Mumbai Court July 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.
Anant Balu Batawale Vs. V.L. Kambale and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-1999
Reported in: (2000)ILLJ183Bom
A.P. Shah, J.1. This petition under Article 226 is directed against the order dated March 26, 1999 passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai refusing to register the complaint filed by the petitioner under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The petitioner is an employee of the respondent company. He has filed a complaint before the Industrial Court, Mumbai on behalf of 20 other employees who have authorised him to file this complaint. The petitioner has alleged in the said complaint that the company is indulging in unfair labour practices under Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Act. Basically, the grievance made by the employees is that the wages paid by the employer are much less than what is shown in the wage register. It is also alleged that overtime wages are not paid at double the rate as per the provisions of the law and that wages are also not paid on the 7th of the month, as r...
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. M.S.R.T. Kamgar Sangh ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-1999
Reported in: (1999)IILLJ1082Bom
D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the finding by the Industrial Court that no unfair labour practice has been proved, there is no power left for the Industrial Court to make any order granting interim relief in favour of the complainant. The learned Counsel for the Respondents, on the other hand, submits that the interim order that was made by the Industrial Court has been complied with by the petitioners. This statement is disputed by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners. He submits that by the impugned order not only meetings were to be held, but minutes of the meetings were also to be submitted before the Court. In the submission of the learned Counsel, therefore, the learned Counsel for the Respondent is not right in submitting that the order has been complied with. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the order of the Industrial Court...
Ravindra B. Sachadey Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-1999
Reported in: (1999)101BOMLR418
N.J. Pandya, J.1. An interesting question is thrown up by this petition in proceeding pending before the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Greater Bombay Region, Bombay, is that an application under Section 195 of Cr.P.C. came to be given by the opponent of the change report A.C.C. IV/4148 of 1992. The opponent filed this application under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. on averments that the reporting trustees had submitted the change report purported to be the signatures of persons some of whom are dead.2. May be at the stage of which an application under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. was given was not proper because unless there is a conclusion recorded by the authority to act under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. to the effect that prima facie any offence is made out but that was not the approach of the Assistant Charity Commissioner.3. He simply said by his order dated 30th March, 1993 that the reliefs sought by the application is not within the purview of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 and ...
Nana S/O Bhima Bhujang Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ4632
B.B. Vagyani, J.1. Heard Shri Sangit, learned Advocate for the appellant and Shri K.M. Babhulgaonkar, learned APP for the respondent State.2. This Criminal Appeal filed by the original accused has been directed against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad convicted the appellant accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months.3. In brief, the facts giving rise to the present prosecution case are as follows:On 15-11-1992 at about 5.15p.m. prosecution witness Police Patil Bashir Khan PW 2 was sitting in the house of Kisan Netke. He was chitchatting with Kisan Netke. Sukhdeo, the son of Kisan Netke, arrived there and told that the accused had committed murder of his mother and that the dead body was lying near the t...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vas, J. N.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-1999
Reported in: [2000]106TAXMAN658(Bom)
Desai, J.By this reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the 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 Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the amount of Rs. 24,000 paid by the employer, Radiant Electric Machinery Co., for the purchase of single premium annuity policy on the life of the assessee cannot be regarded as a perquisite within the meaning of section 17(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and, consequently, cannot be included in the assessee's income under the head 'Salaries'?'2. The facts which are relevant for the purposes of this reference may be summed up as follows: The assessee was an employee of Radiant Electric Machinery. He retired from the employment of the said company on 31-3-1976. On 1-4-1976, the assessee entered into an agreement with the said company under which he w...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ruia Stud and Agricultural Farms (P.) L ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-1999
Reported in: [1999]106TAXMAN662(Bom)
Saraf, J. - By this reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), the Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this Court for opinion:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was fight in law in holding that horses used for stock-breeding constitute ,plant' so as to be eligible. for depreciation under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. This reference pertains to the assessment year 1978-79. The controversy is whether the horses used for stock-breeding constitute 'plant' for the purpose of depreciation under section 32 of the Act. The material fact s are in a narrow compass. The assessee is engaged in the business of livestock breeding. For that purpose, it purchases and imports horses. These horses are not sold. The assessee claimed that the horses having been used for the purposes of its business constituted 'plant' and, therefore, depreciation was allowable on cost thereof under section 32. The Income T...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. Prabhavati D. Mehta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-1999
Reported in: [2000]106TAXMAN680(Bom)
Saraf, J.By this reference under section 256 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the 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 was justified in holding that the assessee is entitled to the deduction of municipal taxes of Rs. 28,687 which pertained to the period prior to the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1976-77 for which relevant notice of demand dated 20-10-1975 in the relevant accounting year ?'2. The controversy in this reference pertains to the assessment year 1976-77, the relevant previous year being the year ended on 31-3-1976. The assessee filed a return of income for the above assessment year on 9-9-1976, disclosing total income of Rs. 38,970. The above total income included net income of Rs. 13,669 under the head 'Income from house property'. On examination of the return, the Income Tax ...
Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Besta Cosmetics Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-1999
Reported in: (2000)(116)ELT293Tri(Mum.)bai
1. M/s. Besta Cosmetics Ltd., Vapi, is the respondent to this appeal by the department. It was at the relevant time, engaged in the manufacture inter alia of toothpaste. It manufactured two varieties of the product, one bearing the brand name "Promise" which belong to Balsara Hygiene Products Ltd., (Balsara for short), the other which was its own brand name "Babool". Both brands of toothpaste were marketed by Balsara. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the assessable value of 'Promise' toothpaste should be the value declared by the respondent or the price at which this toothpaste was being sold by Balsara to its dealers.2. The appeal is against the order of the Collector (Appeals). In the order impugned in this appeal, the Collector (Appeals) had held that two companies not to be related. He had held the finding of the Assistant Collector that the expenses incurred by Balsara towards promotion of sales of 'Promise', to be includible in the assessable value not to...
Hind Printing Works Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-1999
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT487Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the valuation of the second-hand printing machine imported by the appellant. The department did not accept the value declared of Sterling 13,000/- then equivalent to Rs. 2,06,000/- approximately, on the ground that the machine of the same make (year of manufacture 1975 and model Solna two colour offset Press Model 225) was imported by M/s. D.S. Sawant & Co.at a price equivalent to Rs. 2.6 lakhs CIF. The Assistant Collector and Collector (Appeals) enhanced the value. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to Collector (Appeals) for passing a speaking order. The order of the Collector (Appeals) in consequence of the Tribunal's order, is now in appeal before us.2. The Collector (Appeals) has found nothing incorrect in the Assistant Collector rejecting the Chartered Engineer's certificate for the reason that it did not include any reasons for the conclusion of the Chartered Engineer and found that nothing incorrect in comparing the va...
Bevit Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-1999
Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT577Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant is a manufacturer of pharmaceutical products. It claimed in the price list filed by it, a discount of 15% on sales to chief distributors and 10% on sales to other distributors to be deducted in arriving at the assessable value. The Department was of the view that there was no distinction between the chief distributor and any other distributor and proposed to limit the discount to 10%. The Assistant Collector confirmed the proposal in the show cause notice issued to this appellant. This order was confirmed in appeal by the Collector (Appeals). Hence this appeal.2. The advocate for the appellant contends before us that one chief distributor is appointed for various institutions and he may have several distributors. The chief distributor is distinguishable from other distributors in that he has to carry a minimum of one month's stock, appoint sales representative to sell the product, and incur expenses on account of freight to send the goods to other distributors from th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »