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.
Paper Suppliers Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-1999
Reported in: (2002)(147)ELT101Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the decision of the Collector of Customs, New Kandla, made in Order-in-Original No.KCH/COLLR/6/91 dated 1.1.1991 whereunder he had enhanced the assessable value from US$k 900 PMT to Rs. 1000/- PMT.2. The facts of the case are that the appellant imported 180.925 MT of HDPE Tape Grade HS 7023 for which they filed bills of entry dated 22.6.1988. The said imports were made pursuant to the Sales Indent dated 9.11.1987 according to which price was agreed to at US$ 900 PMT for a quantity of 200 MT to be supplied within the first quarter of 1988. The goods could not be shipped before 31.3.1988. After correspondence the goods got shipped on 12.4.1988 from Antwerp (Belgium). Certain investigations were conducted by DRI resulting in issuance of a show cause notice dated 11.4.1990. It was alleged in the notice that value would be at not less than US$ 1300 PMT CIF and in view of the undervaluation by the appellant such undervaluation was estimate...
Kuntinath Appanna Nilapgol and Another Vs. the Gadhinglaj Taluka Sahak ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Bom285; 2000(3)ALLMR181; 2000(2)BomCR572; (2000)1BOMLR569
ORDERN.J. Pandya, J.1. Rule. Returnable forthwith.2. Mr. Nargolkar, the learned Asstt. Government Pleader, waives service on behalf of the respondents and Mr. Thorat, learned Counsel, waives service on behalf of the Interveners. By consent, Rule is taken up for final disposal. Heard both the parties.3. The petitioners have filed this petition claiming to be the representatives of about 200 shareholders who were enrolled as members on or about 20th November, 1998. They were so enrolled to be members of respondent No. 1 Society. Respondent No. 1 is a Sakhar Karkhana and is registered as such under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short the said Act).4. Certain facts are admitted and they are detailed hereunder. The Managing Committee of respondent No. 1 had assumed charge on 4th December,1993. Respondent No. 1 is the specified society within the meaning of section 73G of the said Act.5. The first dispute as to the enrollment of the members arose because respondent No...
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Kvaerner Construction India Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Bom248; 2000(1)ALLMR489; 2000(2)BomCR871; (2000)1BOMLR960
ORDERD.K. Deshmukh, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the award dated 29-8-1997 by which the arbitrator directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 98 lakh and also directed the respondent to furnish Bank guarantee. It is a non-speaking award.2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the award is without jurisdiction. The learned Counsel submits that in terms of the contents of the agreement between the parties, this claim was not arbitrable.The learned Counsel submits that this objection to the jurisdiction of the arbitrator was not raised before the arbitrator. It has also not been raised in the petition. An application filed for amendment for incorporating this ground is also rejected, as it is barred by limitation. The learned Counsel, however, relying on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hastimal v. Hiralal, : AIR1954Bom243 contends that as the petitioner is urging that there is a defect in the jurisdiction of...
Shri Rajendra J. Joshi Vs. Dilip J. Joshi and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)ALLMR81; 2000(2)BomCR873; (2000)1BOMLR615; 2000(3)MhLj205
ORDERD.K. Deshmukh, J.1. By this petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, the petitioner challenges the award of sole arbitrator dated 3-5-1999. The petitioner and the respondents are partners of the firm Engineers Combine. The petitioner and the respondents are brothers. As the dispute arose between the parties, an arbitrator who is the further of the petitionerand the respondents was appointed to resolve the dispute between the parties. What was referred to the sole arbitrator was the differences and disputes between the partners. The petitioner had sought dissolution of the firm and accounts and payment to him of his share in the firm. By the award, the arbitrator rejected the prayers for dissolution, however, directed that the petitioner be retired as a partner of the firm with effect from 28-2-1999. The arbitrator took into consideration the profit of another business carried on by the petitioner under the name and style of 'Tejal Engineering Works' and treated thos...
Smt. Ricardina Emilia Guedes De Almedia De Silva Noronha and Others Vs ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-1999
Reported in: 2000(4)BomCR740
ORDERR.K. Batta, J. 1. Two applications dated 12th February, 1999 were filed by respondent Antonio Sequeira Coutinho Pereira, which are at pages 295 and 349 of the record. Insofar as the application in page 349 is concerned, it appears that statement was made therein, in paragraph 5, which respondent Antonio Sequeira Coutinho Pereira withdrew by filing a statement in writing and had tendered unconditional apology for having made the said statement. In view of the same, nothing would actually survive insofar as the said application at page 349 is concerned.2. Coming to the second application, which is at page 295 of the record, the respondent Antonio Sequeira Coutinho Pereira had raised objection to the appearance of Advocate Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar and Senior Advocate Shri M.S. Usgaonkar and associates on behalf of the appellants. The grounds for raising the said objection may be briefly stated. The objection to the appearance of Advocate Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar was on the ground that he w...
S.R. Doshi Finance and Investment Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-09-1999
Reported in: (2000)75ITD434(Mum.)
1. The assessee is in appeal before us against the order of the ld.CIT(A) dated 25-1-1995 for assessment year 1991-92. First ground in the appeal relates to the addition of lease rent of Rs. 3.96 lacs and interest of Rs. 59,400 thereon.2. Assessee-company returned a loss of Rs. 3,79,090 for the year under consideration, which was assessed to a positive income of Rs. 3,79,820 under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). In the course of assessment proceedings, it was observed by the Assessing Officer that the assessee who was in leasing business, did not credit lease rentals amounting to Rs. 3.96 lacs accrued to it from M/s. Usha Atlas Hydraulic Equipment Ltd. (the lessee), along with interest on overdue rentals. It was stated by the assessee that it had not received any rent since three years. Assessing Officer was of the view that facts remained the same as in assessment year 1990-91 and that there were no fresh facts or evidence for consideration. He was also of the...
Shri Vijaykumar S. Rajput and Another Vs. the Municipal Corporation of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-09-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Bom192; 2000(2)ALLMR74; 2000(1)BomCR833; (2000)1BOMLR650
ORDERDr. B.P. Saraf, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioners seek to challenge the validity of Rule 1 of the Water Charges Rules framed by the Bombay Municipal Corporation on the ground that it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The real grievance of petitioners is that the rate of water charges applicable to supply of water to premises used for exclusively residential purpose being Rs. 3 per 10,000 litres, there is no justification for charging Rs. 80 per 10,000 litres for supply of water to premises used for commercial purposes. Charge of Rs. 80 per 10,000 litres of water supplied to premises used for commercial purposes, according to the petitioners, is most arbitrary, unreasonable and illegal.2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners. The Water Charges Rules of the Bombay Municipal Corporation specify the water charges rates for different groups of consumers. These rules were framed by the Standing Committee of the Bombay Municipal Corporati...
Devidas Bhagwanji Muley and ors. Vs. Maharashtra State Co-operative Co ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-09-1999
Reported in: (2000)IIILLJ388Bom
S.P. Kulkarni, J.1. This petition is preferred by the original employees who had approached the Industrial Court with a complaint under the Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, by contending, that though they are the seasonal employee employed by the Maharashtra State Co-operative Cotton Growers Marketing Federation still they having completed their employment for a period of more than 240 days, they were entitled to have the status of a regular employee and their services were not liable to be disengaged because of the season coming to an end.2. Their grievance was not accepted by the Industrial Court and their complaint came to be dismissed. The Industrial Court was of the view that the conditions of these employees cannot be equated with the regular employees and their character that they are the seasonal employees cannot be brushed aside and, therefore, when they were disengaged when the season came to an end, in the act of such disengagement there was no 'unfair labour pract...
S.R. Doshi Finance and Investment (P) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-09-1999
Reported in: [2001]75ITD434(Mum)
ORDERThe assessee is in appeal before us against the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) dated 25-1-1995 for assessment year 1991-92. First ground in the appeal relates to the addition of lease rent of Rs. 3.96 lacs and interest of Rs. 59,400 thereon.2. Assessee-company returned a loss of Rs. 3,79,090 for the year under consideration, which was assessed to a positive income of Rs. 3,79,820 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act). In the course of assessment proceedings, it was observed by the assessing officer that the assessee who was in leasing business, did not credit lease rentals amounting to Rs. 3.96 lacs accrued to it from M/s Usha Atlas Hydraulic Equipment Ltd. (the lessee) along with interest on overdue rentals. It was stated by the assessee that it had not received any rent since three years. Assessing officer was of the view that facts remained the same as in assessment year 1990-91 and that there were no fresh facts or ...
Batliboi and Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-1999
Reported in: (2000)(68)ECC422
1. The appellants availed of the facility of Modvat credit. From time to time, they filed requisite declarations. On 16-4-1992 show cause notice was issued seeking to deny credit amounting to Rs. 17,46,736.83 during the period 1-4-1987 to 31-3-1988 on the ground that in the declarations only broad description of input was shown where the requirement of the law was that detailed description was to be given.The Collector confirmed the short levy and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- on the assessees. The assessees then filed an appeal before CEGAT. Reliance was placed by the assessees on Board's letter No. 263/17/87 CX-8, dated 9-2-1988. In this letter it was observed that detailed description was mandatorily to be given but that in cases relating to the period prior to February, 1988 the Collector could permit credit to be taken provided the private or statutory records showed that the inputs had been duly received and consumed in the manufacture of final goods. The plea was als...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »