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.
M/S. Divya Shivlaks Impex Vs. Shantilal Jamnadas Textiles (P) Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)ALLMR310; 1999(2)BomCR734; 1999(2)MhLj223
ORDERA.V. Savant, J.1. Heard both the learned Counsel Mr. S.P. Dalal, for the appellants and Mr. R.S. Tripathi, for the respondents.2. Appeal admitted, Mr. Tripathy waives service. By consent appeal is taken up for hearing and final disposal forthwith. Paper book dispensed with.3. The appeal is against order dated 17th November, 1998 in Arbitration Petition No. 381 of 1998. The petition was filed by the appellant challenging the award dated 5th August, 1998, on the ground that there was no arbitration agreement between the parties and hence the award was not binding on the appellants. In the petition the appellants contended that the contract dated 2nd January, 1998 between the parties did not contain any stipulation as to arbitration. The terms of the contract were in writing and it was contended that the same should not be altered unilaterally by printing some clause on the invoice which was disputed and was not inteligible. At any rate, it was contended that there was no arbitration...
Sharad Mansukhlal Mutha Vs. M/S. Videocon Leasing and Industrial Finan ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)ALLMR220; 1999(2)BomCR747; 1999(2)MhLj122
ORDERB.H. Marlapalle, J.1. Insolvency Petition No. 3 of 1998 came to be filed under section 6(b) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), against the present petitioner before the learned civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar on or about 28th November, 1998. In the said Insolvency Petition an application at Exhibit-32 was filed by the present respondent on 13th November, 1998 and though the same was opposed by the present petitioner, it came to be allowed by the learned Judge of the Lower Court on 13th November, 1998 itself, by passing the following order:- 'Heard Advocate for both the parties. Request granted as prayed for on depositing necessary charges'.By the said order, the application at Exhibit-32 came to be allowed and a public notice regarding the pendency of the Insolvency Petition was directed to be published in some of the newspapers like Maharashtra Times, Sakal, Kesari, Lokmat and Tarun Bharat etc. which are published from Mumba...
Babasaheb Manik Gunjal and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)BomCR200
ORDERN.P. Chapalgaonker, J.1. Heard Shri Hon, the learned Counsel for the petitioners; Shri Phatke, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, forrespondents Nos. 1 to 3 and 20; Shri Shinde, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 4 and Shri Dixit, learned Counsel for respondents Nos. 5 to 19.2. Respondents Nos. 5 to 10 - co-operative societies have been included in the voters list prepared by the Collector for the election of Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Ahmednagar. They are included in the category of Co-operative Societies doing business of processing or marketing of agricultural produce in the market area, as contemplated by section 13(1)(c) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). The entitlement of respondents Nos. 5 to 19 in this category has been challenged before us in this writ petition.3. Admittedly, all these societies are holding a traders' licence which is issued by the Market Committee on 3...
Madhavrao J. ScIndia Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-1999
Reported in: [2000]243ITR683(Bom)
S.H. Kapadia, J. 1. At the instance of the assessee, the following two questions of law have been referred to this court for opinion under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the assessment year 1973-74 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the gross dividend declared by the companies in Ceylon was chargeable to tax and not the net amount after deducting the tax at source and the cost of foreign exchange entitlement certificate ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the travel allowance received by the applicant from Scindia Investments Pvt. Ltd., was not exempt in terms of Section 10(14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. As far as question No. 1 is concerned, both learned counsel for the parties state that the controversy involved in this question is squarely covered by the decision of this court in Mrs. Meherbai N. Sethna v. CAT : ...
Janavadi General Kamgar Mazdoor Union Vs. Central Institute of Fisheri ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-1999
Reported in: [1999(82)FLR357]; (1999)IILLJ789Bom
Y.K. Sabharwal, C.J. and A.P. Shah, J. 1. Rule, returned forthwith.2. The petitioner is a trade union, which has filed this petition seeking issue of writ of mandamus directing Respondent No. 1 to absorb the workers listed at Exhibit 'A' and to regularise their services with effect from the respective dates of joining Respondent No. 1 - establishment. Further relief sought for is for issue of directions to the Central Government to take a decision whether or not the employment of Contract Labour in the jobs carried out by the workers listed at Exhibit 'B' should be prohibited.3. The workers at Exhibit 'A' are performing the work of sweeping and cleaning of the building of Respondent No. 1 i.e., The, Central Institute of Fisheries Education' (deemed University) (for short, C.I.F.E.). The workers listed at Exhibit 'B' are stated to be employed for work of Peons, Electricians, Gardeners, Carpenters, Cooks, Fishermen and Plumbers with C.I.F.E.4. C.I.F.E. is an institute for education and t...
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Shrikant V. Ingale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-1999
Reported in: [1999(82)FLR100]; (1999)IILLJ495Bom
Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. The respondent had filed application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act for claiming certain benefits for having worked as Divisional Security Inspector under the petitioner Corporation. While working as such in the Ratnagiri Office of the Petitioner, he was transferred from Ratnagiri to Nasik where he retired as Divisional Security Officer on October 2, 1980. Subsequently he came to know that the Security Officer is entitled for overtime allowances. Therefore, he preferred his claim before Labour Court, Nasik for claiming overtime allowance while he was working in the Ratnagiri Office.2. Among other objections, two objections were raised as preliminary objections by the Petitioner. One of them is that the Nasik Labour Court has no jurisdiction because cause of action arose beyond the jurisdiction of Labour Court, Nasik, as the claim relates to the service that the respondent had rendered at Ratnagiri. The other preliminary objection was that...
Madhavrao J. ScIndia Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-1999
Reported in: (1999)155CTR(Bom)35
S.H. KARMA, J.At the instance of the assessee, the following two questions of law have been referred to this Court for opinion under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, in respect of asst. yr. 1973-74 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the gross dividend declared by the companies in Ceylon was chargeable to tax and not the net amount after deducting the tax at source and the cost of foreign exchange entitlement certificate ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the travel allowance received by the applicant from Scindia Investments (P) Ltd. was not exempt in terms of s. 10(14) of the IT Act, 1961 ?2. As far as question No. 1 is concerned, both the learned counsel for the parties state that the controversy involved in this question is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Meherbhai N. Sethna vs . CIT : [1994]209ITR453(Bom) . Accordingly, question ...
Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Swastik Rubber Products Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-1999
Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC188
1. The respondent is manufacturer inter alia of life jackets. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the life jackets manufactured by the respondents are entitled for exemption from duty contained in Notification 82/84. The notification exempts capital goods, components and raw materials cleared for the repair of goods falling under Heading 89.01, 89.02, 89.04, 89.05 other than those excluded in 89.06, from the duty of excise. The notification contains some conditions regarding procedure to be followed. In the order impugned, the Commissioner (Appeals) has noted that according to the Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea and the Merchant Shipping Act, life jackets are to be provided on all ships and the safety equipment certificate for such ship is to be issued only when there is adequate provision of such life jackets. Replacement of a life jacket on a ship amount to replacement of a component and hence is repair. The contention in the appeal is that the life jac...
Khatau Makanji Spg. and Wvg. Co. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-1999
Reported in: (1999)(84)LC420Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Khatao Makanji Spg. and Wvg. Co., the matter relates to the duty liability in respect of Punched paper dobby cards. The appellants were purchasing from the market unpunched dobby cards which were then cut to size, punched, pasted into a cylindrical form and then were used captively on the looms. It was alleged in the show cause notice dated 13.12.1990 issued by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Bombay that the appellants had not filed at the proper time the classification list, price list and had cleared the excisable goods without proper gate passes and had also not filed RT-12 returns with the proper officer. It was alleged in the show cause notice that it amounted to the suppression of facts. The Additional Collector, Central Excise, Bombay who adjudicated the matter confirmed a demand of Rs. 629.64 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 200/-.2. When the matter was called, no one appeared for the appellants. The notice for today's hearing had been d...
Pink Star Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-1999
Reported in: (2000)72ITD137(Mum.)
1. The assessee is in appeal before us against the order of the ld.CIT(A) dated 28-9-1997 for assessment year 1994-95. There are two main grounds in the appeal, one relating to deduction under section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") and second, relating to deduction under section 80-I of the Act. Four main issues are involved in the ground relating to section 80HHC which are as follows : (a) Whether premium received by the assessee on sale/surrender of import licences is to be included in the total turnover or not. (b) Whether the profits of the business have to be reduced by 90% of gross labour charges or by 90% of net labour charges received by the assessee. (c) Whether the profits of business have to be reduced by 9096 of gross interest received by the assessee or by 9096 of the net interest received by the assessee. (d) Whether the profits of the business have to be increased by 90% of the net premium received from the Government of India.2. The assessee firm is enga...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »