Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1999(3)ALLMR275; 1999(2)BomCR766; (1999)ILLJ1330Bom
ORDERB.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This petition calls in question the transfer order dt. 28-8-98 and it arises in the following circumstances. 2. The petitioner is an Executive Engineer in the Public Works Department of the State of Maharashtra and while he was working in the same capacity at Beed, which is a district Hqrs., has been transfered to Aurangabad on the same post and the respondent No. 3 Mr. B.M. Mugal has been transferred in place of the petitioner. The petitioner has submitted a representation to the competent authority on 3-9-1998 and the same was rejected. The petitioner, therefore, challenged the impugned transfer order in O.A. No. 224/1998 before the Maharashtra Administration Tribunal Bench at Aurangabad.3. In support of his challenge to the impunged transfer order, it was contended by the petitioner that the transfer was effected under malice and the respondent No. 4, who is an elected Member of the Legislative Assembly from, Georai, Dist. Beed was instrumental in the said...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1999)155CTR(Bom)185
S.H. KAPAM, J.:The respondent- company purchased the property in question situate at Plot No. 18 of 'Gamadia Estate' admeasuring 2,820.40 sq. yds. with buildings standing thereon situate at 24/26, Pt. Madan Mohan Malviya Road, Bombay. This was by an indenture dt. 9th Feb., 1984, entered into between M/s Anglo-French Drug Company (Eastern) Limited (hereinafter referred to, for the sake of brevity, as 'the vendors') on the one hand, and the respondent- company on the other hand. The said indenture was registered with the sub-registrar of Bombay on 18th April, 1984 and s. 37C Form was also filed by the parties to the said indenture. Thereafter, the competent authority initiated proceedings by issue of a notice under s. 269D(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (as it then stood). This notice was issued on 12th April, 1985. The reasons given for initiation of the proceedings were that the building had ground plus three upper floors, each of which had an area of 13,910 square feet. That, the fourth floor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2000(1)BomCR466
ORDERShafi Parkar, J. 1. The appellants have taken exception to the penalty imposed by the two authorities below, imposing penalty of Rs. 2,500/- on the appellants for the alleged contravention of sub-sections (3) and (4) of section 8 of the Foreign Exchange and Regulation Act, 1973. 2. The facts leading to the present controversy, briefly stated, are as follows. The appellants held Import Licence dated 9-8-72 for a c.i.f. value of Rs. 120 lakhs covering the import of spare parts required for their plant/ machineries. The said Licence was issued under the Import Policy No. AM-73. The appellants had, pursuant to the said import licence, imported spare parts i.e. jolt valves, vibrator valves, squeeze valves and lift valves from Germany on 23rd March 1974 for their moulding machines installed at Jamshedpur. The total value of the goods imported was c.i.f. Rs. 56,389/- for which they had opened letter of credit with the Bank of Baroda who are, admittedly, authorised agents under the provis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1999(4)BomCR64
ORDERA.A. Halbe, President.1. This appeal by the Life Insurance Corporation of India is directed against the order of the District Forum, Wardha in Complaint No. 17/96, requiring the appellant-Insurance Corporation to pay the amount arising out of Policy No. 971957930 commencing from 28-3-1992 for Rs. 50,000/- in respect of the deceased Bhimrao Domari Bhele. The mother who was the nominee of this policy, preferred the complaint on account of the death of her son Bhimrao on 11-11-94. The claim of the complainant is that the complainant was nominated by her son, who was entitled to this policy amount on account of the death of her son. The order has been challenged by the L.I.C. on the ground that the insured had concealed the important fact that the insurer was suffering from Pulmonary T.B. in the proposal form and this was the material suppression. The District Forum found that the death and suffering of T.B. has no nexus and was therefore pleased to award the claim in favour of the no...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1999(4)BomCR297; (1999)2BOMLR607; 1999(3)MhLj120
ORDERShafi Parkar, J.1. The short question which arises in this appeal is, whether a nominee of a National Saving Certificate is entitled for beneficial interest in the amount due thereon on the death of the holder of the certificate or said amount would ensure for the benefit of the heirs of the deceased-owner.2. The facts leading to the present controversy, briefly stated, are as follow:The appellants are the mother and daughter, who are respectively the widow and the daughter of the deceased Lachhmandas Khanchandani. Appellant No. 1 filed Misc. Civil Application in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane on 18th January 1980 for grant of succession certificate in respect of the securities left by the deceased. The said securities in respect of which the succession certificate was claimed were listed in Annexure 'A' and Annexure 'B' of Exhibit 'A' to the application. The said application was later on converted into Special Civil Suit No. 72 of 1980 in which appellant No....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1999]238ITR983(Bom); 2000(4)MhLj65
B.P. Saraf, J.1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this court for opinion at the instance of the Revenue :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in upholding the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that the assessee was entitled to exemption under Section 80P(2)(a)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the income of Rs. 5,51,651 from the Lift Irrigation Scheme ?'2. The assessee is a co-operative society engaged in the manufacture and sale of sugar. It is also engaged in supplying lift irrigation water to its members cultivating sugarcane in that area to supply to the assessee-society's sugar factory. The assessee-society executed 45 Lift Irrigation Schemes in the area of its operation. The members of each of the Lift Irrigation Schemes were the members of the assessee-society. Each scheme was a separa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2000(68)ECC253; 2000(115)ELT618(Bom)
Shafi Parkar, J.1. The Appellants have taken exception to the penalty imposed by the two authorities below, imposing penalty of Rs. 2,500/- on the appellants for the alleged contravention of Sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 8 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.2. The facts leading to the present controversy, briefly stated, are as follows :The appellants held Import Licence dated 9-8-1972 for a c.i.f. value of Rs. 20 lakhs covering the import of spare parts required for their plant /machineries. The said Licence was issued under the Import Policy No. AM-73. The appellants had, pursuant to the said import licence, imported spare parts i.e. jolt valves, vibrator valves, squeeze valves and lift valves from Germany on 23rd March 1974 for their moulding machines installed at Jamshedpur. The total value of the goods imported was c.i.f. Rs. 56,389/- for which they had opened letter of credit with the Bank of Baroda who are, admittedly, authorised agents under the provisions of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1999(3)ALLMR98; 1999(3)BomCR385; (1999)2BOMLR472; 1999(2)MhLj635
ORDERS.S. Nijjar, J.1. The respondent company became a sick company within the meaning of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', on 31st March, 1987. The matter was referred to B.I.F.R. under section 15(i) of the said Act and the Reference was numbered Case No. 28 of 88. The B.I.F.R. conducted enquiry and appointed ICICI as the operating agency on 13th July, 1989, directing them to submit their report on 13th October, 1989. The B.I.F.R. on 5th February, 1991 passed an order giving an opinion that it is just and equitable that the respondent company be wound up. In 1991 the respondent company preferred an Appeal Nos. 38/91 and 77/90 before the Appellate Authority. On 15th March, 1994 the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal of the respondent company mainly on the ground of not settling the workers dues. A perusal of the order of B.I.F.R. shows that after careful consideration the Board was of the opinion that the company was n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1999)(83)LC478Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In the impugned order, the Collector (Appeals) held that "The appellants have exceeded the clearance value of Rs. 40 lac upto 28.2.1986 for their TI 68. In view of the Notfn. No. 213/86, during the disputed period i.e. 25.3.1986 to 31.3.1986 as the duty for TI 68 was 12% Adv. prior to 1.3.1986 i.e. before the commencement of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Notfn. No. 213/86-CE is not covered under Central Excise Duties of Excise (Retrospective Exemption) Act, 1986. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 5.4.1990 passed by the Asst. Collector is not correct and the same is set aside." Being aggrieved by this order, the Collector has filed the captioned appeal.2. The facts briefly stated are that the respondents are manufacturers of part of machinery. During the period from 1.3.1986 to 31.3.1986, the appellants cleared parts of air compressors, parts of electric motors and generators and other parts of the goods at concessional rate of duty under Notfn. No. 175/86-CE dt. 1.3...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [2000(86)FLR853]; (2000)IILLJ1087Bom
S.B. Mhase, J. 1. Heard Shri Chandole, learned counsel for the applicants in all the above mentioned five applications and Shri V.B. Ghatge, learned A.P.P. for the Respondent-State in all the five applications.2. Rule. By consent of the parties, Rule made returnable forthwith.3. The order under challenge is dated June 11, 1998 passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded in Criminal Revision Application No. 209 of 1997 to Criminal Revision Application No. 213 of 1997 wherein the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nanded issuing process on June 9, 1997 was challenged. The brief facts are as follows:4. The Criminal Case Nos. 1024 of 1997 to 1028 of 1997 have been filed on behalf of the State by Shri A.R. Ashtaputre, Assistant Director, Industrial Safety and Health alleging that the respondents have committed offence under Section 66 of the Factories Act punishable under Section 92 of the said Act. On presentation of the said complaints, the Judici...
Tag this Judgment!