Mumbai Court April 2000 Judgments
Kantilal Dharsi Desai Vs. Karmala Nagar Palika and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-26-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Bom484; 2000(4)ALLMR806; 2003(2)BomCR851
ORDERDr. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent, taken up for final hearing.2. These two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India involve similar issues and are hence being disposed of by a common judgment.3. In Writ Petition No. 4235 of 1998, a petrol pump, is conducted at premises bearing House No. 1442, situated at Karmala. The property falls within the jurisdiction of the Karmala Nagar Pallka, which is a Municipal Council established under the provisions of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act 1965 ('the Act'). The petitioner has stated in paragraph 2 of the petition that the petrol pump has been in existence on the properties since long and in paragraph 7 it has been stated that no addition has been made to or in the property. In ground (C) at paragraph 11 it has similarly been stated that there has been no change in the structure, no new construction and alteration in respect...
Tag this Judgment!Ajay Enterprises Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-25-2000
Reported in: (2001)77ITD336(Mum.)
1. The first three grounds in this appeal filed by the assessee are to the effect that the assessment is bad in law, for want of service of notice under section 143(2) of the Act within the statutory time limit.2. The facts of the case in this respect, in brief, are that the assessee filed return of income on 9-10-1989. According to the provisions of the Act, the Assessing Officer, could, if he considered it necessary or expedient to ensure that the assessee had not understated the income served on the assessee a notice under section 143(2) and thereafter make an assessment under section 143(3). However, proviso to section 143(2) stipulated that no notice under section 143(2) should be served on the assessee after the expiry of the financial year in which the return was furnished or the expiry of six months from the end of the month in which the return was furnished whichever was later. In this case, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 143(2) on 20th March, 1990 fixing t...
Tag this Judgment!Mangatu J. Verghese Vs. Daulatram Dyeing and Bleaching Mills, Bombay a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-25-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)ALLMR418; 2000(4)BomCR286; (2001)ILLJ421Bom
R. J. Kochar. J.1. The present petition has arisen from a Judgment and order dated October 1, 1993 dismissing the revision application filed by the employee under Section 44 of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act, 1971, challenging thejudgment and order passed by 5th Labour Court. Bombay on August 23, 1989 dismissing the complaint of unfair labour practice filed by the employee to challenge the order of discharge dated July 11, 1983 passed by the respondent No. 1 employer. Hereinafter the parties will be referred to as the employee and the employer. 2. If I may say both the learned Judges could have written better orders than what they have done. I would not be wrong. Indeed they are not happily written. At one point of time, I had thought of remanding the matter back for fresh trial. When, however, I noticed the date of termination as July 11, 1983 on a second thought I have taken all the pains to hear the matter and on considering entire material on record before the Labour Court I have ar...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Minguel Martins Vs. M/S. Succeedede Fomento Industries Pvt. Ltd. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-25-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)BomCR448
ORDERR.K. Batta, J.1. The issues involved in all these petitions are similar and as such the petitions are heard together and are being disposed off by common judgment.2. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 330/91 is a plot holder in Machados Cove surveyed under No. 792 (old) and the challenges in this petition are four fold. The first challenge relates to the agreement dated 26-10-1983 between the President of India and Fomento Hotels and Resorts Limited formerly called Gomantak Land Development Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter called the hotel), the second challenge relates to the access through the land surveyed under No. 246/1 (old 787), which is also the subject matter in Writ Petition No. 284/91 and 37/92, and the third challenge is that the said Survey No. 787 and 803 (246/2 new) fall within C.R.Z. Regulation and as such no development can be carried out therein. In so far as the third challenge is concerned the learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner does no...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammad Salam Anamul Haque Vs. S.A. Azmi and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-25-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)ALLMR762; [2000(87)FLR414]; (2000)IIILLJ1028Bom
ORDERD.K. Deshmukh, J. 1. This petition has been filed under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 alleging that the Respondents have wilfully committed breach of the order dated October 16, 1995 passed by the School Tribunal, Nasik Region, Nasik in Appeal No. 22 of 1993 filed by the petitioner.2. The facts that are material and relevant for the present purpose are that according to the petitioner he was in service of the Respondent No. 3 School since 1990. His services were terminated on April 30, 1993 by the management. Therefore, he filed an appeal before the School Tribunal under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Some other employees of the Respondent No. 3, whose services were also terminated had also filed appeals. Their appeals were registered as Appeal No. 21/1993 and Appeal No. 23/1993. All these three appeals namely Appeal No. 21 of 1993, No. 22 of 1993 and Ap...
Tag this Judgment!Sharad Dinkar Dongare Vs. R. V. Ingale and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-24-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)BomCR702; [2001(88)FLR235]; 2000(4)MhLj357
ORDERR. J. Kochar, J.1. An order dated 4-7-1984 passed by the Industrial Court, Maharashtra at Solapur has given rise to the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The learned member had dismissed an appeal filed by the petitioner employee in the Industrial Court under section 84 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (hereinafter for short referred to as the BIR Act), to challenge the order of the Labour Court, Solapur passed in the application filed before it by the petitioner-employee.2. The factual matrix of the petition can be summarised as under :---The petitioner was appointed by office order dated 25th August, 1983 as a Civil Supervisor for expansion of building for a period of one year at the first instance. From the office order, it is clear that he was appointed for the temporary post of Civil Supervisor and his consolidated salary was Rs. 500/- per month. Clause 3 of the order further clarifies that the petitioner was liable to be te...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Madhukar Namdeo Patil Vs. Chairman Sudhagad Education Society and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-24-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)ALLMR789; 2000(4)BomCR698; 2000(4)MhLj206
ORDERDR. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned Addl. Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 waives service. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are absent despite service.2. The petitioner is a permanent Assistant Teacher working with the 2nd respondent school for thirty years. Together with some other members of the teaching and non-teaching staff, the petitioner formed a Co-operative Society of which the petitioner, in November 1995, was elected as Chairman. One Shri Subhedar who is working as a teacher in another school was elected as Secretary of the society. Some time in February 1998, a fraud was detected during the course of the regular audit of the credit co-operative society involving an amount of Rs. 2,01,540/-. According to the petitioner, Shri Subhedar admitted his guilt and furnished an undertaking to repay the amount before 15-8-1998. This amount was, however, not repaid by Subhedar. On or about 23-7-1999, the Government Auditor lodged a criminal complain...
Tag this Judgment!SafruddIn Abdul Majid Khan Vs. Mr. R.H. Mendonca, Commissioner of Poli ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-24-2000
Reported in: (2000)102BOMLR403
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 14th May, 1999 passed by the 1st Respondent Mr. R.H. Mendonca, Commissioner of Police, Brihan 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), (hereinafter referred to as 'M.P.D.A. Act').The detention order along with the grounds of detention also dated 14th May, 1999, was served on the petitioner - detenu on 6.8.1999, and their true copies are annexed as Annexures 'A' and 'B' to this writ petition.2. A perusal of the grounds of detention would show that the impugned detention order is founded on one C.R. viz. C.R. No. 516/98 under Sections 384, 385, 454, 427, 34 of the I.P.C., registered on the basis of a complaint filed by one Arun Dinkar Gawand at Kandiv li ...
Tag this Judgment!Anil K. Arora and Ravi K. Arora Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-20-2000
Reported in: (2000)(118)ELT346Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The applicants have sought for recalling of the stay order, dated 14-5-1999 under Order C-I/1306-1307/WZB/1999 praying for the disposal of the appeals and the stay order in accordance with the provisions of Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme.2. The impugned order, dated 29-1-1999 of Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-III demanded duty of Rs. 22,09,378.40 and imposed a payment of Rs. 23 lakhs and redemption fine of Rs. 10 lakhs on M/s.Spidermans Business Pvt. Ltd. (Spindermans for short) and penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on Ravi K. Arora and Rs. 10 lakhs on Anil K. Arora. The declaration under Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme was made by Spidermans under Serial No. 162/98/CD, dated 26-12-1998 and determination order was passed by the designated authority, and accordingly Rs. 11,04,689/- is deposited under treasury challan on 19-3-1999 in the bank of Maharashtra Port Bench, Mumbai. It was in respect of the impugned order involved in these appeals. It ended in the settlement in favour of Spidermans unde...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Atul Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-20-2000
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT743Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Today an application for stay has been taken up for consideration.In this case an order had been passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) made in Order-in-Appeal No. SSS/SRT/1406/99, dated 19-8-1999 allowing the appeal of the assessee, thereby the assessee was declared entitled to Modvat credit of Rs. 4,18,998.22 and the penalty imposed on them was also set aside. In such types of orders where the department is aggrieved, the Commissioner may authorise under Section 35B(2) any Central Excise officer, if the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is not legal and proper, to appeal on his behalf to the appellate Tribunal. In the authorisation dated 19-11-1999 it has been mentioned as follows : "Whereas in exercise of the powers vested in me under Section 35E(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944,1 have called for the records of the proceedings in respect of M/s. Atul Ltd., P.O. Atul, Dist. Valsad, in which the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs & Central Excise, Surat, has passed the O...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »