Mumbai Court January 2000 Judgments

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Vaykevy Marketing

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(139)ELT79Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The stay application was argued by Shri K.L. Ramteke, JDR. The respondent was represented by Shri M.C. Dhruve, advocate.2. The respondent assessees were charged by the department as having manufactured computers and having sold them without payment of duty.The Dy. Commissioner confirmed the duty and imposed penalty on finding that the activity of assembling various parts did amount to manufacture. The respondent assessees, then filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise and Customs, Ahmedabad. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the contention of the respondent assessees that the assessees had merely bought various component parts and sold them in the trading activity. The Commissioner marked that when the various component parts are plugged together, a computer system comes into existence which does not amount to manufacture. On this observation, he granted total waiver of the duty and penalty resulting in the appeal being filed by the department and the p...

Lml Fibres Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. The appeal of the assessee, for asst. yr. 1986-87, is directed against the order dated 14th February, 1992, of CIT(A)-VII, Mumbai.Rival contentions have been heard and records perused.2. The only dispute involved in this appeal is relating to the deduction on account of investment allowance. The assessee had filed the return declaring loss of Rs. 62,53,490. The AO computed the loss at Rs. 17,00,436. The assessee-company had claimed by way of note that the investment allowance should be allowed to be carried forward. The AO has denied the carry forward of investment allowance on the ground that the assessee had not created the reserve and, therefore, no deduction is permissible. In this connection reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Subhalaxmi Mills Ltd. vs.Addl. CIT (1989) 177 ITR 193 (SC). The CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO.3. The learned counsel for the assessee contended that after the decision of the Supreme Court in the case ...

Prakash Rasiklal Dhariwal Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2000Bom341; 2000(2)ALLMR478

ORDERT.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J. 1. Rule, Returnable forthwith. Heard both sides. 2. The petitioner approached this Court by way of this writ petition with the following prayers. (a) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ. Order or direction calling for the record of the petitioner's case and after examining legality, validity and propriety thereof, to quash and/or set aside the impugned orders dated 25th Feb. 1999, 8th March, 1999 and 13th April, 1999. (Exhibits 'F', 'G' and 'J' respectively) as well as the conveyance dated 21st April, 1999 executed in favour of respondent No. 4 KPDL and their nominees : (b) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction restraining respondent No. 4 KPDL from acting in furtherance of the impugned orders dated 25th Feb. 1999, 8th March, 1999 and 13th Apr...

Smt. Sabira Shaikh Raees Vs. R.H. Mendonca and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2000CriLJ2339

Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this Writ Petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who styles herself as the wife of the detenu Raees Bashir Shaikh, has impugned the detention order dated 21st July, 1999 passed by the First Respondent Mr. R.H. Mendonca, Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai, detaining the detenu under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (No. LV of 1981) (Amendment - 1996) (hereinafter referred to as the MPDA Act).The detention order along with the grounds of detention, also dated 21st July, 1999, was served on the detenu on 13th August, 1999. True copies of the detention order and the grounds of detention are annexed an Annexures A and B respectively to this writ petition.2. A perusal of the grounds of detention would show that the impunged detention order is founded on one C.R., namely C.R. No. 265 of 1998 of Sir ...

Miss Lily Gomes and ors. Vs. Shri Francis Fernandes

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)102BOMLR27

J.A. Patil, J.1. By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner have impugned the Order dated 29.8.1996 passed by the lower Appellate Court in Appeal No. 103 of 1996, whereby the respondent's appeal was allowed and decree of possession passed by the trial Court on 2.2.1996 in R.A.E. Suit No. 4526 of 1989 was set aside. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are as under:2. The dispute between the parties relate to Room No. 4 forming part of a chawl known as Lily Gomes Chawl, situated at Andheri (West), Murnbai. The petitioners are the landlords and the respondent is the tenant in respect of the said premises. The plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of possession in the Court of Small Causes of Mumbai on two grounds, namely, that the respondent had unauthorisedly and illegally constructed one room on the western side of the suit premises and, secondly, that the suit premises are reasonably and bona fide required by them for the purpose of demolition an...

Lml Fibres Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)68TTJ(Mumbai)359

ORDERM.A. BAKSHI, J.MThe appeal of the assessee, for assessment year 1986-87, is directed against the order dated 14-2-1992, of Commissioner (Appeals)-VII, Mumbai. Rival contention have been heard and records perused.2. The only dispute involved in this appeal is relating to the deduction on account of investment allowance. The assessee had filed the return declaring loss of Rs. 62,53,490. The assessing officer computed the loss at Rs. 17,00,436. The assessee-company had claimed by way of note that the investment allowance should be allowed to be carried forward. The assessing officer has denied the carry forward of investment allowance on the ground that the assessee had not created the reserve and, therefore, no deduction is permissible. In this connection reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Subhalaxmi Mills Ltd. v. Addl. CIT : [1989]177ITR193(SC) . The Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the action of the assessing officer.3. The learned cou...

Balasaheb Manikrao Deshmukh and anr. Vs. Rama Lingoji Warthi

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2000Bom337; 2000(2)ALLMR532; 2000(4)BomCR438; 2001(1)MhLj79

A.S. Bagga, J.1. This Second Appeal raises an important point of law viz. the applicability of the doctrine of part performance enacted under the provisions of section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. The facts giving rise to filing of this Second Appeal briefly stated are as follows :2. The present appellants had brought a suit (which was registered as Civil Suit No. 187/73) for specific performance of the contract and for permanent injunction in respect of the suit property i.e. Survey No. 5/C /3 admeasuring 2 acres 22 gunthas situated at village Kiki, tahsil and district Nanded against the present respondent. The suit for specific performance was dismissed but decree of permanent injunction came to be passed in that suit in favour of the present appellants. The matter was taken upto this Court. This Court in Second Appeal confirmed the decree in favour of the present appellants as far as it related to permanent injunction against respondent. The relief of specific performance wa...

Abdul Aziz Moherbaksh and Another Vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. a ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2000Bom260; 2000(2)ALLMR23; 2000(3)BomCR164; (2000)2BOMLR496; 2000(3)MhLj120

ORDERV. C. Daga, J.1. This writ petition is directed against an award passed by Shri Vinod Kumar, Deputy General Manager (M.K.I.G. & P.R.), an arbitrator having been appointed by the Chairman and Managing Director, Mahanager Telephone Nigam Ltd. Bombay, (M.T.N.L. for short) vide order dated 18-1-1993 in exercise of powers conferred under section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (13 of 1885) for determination of dispute resulting from the disconnection of the telephone on the ground that the petitioner had failed to pay a sum of Rs. 44,740.00 pursuant to the demand note sent by the respondent No. 1.2. The controversy involved in this writ petition centres around the problem of excess billing and failure on the part of the respondent No. 1 (M.T.N.L) to provide relief to the subscriber after making proper investigation.3. As narrated by the petitioner, he is a sole proprietor of M/s. Bharat International having his office at 6/8 V.S. Road, Bombay 16. Respondent No. 1 is a Government ...

The Special Land Acquisition Officer (3), Bombayandsmt. Pilloo F. Anit ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2000(3)BomCR178; 2000(3)MhLj171

ORDERS.S. Nijjar, J.1. This reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') arises out of the award given by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short 'the SLAO') dated 27th October, 1987.2. Notification under section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 21st October, 1982 acquiring the land bearing C.S.No. 1869 (Plot No. 28 of Mint Road) admeasuring 681.16 sq. mtrs. Since 1940 there is a ground plus five floors building on the plot. The total plinth area is 40002 sq. ft. with an F.S.I, of 5 to 6. The 6th floor with a total carpet area of 3460 sq. ft. was constructed without permission of the claimants by Indian Navy, Ministry of Defence, Government of India, the acquiring body (hereinafter referred to as 'the acquired property'). The public purpose of the acquisition is 'Housing offices of the Indian Navy for Ministry of Defence'. The acquired property is leased to the Indian Naval Department since 1-12-1940. The Notification dated 21st October, 1982 ...

The Chief Officer, Sangli Municipal Council Vs. Shri Masoom Akbar Path ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2000(3)ALLMR102; 2000(3)BomCR411; 2000(3)MhLj144

ORDERB.H. Marlapalle, J.1. The petitioner-Municipal Council has challenged the legality of the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court at Sangli on 5th July, 1991 by which three different applications i.e. Application No. 69 of 1990, Application No. 75 of 1990 and Application No. III of 1990 under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, came to be allowed for the claim for recovery of over time wages.2. The respondents-employees claim in the applications filed before the Labour Court that they had worked as drivers and cleaners with the Municipal Council and though originally they were required to perform the duty of eight hours, sometime in 1968, a circular was issued changing their duty hours as well as the place of work. Subsequent circulars, issued till 1984, were also filed along with the applications to show that these claimants were working for more than eight hours and almost for 12 hours everyday. It is also contended that the employees were c...