Mumbai Court February 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.
The Stock Exchange, Mumbai Vs. Vinay Bubna and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Bom266; 1999(3)ALLMR442; 1999(2)BomCR597; [2001]103CompCas584(Bom); 1999(3)MhLj810
ORDERA.C. Agarwal, J.1. Appellant before us is the Stock Exchange, Mumbai (hereafter for the sake of brevity referred to as 'Exchange'). It is not a party to the lis which has arisen between respondent Nos. 1 and 2. However, it is adversely affected by the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and hence the present appeal.2. Respondent No. 1 was the original petitioner in the Arbitration Petition filed before the learned Single Judge. Differences having arisen between him and respondent No. 2 who was a broker with the exchange, a reference was made to Arbitrators under Bye-law 248 of the Exchange. Reference was to two arbitrators, one named by each party to the dispute. Before the arbitrators a contention was advanced on behalf of respondent No. 1 that reference to the Arbitral Tribunal consisting of two arbitrators was in contravention of section 10 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter for brevity's sake referred to as 'the Arbitration Act'). The arbi...
Mrs. Chandrakalabai W/O Kondiram Wankhede Vs. Balaji S/O Shahaji Dhoke ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1999
Reported in: 2000(4)BomCR157; 2000(1)MhLj73
ORDERV.K. Barde, J.1. Heard respective Counsel for the parties.2. The election for Village Panchayat, Phulambri, was held in May, 1995, and the petitioner was elected as the Sarpanch of the Village Panchayat on 5-9-1995. There are total 17 elected members of the Village Panchayat. On 16-9-1997, two no confidence motions, one against the Sarpanch and second against the Up-Sarpanch, were moved by 7 members of the Village Panchayatas per the provisions of section 35(1) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It is the contention of the petitioner that the notice was given by the members of the Grampanchayat to the Naib Tahsildar of Aurangabad Taluka and not to the Tahsildar of Taluka. The Naib Tahsildar verified their presence, but it was shown to the Naib Tahsildar that the signature of member-Smt. Saraswatibai Annasaheb Jadhav was forged on the notice. The Naib Tahsildar verified the presence of 7 members and then made an endorsement to that eff...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. N.J. Pavri
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1999
Reported in: [1999]237ITR472(Bom)
S.H. Kapadia, J. 1. At the instance of the Department, the Income tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question for the opinion ofthis court in respect of the assessment year 1977-78, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that out of gratuity of Rs. 47,250 received from Rallis India Ltd., by the assessee, an amount of Rs. 23,333 was not liable to be included in the total income of the assessee under Section 10(10){iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in his assessment for the assessment year 1977-78 ?'2. The assessee is an individual. He retired from Air India on August 1, 1968. At that time, the assessee availed of full exemption of Rs. 30,000 under Section 10(10) as it then stood. In June, 1976, he retired from Rallis India Limited. In June, 1976, he received gratuity of Rs. 47,250. This time, the assessee claimed Rs. 23,333 as exempt under Section 10(10)(iii). Thi...
West Coast Paper Mills Employees Union Vs. A.B.M. Shaikh and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1999
Reported in: [1999(82)FLR302]; (2000)IIILLJ374Bom
N.J. Pandya, J.1. The Union of the Respondent No. 2- Company has filed the present petition challenging the Award passed by the Presiding Officer of the Seventh Labour Court, Bombay on October 21, 1995 in Reference No. (IDA) No. 1039 of 1987.2. Facts leading to the Reference are very short:On or about June 19, 1987 at about 11.45 a.m. one Shri N.D. Mohta, Vice President and overall in-charge of Sales Department of Respondent No. 2 while taking round in the office enquired from the workman Shri G, Sethuraman, a stenographer, hereinafter referred to as workman, as to what he was typing on the typewriter. The said workman was working in the sales department. The workman answered the query by asserting that he was typing some letter of the respondent No. 2 company. The said Mr. Mohta got suspicious and took out all the papers including carbon papers from the typewriter. He found letterhead of an advocate and it appeared that the workman was typing a letter of an advocate as a part of his p...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. N.J. Pavri
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1999
Reported in: (1999)153CTR(Bom)134
S.H. KAPADL4, J.:At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal has referred the following question for the opinion of this Court in respect of asst. yr. 1977-78, under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 :Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that out of gratuity of Rs. 47,250 received from Rallies India Ltd., by the assessee, an amount of Rs. 23,333 was not liable to be included in the total income of the assessee under s. 10(10)(iii) of the IT Act, 1961, in his assessment for the asst. yr. 1977-78 ?2. The assessee is an individual. He retired from Air India on lst Aug., 1968. At that time, the assessee availed of full exemption of Rs. 30,000 under s. 10(10) as it then stood. In June, 1976, he retired from Rallies India Ltd. In June, 1976, he received gratuity of Rs. 47,250. This time, the assessee claimed Rs. 23,333 exempt under s. 10(10)(iii). This was denied by the AO vide order dt. 18th March, 1980. This order was passed unde...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shri Arvind H. Dalal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1999
Reported in: (1999)154CTR(Bom)520
Dr. B. P. Saraf, JAt the instance of the department, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') has referred the following question of law for opinion of this court in respect of assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81. This is by way of two separate references referred to herein-above. Since common question of law is involved in both these references, these references are disposed of by this common order. The question of law referred to this court under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is as under:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the income from shares and cash valued at Rs. 98,000 settled by the assessee on a trust for the benefit of the members of the HUF of the settlor, being the assessee, his wife, son and daughter, was not affected by the provisions of section 64(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act 196l?'2. The assessee is an individual. By a deed of settlement dated 24-3-19...
Wadco Packaging Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-1999
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT101Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These applications are for stay of collection of duty of Rs. 40.73 lakhs approximately and penalty of equal amount levied under Section 11AC read with Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellant is manufacturer of boxes, side fitments/packings, partitions top and bottom, covers falling under Chapter 48 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They also manufactured what is known as inherent fitments or Integral fitments, which they sell sometimes along with the cartons and sometimes separately. They filed declaration mentioning that they were manufacturing corrugated boxes, containers and whether in assembled or unassembled condition, either printed or unprinted along with integral or inherent fitments/components as per the specifications of the buyers. They mentioned that the goods manufactured by them were coming under Tariff Heading 4819.12,4819.19.They also mentioned that they were manufacturing other articles of paper, paperboards not covered under above item, it...
Texplast Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-1999
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT379Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an application for stay of deposit of Rs. 6,21,582 /- being the duty demanded. The assessee is a small scale industry carrying on the business of the manufacture of excisable goods falling under Chapter 39. Assessee filed classification list dated 1-4-1993 w.e.f.1-4-1993 claiming exemption under the Notification 1/93. They were manufacturing plastic strips/tapes and HDPE sacks out of the granules and strips were sent to job worker for manufacture of fabrics on payment of duty. The question involved is whether Explanation VII to Notification 1/93 would be applicable to the facts of this case or not.The crucial factor in this case is that the cloth is manufactured not in the factory. Explanation VII refers to the element of manufacture in the same factory. This is to be decided at the time of final hearing.Prima facie we are of the view that the applicant does not have a good case on merits. As far as financial ability of the company is concerned, the applicant furnished its ...
M/S. Kothari and Co. Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)BomCR402
ORDERF. I. Rebello, J. 1. Both these Motions are being taken together as disposal of one will have the effect on disposing the other. 2. The petitioners in Notice of Motion No. 2411 of 1998 were the respondents in Arbitration Petition No. 223 of 1998. The petitioners therein had an award in their favour. They approached this Court on the ground that no application for setting aside the award was made within 30 days. It was contended on behalf of the petitioners/respondents therein that the Award was in terms of section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The said contention was rejected on the ground that the proceedings were initiated under the Arbitration Act, 1940 and were saved by section 85 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. In view of that a decree was passed in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b) and (c). This order is sought to be reviewed and/or this Court called upon to exercise its inherent powers in Notice of Motion No. 2411 of 1998. Notice of Moti...
Anand Udyog Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-1999
Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT651Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These three applications arise out three appeals, arising from the single impugned order and are therefore being dealt with in this single order.2. Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner confirmed duty totally amounting to Rs. 21,05,705/-. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 20 lakhs on M/s. Anand Udyog and of Rs. 2 lakhs each on the other two applicants Shri A.B. Kanade and Shri S.B. Kanade. These applications seek waiver of pre-deposit of these sums and also stay of recovery thereof.3. We have Shri S.N. Kantawala, Advocate for the applicants and Shri A.K. Chatterjee, SDR for the Revenue.4. Shri Kantawala submits that the Commissioner had directed the applicants on occasions to appear before him for hearing. On each occasion, the applicant had, on valid grounds disclosed in their application, requested for adjournment. While on the first two occasions the Commissioner did adjourn the proceedings, on the last occasion he made no communication but passed the order after about one mo...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »