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.
Steelage Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-1999
Reported in: (2000)(68)ECC419
1. These two appeals are filed by the party against the above captioned impugned order, dated 30-10-1998 praying for setting aside the same and to grant consequential relief. The stay application is filed with the request for unconditional dispensation with the requirement of predeposit of Modvat credit to Rs. 46,421.12 disallowed by the respondents and for unconditional stay for the recovery thereof pending disposal of the appeal. Two show cause notices, dated 5-12-1993 demanding Rs. 29,530.62 and other dated 11-3-1993 demanding Rs. 16,890.50 are covered in the above amount.2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant is producing and clearing excisable goods under Chapter 83 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985 and has opted for the Modvat scheme in Section 'AA' of Chapter V of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and are entitled to the deemed Modvat credit at a specified rate, stipulated in the said Deemed Credit Order No. 342/1/88/TRU, dated 12-7-1990 issued ...
Rasesh Commercial Corporation Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-1999
Reported in: (2000)75ITD265(Mum.)
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the CIT(A) dt. 19th April, 1993, for the asst. yr. 1979-80. "The learned CIT(A) has erred by agreeing with the AO that the reopening of the above assessment was justified and that the AO had new information in his possession before reopening the assessment order passed under s. 143(3). The CIT(A) has also erred in not considering the fact that in subsequent assessment years, i.e., asst. yrs. 1984-85 and 1985-86 the AO had reopened the assessments on the very same grounds that if asst. yr. 1979-80 which were subsequently dropped vide order dt. 17th January, 1991. Hence, the appellant prays that the reopening of the above assessment is not justified on the ground that no new information was available with the AO which was not there at the time of the assessment. The CIT(A) has also erred in adopting the G.P. rate of 14 per cent which is adopted by the Tribunal for the asst. yr. 1987-88 and not of asst. yr. 1979-80." 3. The admitted positio...
Narangs Hotels (P) Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-1999
Reported in: (2000)74ITD190(Mum.)
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned CIT dated 19th January, 1982, passed under s. 263 of the IT Act, 1961 (the Act), for the asst. yr. 1977-78.2. In the first ground, the assessee has challenged the validity of the proceedings initiated under s. 263 and has accordingly disputed the order under s. 263. However, this ground is not pressed at the time of the hearing and hence the same is rejected as such.3. In the second ground, the assessee is aggrieved against the rejection of its claim to be an "industrial company". For the year under consideration, assessee returned an income of Rs. 9,05,910 which was assessed at Rs. 14,61,600. Assessee's claim to be taxed at concessional rate of tax on the ground of its being an industrial company was accepted by the AO and hence was taxed accordingly. On perusal of assessment records, CIT observed that the assessee did not satisfy the conditions for being charged at the rate of tax applicable to industrial co...
Mazgaon Dock Limited and Another Vs. Shri Bhaskar Damu Khare and Anoth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)ALLMR257; 2000(2)BomCR463; [2000(84)FLR963]
ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioner is a public limited company and is also a Government owned Undertaking under the Defence Ministry of Government of India. Its factory and offices are at Dockyard Road, Mumbai 400 010.2. The petitioner has impugned in the present petition an Award of 6th Labour Court, Mumbai in Reference No. 410 of 1986 referred to it for adjudication of the Industrial Dispute raised by the respondent workman Shri Bhaskar Damu Khare to challenge the propriety and legality of his dismissal order dated 27-9-1984 from employment. By the impugned Award the learned Judge of the Labour Court has directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 80,000/- towards compensation in lieu of reinstatement. The respondent workman has also filed the Counter petition to claim reinstatement with full back wages with continuity of service and has also challenged the Award of the Labour Court refusing him to grant reinstatement with full back wages and in continuity of service. In short bot...
Sudhakar S/O Vinayak Karegaonkar Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-1999
Reported in: 2000(4)BomCR113
ORDERB.H. Marlapalle, J.1. We seldom come across such a case while exercising our writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner who was working as a peon under an educational society has approached this Court seeking a mandamus against his employer society to implement the order passed by the School Tribunal under section 11 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (for short the M.E.P.S. Act) in an appeal filed under section 9 of the said Act. 2. The respondent No. 3 (the Nanded Education Society at Nanded) is a society registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, and is running educational institutions like schools, colleges etc. at and around Nanded. The petitioner came to be employed as a peon on or about 3-6-1971 by the respondent No. 3 with a technical break at the end of each academic years. However, the petitioner's service was made permanent with effect from 1-4-1977 and he was given the p...
Chandrakant Pinayamal Motwani Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ1935
S.S. Parkar, J.1. The appellant convicted under Section 6(3) and (4) of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 1988 read with Section 3 and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and sentence to SI for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to suffer S.I. for ten days by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur in Special Case No. 11 of 1988 by the judgment and order dated 7-11-1992 has appealed against the order of conviction and sentence.2. The few lets leading to the conviction of the appellant are summarised as under :-Pursuant to the secret information dated 19-8-1988 received by him Police Sub Inspector Chalke raided the shop of the appellant situated in Gala No. 27 in Shahu Cloth Market in Kolhapur City. The information was that the appellant was dealing in gas cylinders, regulators etc. though he was not an authorised dealer. Under the raid the appellant was found in possession of 25 gas cylinders out of which ...
Rajababu S/O Buchayya Adluri and anr. Etc. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ4072
J.N. Patel, J.1. The appellants have challenged their conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, vide judgment and order dated 18-3-1997, under which the appellant Chakrapani, Ashok, Wasudeo and Babu alias Prabhakar came to be convicted for having committed offences under Section 395 read with Section 398, IPC and were sentenced to suffer R.I. for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to suffer R.I. for one year. Appellant Rajababu and Mallesh came to be convicted for having committed an offence punishable under Section 411 of I.P.C. and were sentenced to suffer R.I. for two years each. They came to be acquitted of the charge under Section 395 read with Section 398, I.P.C. One of the co-accused in the case namely Laxman was acquitted of all the charges.2. Appellants Rajababu s/o Buchayya Adluri and Mallesh s/o Ankush Gundetti have filed Criminal Appeal No. 102 of 1997, appellant Wasudeo s/o Vyankuji Kohapare, has filed Criminal Appeal No. 144 ...
Buildarch and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-1999
Reported in: (2000)102BOMLR20
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeks to challenge letter dated 8.9.1998 addressed by the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India to the Chief Secretary to the State of Maharashtra by the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India issuing clarification with regard to Coastal Regulation Zone notification dated 19th February, 1991 (for short 'CRZ Notification') particularly with regard to annxure-1, Clause 6(2) CRZ-II of the Regulations.2. The above notification dated 19.2.1991 has been issued by the Central Government in exercise of power under Section 3(1) and 3(2)(v) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and Rule 5(3)(d) of the Environment Protection Rules, 1986 declaring coastal stretches as Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) and Regulating Activities in the CRZ. The said CR2 are devided in four categories as set out in Annexure-I to the CRZ notification. In the present case we are concerned with CRZ...
Ravikant Shankarappa Patil Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-1999
Reported in: (2000)102BOMLR623
H.L. Gokhale, J.1. When the matter was called out, Mr. Agandsurve appearing for the applicant sought adjournment. This matter had come up earlier on 3.12.1999 and on that date after the matter was heard for some time. Mr. Shirish Gupte, Senior Advocate appearing with Mr. Agandsurve had sought adjournment to take instruction as to whether the matter will be proceeded or it will be withdrawn. Today Mr. Agandsurve states that Mr. Gupte is busy elsewhere and Mr. Gupte will proceed with the matter when he is free from the other matter. On being asked to proceed with the matter, Mr. Agandsurve has expressed his inability to do so. In the circumstances, I have gone through the application and papers on record and heard Mr. Mirza, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. Mr. Purwant is present for the complainant.2. The applicant is aged about 40 years and is a resident of Solapur. He is an accused in connection with the offence registered vide C.R. No. 61/99 at Vijapur Naka Police Station of So...
Rakesh Commercial Corporation Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-1999
Reported in: [2001]75ITD265(Mum)
ORDERM. V. R. Prasad, A. M.This appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 19-4-1993 for the assessment year 1979-80.2. The ground taken reads as follows:'The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred by agreeing with the assessing officer that the re-opening of the above assessment was justified and that the assessing officer had new information in his possession before re-opening the assessment order passed under section 143(3). The Commissioner (Appeals) has also erred in not considering the fact that in subsequent assessment years, i.e., assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86 the assessing officer had re-opened the assessments on the very same grounds that if assessment year 1979-80 which were subsequently dropped vide order dated 17-1-1991. Hence the appellant prays that the re-opening of the above assessment is not justified on the ground that no new information was available with the assessing officer which was not there at the time of the assessment.T...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »