Mumbai Court July 2000 Judgments
Mazda theaters Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sharad Laxman Galvankar, Since Deceased b ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-2000
Reported in: (2000)102BOMLR10
R.M. Lodha, J.1. By this common judgment, I shall dispose of these two writ petitions since they arise out of the same order and involve the identical question.2. The only argument canvassed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners appearing in both the writ petitions is that the Appeal Court seriously erred in not holding cabins in the room as less than the room within the meaning of Section 15A of Bombay Rents, 'Hotel Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947.3. The controversy arises in the facts stated thus:The petitioners v. Mazda Theaters Pvt. Ltd. are the owners of the property known as 'Naaz Building' situate at Lamington Road, Bombay. A room in the said building was let out to Mrs. Sukurma Rani, who was monthly tenant of the petitioners. The said tenant - Mrs. Sukurma Rani, according to the petitioners, was in arrears of rent for more than 6 months and was a defaulter. The petitioners terminated the tenancy of the said tenant the then filed an Ejectment suit being R.A.E. Suit ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Income Tax Settlement Commission
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-2000
Reported in: (2000)163CTR(Bom)440; [2001]112TAXMAN523(Bom)
Daga, J.This petition is preferred by the revenue against the order of the Settlement Commissioner in the case of Ajmera Housing Corporation, Bombay, relating to the assessment years 1989-90 to 1993-94.In order to appreciate the grievance of the revenue against the said order, relevant introductory facts needs to be noticed at the outset.Background facts2. Ajmera Housing Corporation, Bombay (hereinafter referred to as `the assessee') along with 19 individuals and 7 HUFs belonging to Ajmera family, had filed 31 settlement applications under section 245C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') in the month of October 1993 for the assessment years 1989-90 to 1993-94. The applications in the case of 4 firms including the present assessees were admitted by the orders of the Commissioner passed under section 245D(1) of the Act dated 17-11-1997. Ajmera Housing Corporation along with its other group establishments are engaged in the business as land developers, build...
Tag this Judgment!Cyanides and Chemicals Co. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-2000
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT699Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant was a manufacturer of sodium cyanide. It cleared the bulk of its production on payment of duty and the remaining goods without payment of duty in terms of Notification 191/97 by following the procedure in Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules to other persons for use in the manufacture of the zinc and lead concentrate.2. Notice dated 8-11-1994 issued to the appellant demanding duty on these clearances on the ground that since the final product was exempted from duty Modvat credit was incorrectly taken on the inputs used in their manufacture. The credit was taken during the period April 1992, to March, 1993. The notice to show-cause invoked extended period contained under Rule 57-1(1). The Commissioner confirmed in his order in addition imposed on the appellant penalty. Hence this appeal.3. The advocate for the appellant does not dispute that on merits credit could not have been taken. He however, questions the applicability of the extended period for two reasons. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Shree Maroli Vibhag Khand Udyog
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-2000
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT670Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The issue involved in this appeal is whether the Modvat credit is available on the phosphoric acid used in the manufacture of sugar.2. The facts in brief are that the appellant manufactures sugar and molasses falling under 17.01 and 17.03 of the Central Excise Tariff Act of 1985, and avails Modvat credit on the inputs already said to have been used in relation to the manufacture of the final products namely sugar/molasses. Phosphoric acid falling under Heading 28.09 of the Tariff Act was used in the manufacture of sugar for purification of the sugar cane. It is not compulsory or must for the manufacture of commercial sugar. It can be produced even without it. Lime is the main purifying agent in connection with the removal of the non-sugar. Two show cause notices were issued on 27-11-1991 and 3-6-1992 for the period from May, 1991 to October, 1991 for Rs. 29,560.50 and for November, 1991 to March, 1992 for Rs. 39,816.25 for the recovery of the credit wrongly taken on the input phosp...
Tag this Judgment!Kashinath Shankar Gambhire Vs. Sou. Sudha Gopal Patil and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Bom493; 2001(2)BomCR210; 2001(1)MhLj672
ORDERR.M. Lodha, J.1. The petitioner who has suffered decree for eviction for causing nuisance and annoyance to the landlord and neighbouring occupiers at the hands of the Courts below has preferred this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.2. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein are original plaintiffs and they filed suit for eviction against the petitioner (original defendant). The eviction was sought on two grounds viz., (i) that the suit premises were in dilapidated condition and it was dangerous for the personal safety and the safety of the property and since the local authority has directed the landlord to demolish the said building, the premises are required under Section 13(1)(hh) of the Bombay Rent Control Act, and (ii) that the defendant was guilty of causing nuisance to the adjoining occupiers of the suit premises. The suit was contested by the defendant and after recording the evidence, the trial Court negatived plaintiffs case for eviction under Section 13(...
Tag this Judgment!Car Mart Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Apollo Finvest India Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-2000
Reported in: 2001(5)BomCR261; 2000ALLMR(Cri)1476
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Heard Mr. Amit Desai with Mr. Prakash Naik for the petitioner. Mr. A.K. Saxena for respondent No. 1 and the learned A.P.P. for respondent No. 2.2. Through this application preferred under section 482 Cri. P.C. the petitioner prays that the order dated 19-11-1999 passed by the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 38th Court, Bellard Estate, Mumbai, refusing to discharge/recall the process issued against the petitioner for offences punishable under sections 138 read with 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the order dated 10th May, 2000 passed by the 1st Additional Principal Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Sessions Court, Bombay, rejecting the petitioner's criminal revision against the said order, be quashed.3. The factual matrix from which this application arises in brief is as under:Respondent No. 1 Harish Maheshwar, is Manager of M/s Apollo Finvest (India) Limited a company carrying on business of financing and investments in the field of business. On or ...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Council, Washim Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)BomCR217
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner, Municipal Council has challenged the order dated 16-11-1987 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Washim whereby the special assessment was made in respect of the lands held by the Municipal Council. 2. The Sub Divisional Officer, Washim issued show cause notice calling upon the petitioner Municipal Council to remain present in his office on 26-10-1987 indicating that the special assessment to the extent of 100% being Rs. 1,25,704.15 would be levied in respect of the lands held by the Municipal Council. The said show cause notice does not indicate any reasons for taking such an action. Nevertheless, in response to the said show cause notice, the petitioner submitted reply to the Sub Divisional Officer. In the said reply, it was specifically pleaded that the lands held by the Municipal Council were exempted from the levy of special assessment no additional tax or cess, as suggested in the show cause notice, could be levied. In...
Tag this Judgment!Rukmini Dattatraya Naik (Smt.) and ors. Vs. Parmanand Lalchand Joshi a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)ALLMR758; 2001(2)BomCR141
R.M. Lodha, J.1. The question that calls for consideration and falls for determination in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is whether upon death of the appellant, the application for bringing his legal representatives having been allowed, it was obligatory on the part of the legal representatives to incorporate their names in the array of parties as appellants by substituting the name of deceased appellant within 14 days from such order.2. The facts in which aforesaid question arises may be noted briefly. The present respondents who are original plaintiffs filed the suit for eviction against the tenant Dattatraya Naik in the Court of Small Causes, Pune. After trial, the said suit was decreed. The defendant Dattatraya Naik preferred appeal challenging the decree passed by the trial Judge. During pendency of the appeal on 14-1-92, the sole appellant Dattaraya Naik died. The present petitioners who are his legal representatives applied for substituti...
Tag this Judgment!Sau. Neesha W/O Hariram Mahajan Vs. Shri Damodar S/O Ramrao Mohad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)BomCR435
A.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment and order dated 28-10-1987 passed by the Collector, Akola in Revenue Appeal No. BRA-13(3) Murtizapur /7/86-87.2. Briefly stated, the petitioner landlord filed application before the Rent Controller on 10-10-1983 purporting to seek permission for taking action against the respondent under Clause 13(3)(ii) of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949, since according to the petitioner, the respondent was habitual defaulter. The reason mentioned in the said application for granting such permission was that the respondent was in arrears in the past for which the petitioner had to file two separate civil suits for recovery of arrears and both the suits were decreed in favour of the petitioner. It is further stated that since January 1983 onwards till filing of the application, the respondent had failed to offer rent for nine months to the petition...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Vinodkumar C. Soni Vs. Collr. of Customs (P)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-2000
Reported in: (2000)(71)ECC561
1. These two appeals are filed by the appellant Vinod Soni as against the Order-in-Original No. 224/Collr./89 dated 22.12.89 of Respondant praying for setting aside the penalty imposed there under of Rs. 10,000 under Section 112(b) of Customs Act and of Rs. 5,000 under Section 74 of Gold Control Act and for any other order deemed fit. Facts of the case in brief are that on the basis of information received by the Custom Officers of Head Quarters office, Ahmedabad, in the morning of 23.1.89 a survelliance was kept by two officers on the Satellite Road, Near Jodhpur Char Rasta, Ahmedabad, at about 10.30 a.m., they saw one Khed Bramwala boarding an autorikshaw, who was known to one of them very well. Autorikshaw started towards the city, and they chased it on their motorcycle. The speed of Autorikshaw was increased after little distance, knowing the chase. The above person alighted and started running away throwing something. Officers apprehended him and brought to the place of throwing ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »