Mumbai Court June 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.
Maharashtra Girls' Education Society and Anr. Vs. President, Maharasht ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1999
Reported in: (2000)ILLJ649Bom
R.J. Kochar, J. 1. The present Letters Patent Appeal arises from the order of the Learned single Judge dated March 30, 1999 passed in the above petition wherein the Order of the Industrial Court was under challenge. The Respondent-Union had complained that the School Management had failed to implement the settlement between the Union and the Management in respect of the general demands of the employees. The Settlement dated April 12, 1996 under Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 between the parties was sought to be implemented by the Union under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. After going into the merits of the case the Industrial Court has declared by its Order dated December 14, 1998 that the Management had engaged in unfair labour practice by not implementing the settlement in respect of the concerned employees and directed the Management to cease and desist from engaging in such...
Sub-divisional Engineer, Zilla Parishad, Nasik Vs. Kacharu Vishram Paw ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)BomCR653; 1999(3)MhLj867
ORDERD.K. Deshmukh, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Labour Court, Nasik in Miscellaneous (I.D.A.) No. 3 of 1996. The facts that are material and relevant for deciding the present petition are that a Reference (I.D.A.) No. 30 of 1990 was sent by Deputy Commissioner, Nasik under section 10 read with section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the Labour Court for adjudication. The question that has to be determined in that reference was whether the respondent-Kacharu is entitled to the relief of reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages with effect from 4th February, 1986. It appears that reference was decided ex parte by the Labour Court by its award dated 20th January, 1996. The answer of the Court was that the termination of the service of the workman concerned was unjustified. The petitioner-employer was directed to reinstate the workman with continuity of service and full back wages from 24th January, 1989. It appear...
Undarya Narayan Dokaphode and Another Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-1999
Reported in: 2000(5)BomCR152; 2000(1)MhLj122
ORDERVishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this appeal the appellants challenge the judgment and order dated 29-3-1995 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Thane, in Sessions Case No. 359 of 1988, whereby they have been convicted and sentenced to undergo 10 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/- each, in default to undergo 4 months R.I. for the offence under section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code.2. In short the prosecution case runs as under :The informant victim Bayobai Dabhade P.W.3 is the wife of Mangal Dabhade P.W.5. At the time of the incident she was residing in her field in a hut, with her husband and her six children. On 20th April 1998 at about 9 p.m. while she was in her hut situate in Bhoyachapada, Dist. Thane, Mangal Dabhade, her husband asked her to call her mother. While she was on her way to her mother's place the appellants caught hold of her. When she tried to raise cries the appellant Parashuram Ladakya Sambare kept his hand on her mouth and thwarted her endeavour to...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Siemens Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-1999
Reported in: (2000)(118)ELT689Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal by the department is classification of thirteen articles manufactured by the respondent.These are described as follows : 2. The goods at Sr. No. 1 to 7 were earlier classified by their manufacturer under heading 8537.00 and the others under 8543.00. The classifications of these articles were subsequently changed by the assessee to 8504.00. The department disputed this classification by issue of notice. Adjudicating on the notice, the Asst. Collector, whose order has been confirmed by the Collector (Appeals), held the classification under 8504.00 to be correct. Hence this appeal.3. The departmental representative explains the reasoning in the appeal. This is not entirely clear, but appears to proceed on the basis that the goods are composite in nature incorporating elements which perform functions to control the machinery to which they are attached and are therefore more appropriately import classification under Heading 85.37 or 85.43.4....
Afco Indl. and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-1999
Reported in: (1999)(85)LC357Tri(Mum.)bai
1. When this application for stay of the impugned order was heard, it appeared that at this stage itself the main appeal could be taken up for disposal. Both sides agreeing, this was done.2. The assessees manufactured inverters and converters falling under heading 8504.00. One of the inputs was uninsulated copper strips falling under subheading 7409.10. In certain instances pieces cut from the strip were supplied to the buyers of the inverters etc. for replacement. The gate passes issued under Rule 52A described the goods as copper strip. In the commercial invoices however these goods were described as "bus bars". The duty was paid in terms of Rule 57F(1)(ii) on the ground that the inputs were removed as such. On 30.6.1994 the jurisdictional Assistant Collector issued an order for classification of such goods. In this order he took cognizance of the fact that the assessees termed such goods removed in terms of Rule 57F(1)(ii) as bus bars. He held that since these strips were not insul...
Nirmal Warehousing Co. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-1999
Reported in: (1999)(85)LC226Tri(Mum.)bai
The appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who by the impugned order indicates that the appellant was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs (out of Rs. 20 lakhs imposed) which he failed to do so. Therefore the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal. The appellant has filed the appeal against the said order. Now an application has been filed for waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 20 lakhs.The main grievance of the appellant is that at present he does not have any financial resources to pay the amount and he has also filed certified income-tax returns as well as the accounts duly certified by Chartered Accountant. The learned DR would argue the case of the department by adopting the reasonings indicated in the order passed by the authorities below.2. We have considered the submissions made by both sides. Prima facie we are of the view that a warehouse keeper cannot be directed to pay penalty in respect of the goods which he has not admittedly manufactured. The questio...
Engineering Tooling Equipments Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-1999
Reported in: (1999)(85)LC25Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The application for condonation of supplementary appeals and stay petitions was allowed. Supplementary appeals and stay petitions were taken on record.2. After hearing Shri V.S. Sejpal, C.A. for the applicants and Shri A.K. Chatterjee for the Revenue on the stay applications, it appeared that at this stage itself the matters could be taken up for disposal.By way of supplementary cause list the main appeal E/3663-RV/98-Bom was also listed and following four appeals were taken up for disposal, i.e.E/1280 & 1281-RV/99-Bom and E/3662 & 3663-w"no Bom.3. The appellants classified the product titled as "core barrels complete" under sub-heading 8430.00. The Assistant Commissioner examined the description of the products and issued the show cause notice to the assessees as to why the products not be classified under heading 8431.00 since the activity of threading, joining, coupling had been undertaken on the pipes and tubes which activities were processes of manufacturer in terms of...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Empire Industries Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-1999
Reported in: (1999)LC857Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This reference application was argued by Shri A. Ashokan for the Revenue and Shri J.F. Pochkhanawala, Senior Counsel for the respondents.2. The issue involved in the dispute between the assessees and the department is as to what were the eligible inputs for the manufacture of glass bottles. On 11-7-1986 the assessees were informed that certain inputs claimed by them in their declaration were not eligible inputs and on this ground Modvat credit was disallowed. The Collector (Appeals) set aside this order directing de novo proceedings on following of the principle of natural justice. The department did nothing to carry out this order of the Collector (Appeals). After a gap of merely 10 years in December, 1996 the assessees took the credit which was earlier disallowed on the disputed inputs. A show cause notice was issued on 4-6-1997 proposing disallowance of the credit so taken. The jurisdictional Commissioner adjudicated the case confirming the duty to the extent of Modvat credit wr...
Vijaykumar B. Agarwal Vs. Govindbhai Dayal Mange and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)BomCR251
ORDERS.S. Nijjar, J.1. This order will dispose of Notice of Motion Nos. 2023/97 and 2167 of 1997.These two Notices of Motion have been taken out for setting aside the ex parte decrees dated 20th July, 1995 against defendant No. 1 and 18th October, 1995 against defendant No. 2. The plaintiff is carrying on business in the name and style of 'Oriental Finance Company'. On 23rd August, 1991 the plaintiff had advanced a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the firm of Dayal Dosabhai & Co. The firm had given post dated cheques in favour of the plaintiff dated 25th November, 1991. The firm also handed over three other post dated cheques for interest for Rs. 1500/- Rs. 1500/- and Rs. 1700/- which covered the interest for the period upto 25th November, 1991. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 guaranteed the repayment of the amount. Two guarantees were given in writing by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 dated 23rd August, 1991. On presentation of the post dated cheques by the plaintiff to the bank, it was dishonoured with the r...
Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore Vs. Hade Navigation (P.) Ltd., G ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-1999
Reported in: 2000(3)BomCR396; [1999]239ITR726(Bom); 1999(3)MhLj575
Acts/Rules/Orders:Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 125, 139, 143(3), 144B and 256(1);Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975Cases Referred:Banarsidas Bhanot and Sons v. C.I.T., 1981(129) I.T.R. 488;Sudhir Sareen v. I.T.O., 1981(128) I.T.R. 445;Saharanpur Light Railway Co. Ltd v. C.I.T., 1994(208) I.T.R. 882;Panchamahal Steel Ltd. v. U. A. Joshi, I.T.O., 1997(225) I.T.R. 458Dr. 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 questions of law to this Court for opinion :At the instance of revenue :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the second draft assessment order was invalid in law and, therefore, the disallowance of investment allowance in the second draft assessment order has to be ignored?'At the instance of assessee :'2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »