Mumbai Court May 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.
Smt. Wilma Pacheco Vs. the President, Administrative Tribunal, Goa and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-04-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)BomCR427; 2000(3)MhLj794; 2000(1)GLT450
ORDERR.K. Batta, J.1. The petitioner and respondent No. 2 filed nominations from Ward No. 7 reserved for women for election to the Village Panchayat of Colva. The nomination papers of respondent No. 2 were rejected as a result of which the petitioner was the lone candidate in the fray, due to which the petitioner was declared duly elected on 28-12-1996 in the reserved seat of Ward No. 7 of the Village Colva. Respondent No. 2 filed election petition under section 16(1), read with sections 20(1)(a), 20(1)(d)(i) and 10(d) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter called as 'the said Act').2. The election petition was filed on the ground that the petitioner was in arrears to the Panchayat in the sum of Rs. 2,41,125/- and the said arrears were cleared only on 26-12-1996, which was the date of scrutiny of nomination papers. In view of the same, it was urged by respondent No. 2 in the said election petition that the nomination of the petitioner was improperly accepted in violation of se...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Chhatrapati Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Lt ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-04-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)BomCR727; (2000)2BOMLR519; [2000]245ITR498(Bom)
S.H. Kapadia, J. 1. The above Reference No. 449 of 1995 is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Special Bench, Pune, relating to the assessment years 1984-85 to 1988-89, at the instance of the Department for seeking opinion of this court on 15 questions which are as follows :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that by reconciling' the two views expressed by the Supreme Court in the cases of CIT v. Bijli Cotton Mills (P.) Ltd. : [1979]116ITR60(SC) on the one hand and Chowringhee Sales Bureau P.Ltd. v. CIT : [1973]87ITR542(SC) and Sinclair Murray and Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT : [1974]97ITR615(SC) on the other, 'the principle that emerges is that, it is not the point at which or the method by which a receipt was collected by a trader that would determine the taxability of the trading receipt as income, but the nature, object and obligation of the receipt'; in t...
Bhor Industries Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-04-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)ALLMR807; [2000(87)FLR516]; (2001)ILLJ106Bom
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. 1. The Petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing coated fabrics and employs about 450 persons. In a complaint, being ULP Complaint No. 651 of 1990 filed before the Industrial Court, the Petitioner made a grievance of a consistent course of conduct alleged to have been resorted to by the recognised union of the employees for obstructing the normal functioning of the work of the company. The complaint made reference to various incidents which were alleged to have taken place, and among them, were the following:(i) On October 16, 1998, the office bearers of the recognised union entered into the office of the Vice President (Technical) of the company and gheraoed him and other officers in order to secure their demands on the issue of bonus; (ii) the workers had gathered at the gate and obstructed the movement of men and materials to and from the factory; (hi) security personnel were assaulted, there were incidents of violence and employees were not all...
Smt. Rajbala W/O Mai Chand Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-04-2000
Reported in: (2002)104BOMLR277
1. Rule. Respondents waive service. Petition is taken up for final hearing.2. The short question which falls for consideration in the present petition is whether it is open for the respondents to reject the claim of the family pension payable by the Army to the widow of ex-Army man after his death on the ground that his widow is in receipt of monthly pension under the Family Pension Scheme constituted under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952, for short Act of 1952, and monthly dependent's allowance payable to the widow by the last employer of her deceased husband.3. The petitioner is the widow of one Mai Chand who worked in the Indian Army for 25 years and who died in a road accident after his discharge from the Army and while he was in employment of the Public Limited Company viz. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company i.e. Telco. The husband of the petitioner served the Indian Army as a Sapper in Bombay Engineers Group from 15.7.1963 to 31.7.1978. H...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chhatrapati Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Lt ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-04-2000
Reported in: [2001]245ITR498(Bom)
S. H. Kapadia, J.The above Reference No. 449 of 1995 is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Special Bench, Pune, relating to the assessment years 1984-85 to 1988-89, at the instance of the department for seeking opinion of this court on 15 questions which are as follows :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that by reconciling the two views expressed by the Supreme Court in the cases of CIT v. Bijli Cotton Mills (P.) Ltd. : [1979]116ITR60(SC) on the one hand and Chowringhee Sales Bureau Ltd. v. CIT : [1973]87ITR542(SC) and Sinclair Murray and Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT : [1974]97ITR615(SC) on the other, 'the principle that emerges is that, it is not the point at which or the method by which a receipt was collected by a trader that would determine the taxability of the trading receipt as income. but the nature, object and obligation of the receipt' ; in the fa...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shri Chhatrapati Sahakari Kakhar Karkha ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-04-2000
Reported in: (2000)163CTR(Bom)275; [2000]111TAXMAN176(Bom)
Kapadia, J. The above reference No. 449 of 1995 is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Tribunal, Special Bench, Pune, relating to the assessment years 1984-85 to 1988-89, at the instance of the department, for seeking opinion of this court on 15 questions which are as follows:1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that by reconciling the two views expressed by the Supreme Court in the cases of CIT v. Biffi Cotton Mills (P.) Ltd. : [1979]116ITR60(SC) , on one hand, and Chowringhee Sales Bureau (P.) Ltd. v. CIT : [1973]87ITR542(SC) and Sinclair Murray & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT : [1974]97ITR615(SC) , on the other, the principle that emerges is that it is not the point at which or the method by which a receipt was collected by a trader that would determine the taxability of the trading receipt as income, but nature, object and obligation of the receipt'; on the facts of the decision in CIT v. ...
Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Skylite Electro Fixtures Pvt.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-03-2000
Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT90Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the benefit of Notification 175/86 or 1/93 (whichever is applicable at the time of clearance) could not be denied to the electrical light fittings manufactured and cleared by the respondent solely because they bore upon them the letter 'F' or 'FLB' or 'FAD'. He did not accept that the letter F for these denotes the name Fixolite, which was the brand name used by another manufacturer, was not entitled to this notification. It is informed that no proof is produced to this effect.2. The departmental representative reiterates the grounds in the appeal. This appears to us entirely irrelevant to the basis on which the Commissioner (Appeals) came to his conclusion. The grounds say that an appeal has been filed against the order-in-original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad which is pending with the Tribunal. We do not see how it follows from this that order presently impugned is legal and proper. The Co...
Champa Puriechem. Indus. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-03-2000
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT575Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The applicant has requested for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of Modvat credit of Rs. 1,46,778.90 and penalty of Rs. 50,000/- as per the Order-in-Original dated 8-12-97 of Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara confirmed under the impugned order, challenged in the appeal.1. Brief facts of case are that on surprise check by Division II Officers of Central Excise Vadodara, in the applicants factory on 25-8-94, it was found there was a shortage of inputs Potassium Hydroxide of 12075 kgs. and Citric Acid of 7450 kgs. on verification of actual physical stock and entry in RG23A Part I statutory register, which were seized under the Panchanama, along with other records.Senior Manager Shri RS Jamadar was enquired and statement under Section 14 of Central Excise Act was recorded who could not satisfactorily explain the same. Modvat credit of Rs. 3,07,187/- was already availed by applicant. Removal was not entered in the statutory register RG 23A Part II by a debit ...
Jayprakash S/O. Raosaheb Salunke and Others Vs. the State of Maharasht ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-03-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Bom461; 2000(4)ALLMR177; 2000(3)BomCR306; (2001)4BOMLR164; 2000(3)MhLj714
ORDERB.H. Marlapalle, J.1. Heard Shri Hon, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Shri Sawant, learned Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, respondent No. 3 is present personally and has made the record available through the learned Government Pleader. Heard Shri Salunke, learned Counsel for the added respondent No. 4 and Shri Shah, learned Counsel for the Intervenors/respondent Nos. 5 to 10. 2. Rule. Rule taken up, by consent, for final hearing forthwith. 3. The petitioners claim to be the members of the managing committee of the Trimurti Stalk Ply Sahakari Sanstha Limited Basmat, Taluka Basmat, District Hingoli which is a registered co-operative society under the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short, the Act). The respondent No. 4 is the Chairman of the said managing committee and the added respondents are other members of the said committee. It is contended that total number of managing committee members is 15. On 10th April, 2000 the pe...
Shri Ashok Krishnakant Mehta Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-03-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)ALLMR772; 2000(4)BomCR724; 2000(4)MhLj197
ORDERDr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent, the petition is taken up for final hearing.2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought co impugn a decision of the Collector of Raigad and a decision rendered in appeal by the Divisional Commissioner, Kokan Division, rejecting the challenge preferred by the petitioner to a resolution of no confidence passed in the Village Panchayat of Pali in District Raigad. The grievance of the petitioner is that during the course of the meeting in the Village Pan-chayat, person who wished to speak on the resolution of no confidence were prevented from doing so by the Presiding Officer on the ground that the Rules only provide that an opportunity be given to the person against whom the no confidence motion is moved. The issue involved is whether the exclusion of the members of the Village Panchayat from participation in the debate on a motion of no confidence wou...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »