Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (2000)102BOMLR914
Ranjana Desai, J.1. This writ petition poses a challenge to the order of detention dated 14th October, 1997, issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, who is specially empowered under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short 'COFEPOSA') as amended, Detaning one Sevantilal Keshavlal Doshi with a view to preventing him in future from acting in any manner prejudicial to the conservation of foreign exchange.2. The present petition is filed by one Smt. Sushilaben Sevantilal Doshi, the wife of the detenu Sevantilal Keshavlal Doshi.3. The order of detention dated 14th October, 1997, along with the grounds of detention and the material in support thereof was served on the detenu on 20th November, 1997. Before we deal with the rival contentions it will be necessary to state that the detenu has undergone the period of detention. However, we are informed that proceedings under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchang...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2000)(90)LC108Tri(Mum.)bai
1. When these stay applications were heard, it appeared that at this stage the main appeals themselves could be disposed of. Both sides agreeing, this was done, after granting waiver of the pre-deposit of the duty amounting to Rs. 5,52,828.02.2. These three appeals arise from the same impugned order. They are therefore being disposed of in this common order.3. We have heard Shri D.D. Gwalani the Ld. Counsel for the appellants and Shri K.L. Ramteke for the Revenue.4. The appellants were manufacturing Jute Fabric Coated with preparation of LDPE. During the course of the period covering the present dispute, they availed of the benefit of Notification No.27/94-CE dt. 1.3.1994 and Notification No. 31/95 dt. 16.3.1995. Both notifications exempted laminated jute fabrics provided the base fabrics were duty paid. Three show cause notices were issued alleging that the benefit of Notifications was not available in the absence of the as-sessees showing that the base fabrics had discharged the bur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2000)LC788Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant manufactures vaccines for poultry. These vaccines are of seven types - each for a specific disease. The technology employed by the appellant results in the separation of the vaccines into two constituents. One is a viral preparation, which is freezed dried in the course of manufacture and thereafter transported refrigerated between temperatures 2C - 8C; the other is diluent. The vaccine before administration is reconstituted by combining the viral preparation with the diluent which is a liquid. It is this resultant product which is administered to poultry. The diluents are five in number; one diluent is common for three vaccines which is raised to reconstitute all these three.2. The appellant claimed classification of the viral preparation and the diluent together as vaccines under heading 30.02 of the tariff. The department was of the view that the appellant had not intimated to it the manufacture and clearance of the diluents and issued notice proposing to recover t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : I(2000)DMC601
S.P. Kulkarni, J. 1. Heard the learned Advocate appearing for the applicant/ original opponent Ramdas against whom an order for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been passed. That order was passed in favour of his wife Babytai and the daughter named Yogita, each of them were to get Rs. 150/- per month from the applicant.2. The learned Magistrate before whom the proceeding was started made an enquiry into the application, heard the defence of the applicant and having given an opportunity to both the sides to adduce evidence, recorded the finding that there was a neglect and the applicant Ramdas was liable to pay maintenance as stated above. Although the original claim made by the wife, the son and two daughters was to the extent of Rs. 1,500/-, still the learned Magistrate on due enquiry quantified the amount of Rs. 150/- only in favour of the wife and original applicant No. 4 Yogita, who are the two respondents before this Court.3. After the Award of m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1999)101BOMLR697
R.M. Lodha, J.1. Mr. M.K. Mudnaney for petitioners Ms. V.B. Thadani with Ms Meena Ruparel for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.2. The only contention raised by Mr. Mudnaney learned Counsel for petitioners challenging the order passed by the Maharashtra State Cooperative Appellate Court on 20th February, 1996 is that the Appeal Court erred in directing that if joint occupation was not possible within a period of 3 months from the date of the order, both the properties be sold and the sale proceeds divided between them equally. According to him, such direction is beyond the lis between the parties and the jurisdiction of Cooperative Court.3. The properties in question are flat No. 26, situate in Dev Chhaya Co-operative Housing Society, Tardeo Road and a garage in that society. In respect of the said properties two Disputes came to be filed. Dispute No. 617 of 1989 was filed by the present petitioners and the other Dispute No. 151 of 1990 was filed by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 herein. Both the dispu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2000)(90)LC591Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These applications for condonation of delay of the supplementary appeals were allowed and delay condoned.2. In the price lists filed by the present applicants deductions were claimed on account of various types of discounts including quantity discounts and cash discounts. The jurisdictional officers conducted a test check of the invoices issued by the assessees which showed that such discount had not been passed on to the buyers. The assessees were asked to show cause why the duty calculable on such discount not passed on should not be demanded from them. Before the Commissioner the assessees claimed that in an earlier order on the same facts the appellate Collector's order had been upheld by the Tribunal and since the ratio of the judgments was in favour of the assessee, the allegations as to suppression could not sustain. Before the Commissioner the assessees cited the Supreme Court judgment to the effect that the cash discount was deductible irrespective of the fact whether the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2000)74ITD419(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal by the revenue against the order of the CIT(A) for assessment year 1989-90.2. An interesting legal issue has arisen in this case and that is about the meaning of the words "share held in a company" used in the proviso to section 2(42A) of the Act. The section and the proviso as were in force at the relevant time, read as under : "2(42A) 'short-term capital asset' means a capital asset held by an assessee for not more than thirty-six months immediately preceding the date of its transfer : Provided that in the case of a share held in a company, the provisions of this clause shall have effect as if for the words 'thirty-six months', the words 'twelve months' had been substituted." 3. On a close reading of this section it becomes clear that ordinarily if the capital asset is held for a period not more than thirty-six months before the date of transfer it is a short-term capital asset.The proviso, however, carves out certain exceptions. One of such exception is that if...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1999(4)ALLMR625; (2000)158CTR(Bom)55; [1999]240ITR688(Bom)
D.K. Deshmukh, J. 1. By this writ petition, the petitioners challenge the notice issued by the Income-tax Officer under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). Rule was issued in this case on November 20, 1990, and by an interim order, further proceedings pursuant to the said notice were stayed. 2. The petitioners, in their petition, have contended that the notice has been issued by the Income-tax Officer without any authority of law. Theycontend that the notice has been issued by the Income-tax Officer without obtaining sanction of the Commissioner of Income-tax or the Central Board of Direct Taxes. They also contend that the Income-tax Officer had no material before him for giving him reasons to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped to be assessed. The petitioners contend that the notice has been issued for making fishing enquiry. Though this petition was admitted in November, 1990, and an interim order was granted in favour of the petitioners and though ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2000(1)ALLMR181; (2000)102BOMLR492
N.J. Pandya, J.1. The Appellant is the original petitioner of the Family Court Petition No. A-164 of 1993 of Greater Bombay at Bandra. By judgment dated 31.8.1996, the learned Principal Judge was pleased to dismiss the petition filed for decree of divorce. The divorce was sought on the ground of mental cruelty said to have been purported by the respondent-wife.2. The allegations made in the petition and sought to be made out in the deposition was to the effect that the respondent was of a very suspicious nature and she always suspected the husband to be playing around with his lady patients and showing undue interest in his brother's wife. The petitioner is a homeopathic doctor.3. The petitioner has examined himself before the Trial Court along with one more witness Maninder Singh and wife of that gentleman. In all three witnesses were examined. On behalf of the respondent-wife only the respondent herself was examined.4. Before filing the petition, notice Exh. 17 was served upon the re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (2000)102BOMLR154
Umesh C. Banerjee, J.1. Leave granted.2. The authority of receivers to effect sale of immovable properties prior to the passing of the decree is the focal point for consideration in this appeal, by the grant of special leave being directed against the Bench decision of the Bombay High Court. The Bench in deciding the issue however did rely upon the decision of an earlier Full Bench judgment in the case of State Bank of India v. Trade Aid Paper and Allied Products : AIR1995Bom268 .3. Mr. R.F. Nariman, Senior Advocates appearing in support of the appeal very strongly contended that the Full Bench decision in State Bank of India Case (supra) cannot be said to have laid down the law in a correct perspective and as such it would be convenient at this juncture to note the observations of the Full Bench pertaining thereto. The Full Bench observed:10. As mentioned hereinabove, the decisions referred to in the judgment as regards the ambit of power of the Court to appoint receiver under Order 4...
Tag this Judgment!