Mumbai Court February 2000 Judgments

Salve B.S. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)IILLJ674Bom

Ranjana Desai, J.1. The petitioner has by way of this petition prayed inter alia, for a direction or order directing the Government of Maharashtra to forthwith enter into a reciprocal arrangement with the Central Government for extension of various benefits like counting of service in case of employees who, after having worked under the State Government or State Autonomous Bodies or State Statutory Bodies, have been absorbed in the services of the Central Government or Central Autonomous Bodies and for a direction to the State of Maharashtra to consider the case of the petitioner favourably and to deposit the pension equivalent to Rs. 2,800/- approximately, or thereabouts with the Central Government for the 19 years of service rendered by the petitioner in the Sales Tax Department under the Government of; Maharashtra for counting of his service for the purpose of pension to be received by him from the Central Government/Corporation.2. Briefly stated, the facts set out in the petition, ...

Chandrakant Bhalchandra Garware Vs. Anil Prabhakar Naik and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)102BOMLR800a

D.G. Deshpande, J.1. This is an ordinary writ petition like thousands of others being filed before this Court every year. But this petition has become extraordinary and most unusual because this Court is being required to find out whether an order of discharge of respondent Anil Prabhakar Naik was at any time passed by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate as alleged by the respondent, and whether the respondent can be entitled for the relief claimed by him in his Application No. 2086 of 1999 which is to be decided along with this writ petition.2. I heard learned Counsel Mr. Shamrao Samant who was Assisted by senior Advocate Mr. A.S. Bobade along with Mr. Keluskar for respondent No. 1 and learned Counsel Mr. P.L. Berarwalla for the petitioner. Mrs. R.P. Sabarwal. learned A.P.P. for the State/respondent present. Mr. Samant has given in addition the written notes of his document and has tendered certain documents during the course of his argument to substantiate his case that an order...

Palimar Rangarao Sanjeeva Rao and ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2000(85)FLR719]; (2000)IIILLJ529Bom

N.J. Pandya, J. 1. The Petitioner herein has come with a grievance as to promotion to the post of manager in the insurance company, respondent No. 1. The respondent-insurance company is one of the units of GIIC, which is the holding company. The petitioner, in fact, came to be promoted on August 15, 1975 as Assistant Manager and thereafter on October 3, 1980 he was promoted as Deputy Manager. He has retired on June 30, 1996.2. However, at the time of filing of the petition, a grievance with regard to the promotion given to many office colleagues starting with the year 1985, is made. His main grievance was that the persons who are junior to him have been promoted. The details whereof are set out at Page 58 (Ex-K to the Petition) 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988 are the years that he is making grievance about. The relevant dates, when the promotions are granted to the post of managers in the aforesaid years, start form May 3, 1985 and end with February 8, 1988. As can be seen from Page 58, in t...

Ajju @ Hajidali Sabdarali Mirza Baig Vs. Mr. R.H. Mendonca, Commission ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)102BOMLR437

Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the Petitioner - detenu, has impugned the detention order dated 12th May, 1999 passed by the 1st Respondent Mr. R.H. Mendonca, Commissioner of Police, Greater Mumbai, detaining him 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).The detention order along with the grounds of detention also dated May 29, 1999, was served on the Petitioner - detenu on July 6, 1999. True copies of the detention order and the grounds of detention are annexed as Annexures 'A' and 'B' respectively to this writ petition.2. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Although Mr. U.N. Tripathi learned Counsel for the Petitioner has pleaded a large number of grounds in the petition running from grounds 8A to 8H but since, in our view, this Petition deserves to succeed...

Mukund A. Shah Vs. Cce

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2000(92)LC18(Bombay)

1. An interesting question of law has been raised in this Petition, namely, whether an assessee who applies for stay under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act can claim waiver of the pre-deposit on the ground that the balance in the Modvat Account remaining unutilised may be treated as sufficient to protect the revenue pending the appeal before the CEGAT.2. The facts giving rise to this Petition, briefly, are as follows:3. Petitioners carry on business in manufacturing of metallic yarn from excise paid metallised polyster film and exporting and selling the same as handicraft. By Notification No. 76/86-CE dated 10.2.1986, benefit of exemption to handicrafts has been granted by the Government. According to the Department, however, since the work was not done by hand and since cutting of duty paid polyster yarn into zari was done by machinery, the Authorities held that the zari is not handicraft. This is the point pending in appeal preferred by the assessee before the CEGAT. Pending the...

Mukund A. Shah Vs. Commissioner, Central Excise

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2000(71)ECC495

1. An interesting question of law has been raised in this Petition, namely, whether an assessee who applies for stay under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act can claim waiver of the pre-deposit on the ground that the balance in the Modvat Account remaining unutilised may be treated as sufficient to protect the revenue pending the appeal before the CEGAT.2. The facts giving rise to this Petition, briefly, are as follows:3. Petitioners carry on business in manufacturing of metallic yarn from excise paid metallised polyster film and exporting and selling the same as handicraft. By Notification No. 76/86-CE dated 10.2.1986, benefit of exemption to handicrafts has been granted by the Government. According to the Department, however, since the work was not done by hand and since cutting of duty paid polyster yarn into zari was done by machinery, the authorities held that the zari is not handicraft. This is the point pending in appeal preferred by the assessee before the CEGAT. Pending the...

income Tax Officer Vs. Estate of Late K. S. Engineer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. In this appeal by the Department, the following grounds have been taken : "(1). On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that provisions of s. 176(4) of the IT Act are not applicable to the facts of the case and thereby erred in deleting the addition made by the AO of Rs. 1,10,856 which was received as per cl. 14(a) of the partnership deed by the legal heirs of the assessee on his retirement and subsequent death. (2). On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) failed to take cognisance of the decision in the case of CIT vs. Vishwanath Shastri's Estate (1980) 121 ITR 270 (Mad) relied by the AO in the assessment for invoking provisions of s. 176(4) of the IT Act, and treating the executors as recipient thereof within the meaning of s. 176(4) and thereby erred in deleting the addition made by AO under s. 176(4) holding that the amount received by the executors vide cl. 14(a) of the partnersh...

Indian Express Newspaper (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Union of In ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2000(2)ALLMR8; 2000(2)BomCR830; (2000)2BOMLR25

ORDERN. J. Pandya, J.1. It is a petition filed by the petitioners Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. along with others challenging the intended action under section 237 of the Companies Act by the Company Law Board. The impugned notice is at Exh. 'A', page 224. It is dated 13-11-1987. After referring to the intricate holdings and connections of different companies in the initial part of the impugned notice and also referring to the fact that late Mr. Ramnath Goenka along with his relatives are having virtual controls of all the companies reference is also made to inspection report and other materials at page 226, internal page 3. These instances numbering in all to 15 upto internal page 6, following apprehension is mentioned.'AND WHEREAS in the opinion of the Company Law Board; there are circumstances suggesting that the affairs of the companies mentioned hereinafter are being conducted with an intent to defraud the creditors, members or any other persons and that the persons...

Messrs. Tarun Traders and Partnership Firm Vs. Auchtel Products Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2000(3)ALLMR84; 2000(3)BomCR796

ORDERA.B. Palkar, J.1. This is a suit for recovery of money which admittedly is only interest as principal amount due to the plaintiffs from the defendants has already been recovered.2. The plaintiffs are a partnership firm whereas defendant No. 1 is a company registered under the Companies Act. Plaintiffs pursuant to the order placed by the defendants delivered goods namely different kind of edible oils required by the defendants as raw material for their products. The goods were delivered vide delivery challans which were signed by the defendants and the defendants never raised any objection. It was agreed between the plaintiffs and the defendants that the defendants would pay the price of the goods within the credit period of 60 days from the date of bill and if the defendants fail to pay within that period, then interest at the rate of 18% per annum will be charged on the amount remaining unpaid from time to time beyond the period of 60 days with effect from the date on which the 6...

Zenith TIn Works Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)191CTR(Bom)206; [2003]259ITR238(Bom)

1. Since a short point of law is involved in the matter, by consent, the appeal is taken up for final hearing and disposed of.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal briefly are as follows :The appellants started construction of a building at Mahalaxmi. The said building was let out to a family trust at the annual rent of Rs. 7,20,000. The said trust created a sub-tenancy in favour of the Union of India. For the purpose of computation of the income under the head 'Income from house property', the assessee-company declared Rs. 7,20,000 as actual rent received by the company from the trust as annual letting value. This was for the assessment year 1982-83. For the subsequent assessment years 1983-84, 1984-85 and 1985-86, the Assessing Officer has disregarded the actual rent received by the assessee and substituted the same by the rent received by the trust from the Union of India. The Commissioner of Income-tax confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. Being aggrieved by the order pas...