Mumbai Court March 2000 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Nemor (a Division of Alembic Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-2000
Reported in: (2000)(69)ECC536
ORDER--The reasons discussed above, the stay application is allowed and the pre-deposit of the Modvat credit disallowed amount, and the penalty imposed, under the impugned order, is waived and the recovery stayed.1. The applicant has sought for the stay of the recovery of the Mod vat credit of Rs 2,10,579.71 with an equal amount of penalty and interest and penalty of Rs. 10,00C imposed under Rule 173Q(1) of Central Excise Rules and also for waiving the pre-deposit pending disposal of the appeal. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the applicant has contended that the inputs were received under the challan and gate passes from IPCL through the dealers M/s. J.K. Enterprises. It is not the case of the department that the gate passes were corrected by the appellant. Show cause notice itself admits the corrected dates gate passes. The Modvat credit availed in RG 23A Part II or 22.1.91 and 31.10.91 which are much after the alleged correction of GPIs from 21.8.91 to 21.9.91 and from 18.1.91 to 18.9...
Mrs. Meenaz Moloobhay Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-2000
Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)647; (2001)2BOMLR495; 2000CriLJ3998
ORDERS.S. Parkar, J.1. All the above Criminal Applications have been filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. challenging the common order of conviction and sentence recorded under Section 18(c) read with Section 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. 1940 by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate's 6th Court. Mazgaon, Bombay on 19.12.1990 and the notices and summons issued to the applicants by his order dated 28.1.1993 in C. C. No. 32/S of 1990.2. The brief facts, leading to the above proceeding, are as follows: On 30.11.1990 Drug Inspector (Greater Bombay) filed complaint being C.C. No. 32/S of 1990 in the Metropolitan Magistrate's 6th Court, Mazgaon, Bombay against seven accused for contravention of Section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. 1940 punishable under Section 28(b)(11) of the said Act. A copy of the said complaint is annexed at Exhibit 'A' to the petition. The allegations in the complaint were that the original accused Nos. 1 to G were partners of accused No. 7M/s. Ahme...
Director of Income-tax (Exemptions) Vs. Bharat Diamond Bourse
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-2000
Reported in: [2000]245ITR437(Bom)
1. On March 21, 2000, the appeal reached final hearing. After hearing the advocates, the following order is passed.'For reasons to be given separately, the appeal stands dismissed.'2. We now proceed to give reasons.3. Two questions arise for determination in this appeal.'(a) Whether the assessee was entitled to exemption under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?(b) If the first point is answered in the affirmative then, whether the assessee lost the exemption by giving' Rs. 70 lakhs during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1989-90 to Bharat Shah (a member of the petitioner-bourse) In other words, whether the assessee lost its-exemption on account of contravention mentioned in Section 13(2){a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'4. The facts giving rise to this appeal, briefly, are as follows. The assessee-company filed its return of income on December 20, 1990, along with audited income and expenditure account and balance-sheet for the assessment years 1989-90 and 1990-9...
Aditya Polymers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-2000
Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT321Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In this application for early hearing, the claim made is that the issue stands settled. In this regard, reference is made to Order No.C-II/2055/99-WZB, dated 14-8-1999 (CCE, Ahmed-abad v. Jagdamba Polymers Ltd.). On perusal, we find it to be so and therefore, the appeal is taken up for disposal.2. The appellants were consuming captively HOPE tapes in the manufacture of fabrics and sacks. Their refund claim was rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment. The Commissioner (Appeals) having upheld the same, the present appeal is filed.2. The Commissioner in upholding the dismissal has observed that the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Solar Pesticides [1992 (57) E.L.T. 201 (Bom.)] has been challenged by the department before the Supreme Court. In the cited order in paragraph 4, the Tribunal has observed as under :-Assistant Collector of Customs v. East Anglia Plastics (India) Ltd. [1994 (74) E.L.T. 29 (Cal.)] have also held in the same way as the Bombay High Court in the c...
Cit Vs. Indian Hotels Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-2000
Reported in: [2001]119TAXMAN122(Bom)
The assessee is a company. The assessee owns Taj Group of Hotels. In this reference we are concerned with the assessment year 1980-81 corresponding to the previous year ending 31-3-1980. The assessee paid remuneration to its employee-director. The assessee claimed deduction in that regard under section 40(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). This was disallowed by the department. It was the case of the department that section 40(c) has no application and what applied was section 40A(5) of the Act. On this point, the Tribunal held in favour of the assessee. Further, the assessee claimed depreciation by treating its hotel building as a plant. This was disallowed by the department on the ground that the hotel building was not a plant and, therefore, the assessee was not entitled to claim depreciation thereon. The Tribunal held in favour of the assessee.2. Under the above circumstances, the following two questions have been referred to this court under secti...
Jagannath Bapu Shirsat Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ4224
ORDERB.B. Vagyani, J. 1. Heard Shri R. B. Raghuwanshi, learned counsel for Petitioner; Shri D. V. Tele, learned APP for respondent No. 1 and Shri K. D. Bade Patil, learned counsel for respondent No. 2.2. A vehicle, tempo bearing No. MH-16-B-708 was admittedly owned by the present petitioner. The petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle in dispute. The petitioner lodged a report at Police Station Pathardi on 29th October 1998 contending therein that the vehicle was forcibly taken away by the respondent No. 2 from the custody of the driver. On the basis of said report, a Crime No. 192 of 1998 under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code has been registered. Accordingly, the Regional Transport Officer was also informed about theft of the vehicle.3. The said vehicle was found parked in front of the office of Regional Transport Officer. The vehicle was subject matter of theft and, therefore, the police officer seized the vehicle on 16-11-1998.4. The present petitioner, after coming to kn...
Sau. Shobha W/O Vilas Thakare Vs. Narendra S/O Tumdeo Hulke and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)ALLMR490; 2000(4)BomCR56
ORDERS. D. Gundewar, J.1. This civil revision application is heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of both the parties.2. By the present civil revision application, the applicant has challenged the common order dated 6-11-1999 passed by the learned 5th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur in Special Darkhast No. 261/98, whereby the learned trial Judge rejected the objections raised by the applicant and respondent No. 5 in said application.3. A few facts leading to this application are as under :---The respondents Nos. 1 to 3/original plaintiffs had filed Special Civil Suit No. 733/88 for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 19-6-1986 against the legal representatives of the deceased Narayanrao Akolikar, i.e. applicant and non-applicants Nos. 4 to 11 in respect of Municipal House No. 959/0+3 situated in Ward No. 75, Nagpur, alleging that on 19-6-1986 the deceased Narayanrao Akolikar agreed to sell the said house to them for a consideration of Rs. 5,40...
M/S. Subhash Silk Mills Ltd. Vs. Mill Mazdoor Sabha and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)ALLMR424; 2000(4)BomCR226; (2000)2BOMLR639; [2000(86)FLR760]; (2000)IILLJ716Bom; 2000(4)MhLj246
ORDERF.I. Rebello, J. 1. The petitioners have approached this Court against the order dated 29th July, 1999 whereby the Industrial Court has allowed the Complaint (ULP) No. 2)4 of 1998 filed by the Mill Mazdoor Sabha, the recognised Union. The Industrial Court has held that the petitioners herein are engaged in unfair labour practices, set out under Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & PULP Act and therefore directed the petitioners to cease and desist from the unfair labour practices. The petitioners have also been directed to lift the lock-out effected from 20th February, 1998 in the establishment within a period of 48 hours from the instant declaration. The petitioners have been further directed to pay wages along with the monetary benefits from the date of imposition of the lock-out till the date of their resuming normal duties, along with interest at 12% p.a. deducting therefrom any payment made against the wages during the said period, if any. By the same order Complai...
Dhruba Kumar Changkokoti Vs. Travel Corporation of India Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-2000
Reported in: (2001)IIILLJ751Bom
F.I. Rebello, J.1. The Petitioner being aggrieved by Order and Judgment dated April 24, 1995 passed in Complaint (ULP) No. 261 of 1991 by the Labour Court and the Judgment and Order dated July 28, 1997 passed in Revision (ULP) No. 68 of 1995 by the Industrial Court has preferred the present Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. The Petitioner was employed with the 1st respondent. His services came to be terminated on December 7, 1991. Aggrieved by the said Order, the petitioner preferred a Complaint which was numbered as Complaint (ULP) No. 261 of 1991. In answer to the said Complaint the respondents had filed their reply. In reply they pleaded that the Petitioner was not a workman coming within the purview of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and consequently the provisions of MRTU & PULP Act would not apply. It was more specifically set out that the petitioner at the time of termination of his contract was employed in the Senior Category of Manage...
Shri Aloysius Nunes Vs. Thomas Cook India Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)ALLMR433; 2000(3)BomCR658a; [2000(86)FLR583]; (2000)IILLJ1246Bom
F.I. Rebello, J.1. The Petitioner was initially employed as a clerk with the respondent. The petitioner was promoted as Tour Executive vide company's letter dated 8th May, 1982. His services were terminated on 29th September, 1988. On petitioner raising an Industrial Dispute a Reference was made to the Industrial Tribunal. Petitioner and the respondents appeared before the Industrial Tribunal and filed claim statement and written statement respectively. Evidence was produced both oral and documentary. Based on the evidence, the Industrial Court by its Award dated 21st January, 1998 held in answer to the preliminary issue raised by the respondents herein that the petitioner was not a workman under section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The present petition is to impugn the said order.2. At the hearing of the petition learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioner contends that the Order of the Industrial Tribunal is liable to be set aside as it discloses errors apparent on the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »