting and polishing of diamonds on commission basis wherein rough diamonds are taken from the principals and given to outside agencies for cutting and polishing. For assessment year 1992-93 the assessee filed return on 23-10-1992 declaring total income at Rs. 1,91,390. The assessee had, inter alia, claimed deduction of Rs. 6,62,618 under section 80HHC. The assessing officer completed the assessment on 8-2-1993 under section 143(3) on total income of Rs. 2,02,670 allowing the deduction under section 80HHC as claimed. The assessing officer, vide notice dated 17-8-1994 sought to rectify the assessm...
Crest Communications Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)ALLMR598; 2000(2)BomCR466; (2000)2BOMLR193; 2000(3)MhLj163
ORDERR.M. Lodha, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the plaintiff and the learned Counsel for defendants.2. The suit filed by the plaintiff is for declaration that the services rendered and films provided by the plaintiff to 2nd defendant were in accordance with the specifications under the purchase order and that invocation of performance guarantee by the 2nd defendant be declared to be fraudulent and unlawful and the bank guarantee be cancelled and returned back to the plaintiff. A notice of motion has been taken out by the plaintiff in the suit praying for temporary injunction restraining the 1st defendant from paying to the 2nd defendant a sum of Rs. 6,73,100/- or any part thereof under the performance guarantee dated 8-12-1998.3. By the purchase order dated December 1, 1998 plaintiff agreed to sell four films to the 2nd defendant details of which have been given therein for a consideration of Rs. 67,30,950/-. The material terms of the said purchase order provide thus; delivery of ...
Maharashtra General Kamgar Union Vs. Star Oxides and Chemicals Ltd. an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-1999
Reported in: 2000(3)ALLMR218; (2001)IIILLJ54Bom
J.A. Patil, J. 1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated October 12, 1993 passed by the Industrial Court, Thane, whereby, it has set aside the order dated July 13, 1993 passed by the Labour Court, Thane in Complaint (ULP) No. 234 of 1993. 2. The relevant facts necessary for disposal of this writ petition are in short as under: The petitioner Union is a registered trade union of the workmen employed in the factory of respondent No. 1. According to the petitioner, ever since its formation, the management of respondent No. 1 has started victimising the workmen who were the members of the petitioner union. It appears that the 24 workmen of the petitioner union were departmentally proceeded with and placed under suspension, but later on, the departmental enquiries against them were abandoned. However, their suspension continued. On May 7, 1993 at about 2.30 p.m. those workmen had come to the factory for collecting their...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »