Mumbai Court March 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.
Colour Chem Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City Ii, Bo ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)BomCR215; [1999]238ITR171(Bom); 1999(3)MhLj980
ORDERS.H. Kapadia, J.1. By this reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the assessee, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions of law to this Court for opinion.'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that proportionate salary of employees of assessee for the period of their stay outside India in the ordinary course of their employment should not be excluded from the total salary while computing disallowance under section 40-A(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?'2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the amount representing medical reimbursement given to employees which was not treated as perquisite in computing disallowance under section 40-A(5) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 should be treated as part of salary for computation of disallowance under said provision?'3. Whether on the facts and in...
Dr. Surinder P.S. Pruthi and Another Vs. Commandors B.Y. Wad and Other ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)BomCR371
ORDERT.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3694 of 1996 Dr. Surinder P.S. Pruthi has filed a suit before the Small Causes Court, Bombay as Suit No. R.A. Suit No. 2142 of 1975 against 1) Commr. B.Y. Wad and 2) M/s. Rallis India Ltd. for declaration that he is tenant in respect of 8-A, 8th Floor, Oyster Apartment, Sadashiv Park, Pilot BunderRoad, Colaba, Bombay 5 (hereinafter referred to as 'the declaratory suit'). The suit was dismissed by the Small Causes Court, Bombay. Commr. B.Y. Wad who is the petitioner in W.P. 6164 of 1996 filed suit against M/s. Rallis India Ltd. and Dr. Surinder P.S. Pruthi for recovery of possession of the aforesaid flat in view of section 13(1)(A) of the Bombay Rent Act (hereinafter called as 'suit for possession') as Suit No. 134/789/76. Both the suits were jointly tried by the Court of Small Causes, Bombay and dismissed the suits. Against this, both Dr. Pruthi and Commr. Wad filed appeals before the Appellate Bench of the Small C...
Indian Bank Vs. Deepak Fertilisers and Petrochemicals Corporation Limi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)BomCR408
ORDERF.I. Rebello, J.1. The pleadings are prolix. The few facts however, necessary to decide the reliefs prayed for are as under :-The petitioners had purchased debentures from their holders, which will be hereinafter referred to as debentures Part 'C' of the respondent Company. The subject of the present petition are the following debentures :-(a) 16,000 Part 'C' debentures purchased from a group known as Uttamchandani: (b) 20,000 Part 'C' debentures standing in the name of Shri Suryakant A. Patel and Smt. Jyotsnaben S. Patel ; and(c) 92,000 Part 'C' debentures standing in the name of two Jains and two Patkars and two Shahs. When these debentures were forwarded to the Company for transfer in thename of the petitioners, the transfer was not effected on account of thedefects pointed out by the respondent. The defects may be listed as under :i) In respect of Uttamchandani, the objections were that no Reserve Bankof India permission had been forwarded and secondly that there was a differe...
Smt. Vinaya Manohar Madhavi Vs. Shri O.P. Bali, Commissioner of Police ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-1999
Reported in: 1999(5)BomCR549; 1999(3)MhLj163
ORDERVishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who is the wife of the detenu Manohar Krishna Madhavi @ Manya @ M.K., has impugned the detention order dated 30th March, 1998 passed by the First Respondent-Mr. O.P. Bali Commissioner of Police, Thane, detaining the detenu under the MaharashtraPrevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981. The detention order dated 30th March, 1998 along with the grounds of detention bearing the same date (30th March 1998) was served on the detenu on 30th March, 1998.2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We are not adverting to the prejudicial activities of the detenu contained in the grounds of detention because, their recitation is not necessary to adjudicate upon the solitary contention of the petitioner's Counsel contained in ground 5(g) to the effect that on account of the wrong address of the Chairman, Adv...
industrial Development Bank of India Vs. Orient Plywood and Veneering ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-1999
Reported in: [2001]103CompCas130(Bom)
F.I. Rebello, J.1. On admission, the petition has been advertised as required. Affidavit to that effect has been filed and taken on record.2. It is the case of the petitioner that the company is justly indebted to them for a sum of Rs. 2,43,22,000 which includes outstanding' principal and over due interest as on December 31. 1997. The said amount is in respect of the financial assistance in the form of loan granted by the petitioners to the company.3. It was the case of the company that the suit had been filed against the company for recovery of the outstanding' dues. Since 1989, the company is not carrying on its business activities and it has become totally impractical for the respondent-company to function smoothly for reasons set out in the petition. On July 20, 1994, both movable and immovable properties of the company were sold by the court receiver. The company approached the BIFR on March 1, 1988. On June 13, 1989, the BIFR passed an order holding that it was not possible to re...
Soud Ahmed Jubber Khan Vs. Shri O.P. Bali and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-1999
Reported in: 2000(5)BomCR317; 1999(3)MhLj261
ORDERSmt. Ranjana Desai, J.1. One Soud Ahmed Jubber Khan brother of the detenu Jameer Ahmed Khan @ Don has filed the present petition challenging the order of detention dated 12th May, 1998 issued under the provision of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (Mah. Act No. LV of 1981). The order of detention is issued with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the Maintenance of Public Order. The detention order dated 12th May, 1998 and the grounds of detention in support thereof bearing the same date were served on the detenu on 13th May, 1998 along with the translated version thereof in Hindi.2. In this petition, rule was issued on 13th July 1998 and the rule was made returnable within six weeks. However, on behalf of the respondents, no affidavit is filed. When the petition was taken up for hearing, Mr. Rajiv Patil learned Additional Public Prosecutor requested thi...
Kamani Employees Union Vs. K.E.C. International Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-1999
Reported in: [2000(84)FLR748]; (1999)IILLJ1069Bom
1. Heard both the learned Counsel. Mr. Grover for the Appellant-Union and Mr, Cama for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4.2. The Appeal is against the order dated March 5, 1999 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1019 of 1999. The writ petition was filed against the interim order dated February 17, 1999 passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai, in the pending Complaint (ULP) No. 852 of 1997. The matter had come to this Court earlier against the interim order passed by the Industrial Court. However, this Court had directed the Industrial Court to reconsider the question of interim relief pending the Complaint. Upon such reconsideration of the application for interim relief, the Industrial Court has come to the conclusion that the 1st Respondent-Company should be permitted to shift certain machinery from its Kurla Plant in Mumbai to Butibori Plant at Nagpur. The details of the items of Plant and Machinery, permitted to be shifted from Kurla to Butibori, are set out in the operative...
Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1999
Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC529
1. These two appeals are against two orders of the Collector of Customs, Kandla imposing penalty of Rs. 2.00 lacs (in Appeal C/742/91) and Rs. 5.00 lacs (in Appeal C/743/91) on the appellant.2. The facts, briefly, are that two consignments of ball bearings were imported by M/s. Silfer Enterprises (Silfer for short) at Kandla. The Customs department found that the licence tendered was not valid for import of ball bearings. It also found that the import was made during the currency of revalidated period of the licences, and such endorsements for such revalidation were forged. The reasoning in each of the orders is the same. It is that the import being unauthorised the goods are liable to confiscation under Clause (d) of Section 111 of the Act; Silfer is liable to penalty because it rendered the goods liable to confiscation by its action of filing an invalid import licence.Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd., the appellant before us is liable to penalty because it was the principal on whose beha...
Bg Shirke Construction Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1999
Reported in: (1999)(84)LC228Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Application is for waiver of deposit of Rs. 19.13 lakhs and penalty under Section 11A of the same amount.2. The advocate for the applicant explains that the applicant is a builder, and for use in its buildings it manufactured at site concrete mix. Duty has been demanded on such concrete mix manufactured between 25.9.1995 and 21.11.1996 by notice dated 3.1.1997. He says that considerable confusion prevailed all along regarding liability to duty on concrete. Prior to issue of the Board Circular No. 237/71/96, there was a general impression that concrete, being a mixture of cement, sand and other goods, was not liable to duty, since it has a short shelf-life and, unless kept in an agitator becomes hard. By this circular the Board has clarified that ready mix concrete is chargeable to excise duty which is marketable de spite having a short shelf-life, and classifiable under heading 38.23. This circular was kept in abeyance by the Member of the Board in his letter to the Commissioner da...
Shri Ranjitsinghji Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1999
Reported in: (1999)LC141Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Appeal is taken for disposal with the consent of both sides after waiving deposit.2. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the invoice issued by M/s. Terene Fibre India Ltd. (Terene for short) for 18 consignments of polyester fibre manufactured by it and received by the appellant are valid documents for taking Modvat credit of the duty paid on the fibre. The subsequently other question arises whether the show cause notice dated 19-9-1995 issued under Rule 57-1 have recovery of the credit taken between June and September 1994 is barred by limitation.3. The representative of the appellant says that the appellant placed a purchase order for the goods on M/s. Nagani Silk Mills P. Ltd. (Nagani for short), an agent of M/s. Reliance Textile Inds. Ltd. (Reliance for short), who got the polyester fibre manufactured by Terene, the job worker. He noted that the goods were despatched by Terene to the appellant on the instructions of Reliance. Invoices were issued by the manu...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »