Mumbai Court September 2000 Judgments
Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. Vs. Mansukh M. Makwana and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-2000
Reported in: [2001(89)FLR141]; (2001)IIILLJ846Bom
S.K. Shah, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1.2. Impugned herein is the order passed by the Presiding Officer of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Mumbai on June 22, 1999, whereby he set aside the action of the management of Bharat Earth Movers Limited, terminating the services of Respondent No. 1 with effect from January 13, 1997 and directing the management to reinstate Respondent No. 1 in service with continuity and also then directing the management to treat Respondent No. 1 workman as in the regular employment in a vacancy which occurred due to one Kamble A.P. being not in service and to pay all back wages, deducting the wages already paid to him.3. It is undisputed that the father of Respondent No. 1 workman was working in the factory as a sweeper and used to do the work of cleaning. While he was in service of the company, in his absence, Respondent No. 1-workman used to be called to the compa...
Tag this Judgment!Kamlabai Wd/O Kalicharan Yadav (Smt.) Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-2000
Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)120; 2001(5)BomCR352; 2001CriLJ452
R.K. Batta, J.1. The petitioner who is mother of detenu, seeks quashing of detention order dated 16-10-99 of the Commissioner of Police, Nagpur, as also the order dated 27-10-99, whereby the said detention was approved by the State Government and order dated 2-12-99 by which the said detention was confirmed by the Advisory Board.2. The detenu Bharat @ Akku Kalicharan Yadao was ordered to be detained by Commissioner of Police vide order dated 16-10-99 issued under section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred as said Act) read with order of Home Department (Special) No. DDS. 1399/4/SPL. 3(B), dated 10th August, 1999. Grounds of detention dated 16-10-99 were served on the detenu. The State Government approved the order of detention dated 16-10-99 on 27-10-99. Reference to the Advisory Board under section 10 of the Act was made on 27-10-1999 and the Advisory Board given its ...
Tag this Judgment!Kashinath Narayan Nachinolkar and anr. Vs. M. Lily Dias (Smt.) and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)BomCR250
T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. Heard Counsel for the petitioners and the respondent No. 1. The petitioners are tenants who suffer from an order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller, South Goa, Margao in Case No. Bldg. 159/1979 from two rooms of the residential house situated in the property known as 'Gorbat' bearing Matriz No. 166 and House No. 78 of Ponda Municipality pursuant to the order passed under section 32(4) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 (hereinafter called as 'the Act'). The respondent No. 1 filed the aforesaid case under section 22 of the Act on the ground of arrears of rent and change of user. According to him the rent was at the rate of Rs. 40/- per month and the petitioners were in arrears of rent totalling to Rs. 660/-. With this allegation the respondent No. 1 landlady filed an application for eviction under section 22(2)(a) of the Act. On 6th February, 1980 the petitioners tenants made an application stating that ...
Tag this Judgment!Mirza Mahmood S/O Hidayat Baig Since Deceased Through His Legal Heirs ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-2000
Reported in: 2001(3)BomCR571
V.K. Barde, J.1. This petition is filed by the legal representatives of Shri Mirza Mahmood s/o. Hidayat Baig who died on 3-1-1988. Shri Mirza Mahmood s/o. Hidayat Baig was working as primary teacher in the erstwhile Hyderabad State. After the re-organisation of the States, Shri Mirza Mahmood Hidayat Baig was allocated to the State of Maharashtra as per the States Reorganization Act, 1956 and thereafter his services were transferred to the Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad. He continued in the service of the respondent No. 2 Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad, as primary teacher.2. The notice dated 13-11-1965 was served on Shri Mirza Mahmood Hidayat Baig (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'the teacher' in this judgment) calling upon him to explain as to why he should not be compulsorily retired from service as per Rule 3 of the Hyderabad Civil Services (Safeguarding of National Security) Rules, 1954 (for short, the Rules of 1954). By the said notice, the teacher was also informed that he would b...
Tag this Judgment!Raju Vithalrao Bhadre Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ1363
R.K. Batta, J.1. The petitioner was ordered to be detained vide order dated 8-2-2000 issued by Commissioner of Police, Nagpur in exercise of powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (for short, the said 'Act') read with Government Order, Home Department (special) No. DDS.1399/4/SPL.3(B) dated 19th November 1999. The detention order was served on the petitioner on 8-2-2000. The grounds of detention were served on the petitioner on 10-2-2000. The detention order was approved by the Government on 18-2-2000. The Government made reference Under Section 10 of the said Act to the Advisory Board on 23-2-2000. The Advisory Board gave its opinion on 21-3-2000 and the detention order was confirmed by the Government on 29-3-2000.2. The detention order is challenged by the petitioner on various grounds including that the Detaining Authority has failed to communicat...
Tag this Judgment!S.K. Chains Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT415Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These two appeals arise out of the same order. These are therefore being disposed off in a single order.2. M/s. S.K. Chains, manufacture gold chains by using machines. Shri Madan S. Kothari, the 2nd appellant is a partner of S.K. Chains. In a search at their premises on 27-10-97, the officers of Customs recovered 20 foreign marked gold biscuits, and 1 piece of foreign marked gold totally valued at Rs. 10,10,0007- and 26304 gms. of gold chains and Indian currency of Rs. 8,64,000/-. Investigations were made. Statements were recorded. Show Cause Notice was issued alleging liability to confiscation of the foreign marked gold and gold chains weighing 10583 gms. allegedly manufactured out of illegally acquired foreign marked gold. In the Show Cause Notice, Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 was invoked. During the investigations and during the hearing before the adjudicating authority, the appellants pleaded that the gold was lawfully acquired during the course of their business. Suppo...
Tag this Judgment!Ntb Hitech Ceramics Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT200Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification of ceramic nozzles for welding machines used in argon welding. The appellant claims classification of these goods under Heading 85.15 of the Tariff as parts of such welding machines. The department has taken the view that they are correctly classifiable as ceramic articles under Heading 69.01.2. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) finds that the goods are specifically mentioned in Heading 69.01 which includes ceramic articles. This he finds more specific than Heading 85.15. He finds nothing in the Explanatory Notes to take a contrary view and thus confirmed the classification under that heading.3. The Commissioner has not taken into account the notes to Chapters 84 and 85 of the Tariff. Note l(b) to Chapter 84 specifically excludes from classification under that Chapter goods of Chapter 69. There is no such specific exclusion in Chapter 85. On the contrary, the general explanatory notes to Chapter 85 ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Cus. Vs. Shantilal Mahendra Kumar and Co.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT214Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Department not being satisfied that the value declared for a consignment of plastic resin imported by the appellant was correct, proposed to take action to enhance it. The importer waived issue of show cause notice. The Asstt. Collector after hearing the importer, enhanced the value from declared price of US $ 1200 per MT to US $ 1450 MT. He has not, in his order cited any evidence of contemporaneous imports and has applied the minimum far east international price in the inputs.2. The Commissioner (Appeals) to whom this was appealed set aside this order holding that it is impermissible for Additional Collector to apply to the imports to India the price applied for suppliers to countries in the far east, noting the total absence of the evidence of contemporaneous import. Hence this appeal by the Commissioner.3. The ground in the appeal that the price imported in the international publication is the actual transaction value cannot be considered, as no such price has been quoted by th...
Tag this Judgment!Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT90Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appeal taken up for disposal, with the consent of both sides, after waiving deposit.2. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the spares of the air-conditioning systems brought by the appellant to its factory are capital goods within the meaning of Rule 57Q and therefore whether the duty paid on them could be utilised as credit.3. The Commissioner (Appeals) has advanced two reasons for denying the credit. The first is that these are not specified in the Explanation under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 57Q, as it existed at the relevant time. The answer of the advocate for the appellant that the goods fall within the general description in clause (a) of the Explanation under this sub-rule of machines, machinery, plant, equipment, apparatus, tools or appliances used for producing or processing of any goods or for bringing about any change in substances for the manufacture of final products, as this provision has been interpreted by the larger bench of the Tribunal in Jawa...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. General Insurance Corporation of India ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-2000
Reported in: [2002]254ITR204(Bom)
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. Two questions of law arise for determination in this appeal in respect of the-assessment year 1989-90 :'1. Whether expenses incurred by the assessee on account of salary paid to the staff of the Investment Department could be said to be directly relatable to the earning of dividend income for the purposes of computing deduction under Section 80M of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?2. Whether the assessee has violated Rule 5 of the First Schedule to the Act, read with Section 36(1)(vii), by debiting an amount of Rs. 1.18 crores to the profit and loss account under the head 'Reserve for doubtful debts' ?'Facts :2. In the assessment year in question, the assessee took bank commission of Rs. 6.01 lakhs (approximately) as expenses for earning dividend income. The department made upward revision by including the apportioned cost of salary, allowances and investment expenses for earning dividend income. Accordingly, the total expenses pertaining to dividend income for Section 80M ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »