Mumbai Court February 2000 Judgments
Shri Ramesh T. Gopalani Vs. the Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd. and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)ALLMR177; 2000(3)BomCR474; 2000(3)MhLj115
ORDERJ.A. Patil, J.1. These four writ petitions can be disposed of by this common judgment since they arise out of a common order dated 15th January, 1999 passed by the Minister of State Co-operation in Revision Applications Nos. 1797/CR-316/15-C. The relevant facts are very few and they are as under :-2. The petitioner is a debtor while respondent No. 1 is a Co-operative Bank. Respondent No. 2 is the Recovery Officer of the said Bank. In the year 1994 the petitioner was granted cash credit facility of Rs. 13,50,000/-. In addition, he was granted 3 loans. The first being of Rs. 2,30,000/- for purchase of a car. The second of Rs. 50,000/- and the third of Rs. 50,000/-. It appears that the petitioner failed to clear arrears of the above mentioned loans hence the respondent Bank filed an application before the Dy. Registrar, Co-operative Society and obtained 4 separate recovery certificates against the petitioner under section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative SocietiesAct, 1960 (for sh...
Tag this Judgment!Dilip S. Dahanukar Vs. Samir Tekriwal, Assistant Commissioner of Incom ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-2000
Reported in: (2001)167CTR(Bom)72; [2001]248ITR147(Bom)
1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge a notice dated March 18, 1998, under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking to reopen the assessment for the assessment year 1994-95.2. The petitioner is an individual. At the relevant time, he was carrying on business in the name and style of Biobasix Industrial Undertaking at Daman (hereinafter referred to as 'the BIU'). The petitioner is a chemical engineer from IIT, Powai. He developed a new product of high value for production of organic manure, which was a research-based product. It was based on agro-waste material like gobar, etc. The BIU was started in 1993. It was a proprietary concern.3. For the relevant assessment year 1994-95, the petitioner filed his return of income on October 27, 1994, declaring a total income of Rs. 6.74 lakhs. Vide intimation under Section 143(l)(a), the return came to be accepted after making a small adjustment. However, the case of the petitioner forthe said assessment year was taken up...
Tag this Judgment!Banque Nationale De Paris Vs. Monali Footwear Industries
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)BomCR96
A.B. Palkar, J.1. This suit is for recovery of money advanced under the cash credit facility granted to the defendants. The defendants had applied for cash credit facility with the plaintiff-bank. On the said facility being granted, the defendants executed necessary documents like demand promissory note, hypothecation deed, letter of lien etc. The said cash credit facility was granted to the defendants to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The defendants have utilised the said facility and when the balance payable by the defendants came to Rs. 2,07,295.90 ps. the defendants executed balance confirmation letter on 17-6-1977 and on 12-7-1997 executed fresh documents in view of the huge outstanding amount. Inspite of repeated reminders the defendants did not pay the said amount. Thereafter notice was issued to the defendants by the plaintiffs through their Advocate. Still there was no response from the defendants and hence the plaintiffs have filed the present suit.2. The defendants appeared in ...
Tag this Judgment!Nagarpalika Kamgar Union, Amalner and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ1895
Marlapalle, J.1. The petitioner No. 1 Shri Fakira s/o Motiram Meshram, is the President of Nagarpalika Kamgar Union and petitioner No. 2 is the President of the Maharashtra Safai and General Kamgar Union at Amalner. Both the Unions represent the employees of the Municipal Council at Amalner, District Jalgaon. These petitioners have filed Writ Petition No. 2809/99 and on 14-6-99 a Division Bench of this Court had issued notice before admission returnable after four weeks with leave to amend. It is alleged that on 15-6-99 when Fakira s/o Motiram Meshram, attended his duties and came out of Municipal Council office at about 6-30 p.m., he was obstructed by respondents Nos. 2 to 7 and respondent No. 2 Rambhau threatened the petitioner as to why he had filed the writ petition before this Court and respondents Nos. 3 to 7 started beating with wooden sticks to the said Fakira. He had received serious injuries and both his legs were fractured. It is further alleged that respondent No. 2 Rambhau...
Tag this Judgment!Varma Mukherji Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-2000
Reported in: (2000)(70)ECC314
1. This group of stay applications relates to equal numbers of appeals filed, all arising out of the impugned Order-in-Appeal captioned above.2. We have heard Shri P.V. Patankar appearing along with Shri R.J.Ghag, Advocates for the applicants and Shri K.L. Ramteke, JDR for the Revenue.3. The applicants are independent processors of grey fabrics on job work basis. The grey fabrics were received from merchant manufacturers.The applicants filed price lists from time to time giving the cost composition of fabrics processed by them. A number of show cause notices were issued alleging that the price declared was only the value of the grey cloth plus the value of the job work done but did not include the manufacturing expenses and manufacturing profits. On this ground, the show cause notices proposed additions to be made to the assessable value. In a number of show cause notices the proposed addition was 10%. In other notices, the addition proposed was 12%. One batch of the show cause notice...
Tag this Judgment!Hemson Textile Processors and 6 Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-2000
Reported in: (2000)(68)ECC653
1. Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Notification No.36/98-CE dated 10.12.98 read with Rule 96ZQ provide for Scheme of payment of Excise Duty on the capacity of production of Textile Fabrics by independent processors. The capacity is determined by following the provisions of the Hot-Air Stenters Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998. Briefly stated the Rules require an independent processor to make a declaration as to the number of Hot-Air Stenters installed in the factory and number of chambers in each stenter, apart from other relevant details. The verification of the declaration is to be caused by the Jurisdictional Commissioner if necessary on consulting a technical authority and the annual capacity of production is to be determined. The explanation to the rule stipulates that where a float drying machine is installed or attached to a stenter for aiding the process of heat setting or drying of the fabrics, it would be taken as one ch...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Engg. Industries Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-2000
Reported in: (2000)(68)ECC661
2. We have read the stay application, relevant papers and the departmental representative.3. The application is for waiver of penalty of Rs. 3.00 Lakh imposed on the applicant on the finding of the Commissioner that applicant mis-declared goods imported by it as used polyester fabrics. The Commissioner finds the goods to be classifiable under heading 63.03.This heading is for curtains and blinds of synthetic fabric. The goods imported are fabrics in running length and could not themselves be used as curtain or blinds. However, it is not contended that the difference in classification has any bearing on the duty. The Commissioner's finding that the goods have been undervalued and the valuation should be Rs. 23.49 Lakhs approximately, as against Rs. 2.71 Lakhs declared is based upon an invoice which was found in the search of the importer's premises (duty is not the subject-matter of the stay application) and therefore this order. We do not prima facie find any force in the contention t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Unicure Remedies Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-2000
Reported in: (2000)(118)ELT485Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The dispute in the appeal from revenue centres around the classification of a product claimed Vital-Z. The Commissioner in the impugned order has accepted classification under sub-heading 1702.29.In the appeal from revenue, it is urged that the product merits classification under Heading 2107.91 as miscellaneous edible preparations.2. The appeal from revenue was argued by Shri Deepak Kumar. The Cross-objection filed by the respondents was argued by Shri Willindgon Christian.Zinc Sulphate I.P. 32.5 mgs.(Equi. To 7.5 mg. of Elemental Zinc) The Commissioner in classifying the products under Chapter 70 relied upon the Tribunal judgments in the case of Vijaya Packers v. Collector of Central Excise,Collector of Central Excise v. Sukhjit Starch & Chemicals Ltd. He also relied upon the Board's clarification in Circular F. No. 14/8/89-CE., dated 7-3-1990 in which the product Glucone-D was held as classifiable under sub-heading No. 1702.21.4. Shri Deepak Kumar attempted to distinguish th...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Ganesh D. Daivajna Vs. Shri Prakash S. Salkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)ALLMR586; 2000(3)BomCR34; 2000(3)MhLj347
ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Both these revision applications arise from a common judgment and order passed by the lower Appellate Court in Misc Civil Appeals Nos. 30/99 and 31/99. Since the common questions of law and facts arise in both the revision applications, the same are heard together andare being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by the consent.3. At the outset, learned Advocate for the respondent has raised an objection regarding the maintainability of the revision applications by referring to Chapter IV. Rule 20 of the Bombay High Court (Appellate Side) Rules, 1960 and submitted that in view of failure on the part of the petitioner to place on record copies of all the documents which are being referred to in the impugned orders passed by the courts below, the petitioner is not entitled to seek interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction in the impugned orders in relation to the findings arrived at based on such docume...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Associated Cement Companies Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-2000
Reported in: [2001]249ITR3(Bom)
1. The first point which arises in this appeal is whether commitment charges paid by the assessee to the financial institutions are deductible as a revenue expenditure. In the case of India Cements Ltd. v. CIT : [1966]60ITR52(SC) , the Supreme Court has laid down that the act of borrowing was incidental to the carrying on of business, the loan obtained was not an asset or an advantage of enduring nature and, therefore, the expenditure made for securing the use of money for a certain period was a revenue expenditure and it was irrelevant to consider the object with which the loan was obtained. This judgment squarely applies to the facts of the present case. Further, as held by the Tribunal, the above point was decided by the appellate authority in favour of the assessee for the assessment years 1983-84 to 1986-87. Under the circumstances, there is no merit on this point in the present appeal.2. The second point raised in this appeal is whether gratuity paid in excess of the limits presc...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »