Mumbai Court January 2000 Judgments

Vishwanath Satwaji Gaikwad Vs. Laxman Abaji Kawale and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2000Bom307; 2000(3)ALLMR525; 2000(4)MhLj498

ORDERV.K. Barde, J. 1. The petitioner had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 299/1985 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ambad, against the present three respondents. In the said suit, the plaintiff failed to take proper steps for service of summons on defendant No. 2 i.e. present respondent No. 2 and, therefore, the learned Civil Judge dismissed the suit as against defendant No. 2, as per the provisions of Order IX, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' for the purpose of brevity). 2. The plaintiff thereafter filed an application requesting that the order be recalled and the suit be restored as against defendant No. 2 also. However, the learned Civil Judge rejected that application by his order dated 25-4-1990. Here, it should be noted that the suit as against defendant No. 2 was dismissed under Order IX, Rule 5 of the Code and not as against defendants Nos. 1 and 3. However, the plaintiff had filed second application dated 4-4-1990 for res...

inamdar A.D. Vs. Bajaj Tempo Ltd. and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2000(86)FLR345]; (2000)IIILLJ1136Bom

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. The petitioner has brought in question the legality of the award passed by the learned Presiding Officer 1st Labour Court at Pune on March 14, 1989 in Ref. (I.D.A.) No. 101 of 1988 in which it has been held that the petitioner does not fall within the ambit of term workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and only on that ground the reference came to be rejected.Admittedly, the petitioner came to be employed by the respondent-management as a clerk in the Accounts Department from September 24, 1962 and thereafter he was made an accountant. During the course of his service, on September 6, 1980, he was issued a charge-sheet and by order dated December 29, 1980, he was dismissed from service on the ground of dishonesty in connection with the employer's property. It was contended that this order of dismissal was not received by the petitioner and was forwarded to him along with letter dated June 3, 1981 by which the representation mad...

Ramchandra B. Bahutule, Aura Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Appeals taken up for disposal with consent of both sides after waiving deposit.2. Shipping bills were filed by Aura Laboratories for export of 50 kgs.of cycloserine. The sample of the consignment on test by the Custom House laboratory was found not be cycloserine but hydroxylamine sulphate. Following subsequent investigation, notice was issued to the exporter, Dr. Parchure proposing confiscation of the material under clause (i) of section 113 of the Act and penalty on him. Notice was also issued to Bahutule, the Custom House agent who had prepared the shipping bill for abetment described in the notice as collusion. This appeal is against the order of the Commissioner confiscating the goods and imposing penalty upon Dr. Parchure, Aura Laboratories and Custom House agent.3. The contention on behalf of the Custom House agent is that there is insufficient material to hold that he prepared and knowingly had exported cycloserine. This contention has to be accepted. While the departmental...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Prockage Soapery Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)(69)ECC149

1. This application seeks to refer to the jurisdictional High Court the following question of law: Whether in the context of the provisions of Rule 57B read with Central Excise exemption Notn. No.175/86 (para 4 thereof), the Tribunal is justified in holding that higher notional credit, though otherwise eligible at the time of entry of imputs but not taken, could be taken at a subsequent stage within a period of 6 months applying the time limit prescribed under Section 11B.2. The question is wrongly worded. The question is therefore, reframed in the following manner: Whether, in the absence of a period of limitation in Rule 57B, the period of 6 months could be taken as reasonable time limit, following the time limit prescribed, 3. The Tribunal in the order held that the assessee had taken incremental credit at a later stage but within six months of the receipt of the input. The Tribunal in holding that in the absence of any limitation prescribed, the limitation of six months should be ...

M/S. Sanghi Organisation Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC206

1. The is an application for stay and waiver of payment of Rs.24,45,783/- and penalty of Rs.5 lakhs under Rule 173Q and penalty of Rs.1,82,530/- under Section 11AC. The appellant is engaged in the supply of Equipments of Oxygen Gas Plants out of which certain components such as Air Separation Unit Filling Manifold Expansion engine and Liquid Oxygen Pumps were manufactured by the appellants at their factory. It is stated in paragraph 2 of the appeal memorandum that one of the components of Oxygen Gas Plant is known as Molecular Sieve Battery, which was also supplied by the appellants to their customers of Oxygen Gas Plant. The MSB namely Molecular Sieve Battery consists of several parts as indicated in para 2 of the memorandum of appeal. For the period from 89-95 the appellants had purchased a duly assembled and fabricated MSB or got the same manufactured on job work basis from independent manufacturers who were reported to be enjoyed a benefit of SSI Notification. The Bills of those s...

Asia Transport Co. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. The assesses is in appeal before us against the order of the learned CIT(A) dt. 2nd Sept., 1991, for asst. yr. 1987-88. The only ground raised in the appeal is against the addition of Rs. 2,75,000 as unexplained cash credits and also against the disallowance of interest thereon.2. Assessee-firm declared a total income of Rs. 3,90,000 for the year under consideration which was assessed to Rs. 8,40,230 under Section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 (the Act). In the course of assessment proceedings, it was observed by the AO that following new loans had been received by the assessee.3. Out of the above, loans of Rs. 3,15,000 from persons mentioned at serial numbers 4 and 5 were treated as explained. The remaining loans of Rs. 4,40,000 were treated as unexplained. However, in case of late P.S. Bhatia, HUF, only the peak amount of Rs. 50,000 was considered for addition. Accordingly A.O. made a total addition Rs. 4,15,000. Out of the total addition of Rs. 4,15,000 additions in case of Deepu. ...

Universal Capsules (P) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This appeal is directed against the order of the CIT(A) dt. 22nd May, 1992, for the asst. yr. 1986-87.2. The first ground is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 10,000 under s. 37(2A) of the IT Act.3. The assessee has incurred an expenditure of Rs. 25,000. It is claimed that the factory of the assessee is at Dahanu, i.e., at a distance of 100 miles from Bombay, and so the assessee had to incur this expenditure on its employees. It is also claimed that the CIT(A) erred in not granting the basic deduction under s. 37(2A). It is made out that if the basic deduction is not allowed, it means that the disallowance out of entertainment expenditure is of the order of Rs. 15,000 out of the total expenses claimed of Rs. 25,000.4. We are of the view that in the circumstances of the case, the assessee may be allowed the statutory deduction under s. 37(2A) of Rs. 5,000. The ground is allowed to this extent.5. The next ground is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the dis...

Asia Transport Co. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)78ITD280(Mum.)

1. The assessee is in appeal before us against the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) dated 2-9-1991 for assessment year 1987-88. The only ground raised in the appeal is against the addition of Rs. 2,75,000 as unexplained cash credits and also against the disallowance of interest thereon.2. Assessee firm declared a total income of Rs. 3,90,000 for the year under consideration which was assessed to Rs. 8,40,230 under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act"). In the course of assessment proceedings, it was observed by the Assessing Officer that following new loans had been received by the assessee.3. Out of the above, loans of Rs. 3,15,000 from persons mentioned at serial numbers 4 and 5 were treated as explained. The remaining loans of Rs. 4,40,000 were treated as unexplained. However, in case of late P.S. Bhalia, HUF, only the peak amount of Rs. 50,000 was considered for addition. Accordingly, Assessing Officer made a total addition of Rs. 4,15,000. Out of the t...

Universal Capsules (P.) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)76ITD403(Mum.)

1. This appeal is directed against the order of the CIT(A) dated 22-5-1992 for the assessment year 1986-87.2. The first ground is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 10,000 under section 37(2A) of the Income-tax Act.3. The assessee has incurred an expenditure of Rs. 25,000. It is claimed that the factory of the assesses is at Dahanu, i.e., at a distance of 100 miles from Bombay, and so the assessee had to incur this expenditure on its employees. It is also claimed that the CIT(A) erred in not granting the basic deduction under section 37(2A). It is made out that if the basic deduction is not allowed, it means that the disallowance out of entertainment expenditure is of the order of Rs. 15,000 out of the total expenses claimed of Rs. 25,000.4. We are of the view that in the circumstances of the case, the assessee may be allowed the statutory deduction under section 37(2A) of Rs. 5,000. The ground is allowed to this extent.5. The next ground is that the CIT(A) er...

District Wakf Officer Vs. Jeelanikhan Roshankhan and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2000Bom340; 2000(2)ALLMR254; 2000(4)MhLj427

ORDERV.K. Barde, J. 1. Heard Shri Khader, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Deshpande, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1. 2. Respondent No. 1 Jeelanikhan filed Regular Civil Suit No. 523 of 1990 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nanded, for injunction against the District Wakf Officer, District Wakf Office, Station Road, Nanded, and Shaikh All Shaikh Imam, alleging that they, in pursuance of their conspiracy, are creating obstruction in plaintiffs possession of the suit premises, which the plaintiff had taken on monthly rent from the Wakf Board for running his pan shop. Defendant No. 1 i.e. the District Wakf Officer, filed appearance in the suit and then filed an application that the suit was not maintainable for want of notice under Section 56 of the Wakf Act, 1954. 3. Because of the said objection, an issue was framed. Whether the suit was tenable for want of notice under Section 56 of the Wakf Act. The said issue was heard and the learned Joint Civil Jud...