Mumbai Court January 2001 Judgments

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Amir Morani

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)70TTJ(Mumbai)950

ORDERBehari Lal, A.M.This appeal of the department is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Central-V, Mumbai, dated 24-6-1999, for the assessment year 1996-97. The only ground of appeal taken up by the department is that the Commissioner (Appeals) has deleted the interest charged under sections 234A and 234B. Accordingly to the department, the provisions of sections 234A, 234B and 234C were introduced with effect from 1-4-1989, which requires an assessee to mandatorily compute the interest chargeable under the said sections and to make payment of the same under section 140A before filing the return of income and without any notice from the department. It is also stated that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the intern of the enactment of the provisions of section 234A and 234B and has allowed relief only on the technical ground that the assessing officer had not given any specific direction under sections 234A and 234B. The learned Commiss...

Lalmani Ramnath Tiwari Vs. Bhimrao Govind Pawar

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(2)ALLMR415; 2001(3)BomCR21; (2001)2BOMLR479; 2001(2)MhLj342

A. M. Khanwilkar, J.1. By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner seeks to challenge the judgment of the 5th Additional District Judge, Thane, dated 19th November, 1988 in Civil Appeal No. 48 of 1987.2. Briefly stated the Petitioner-landlord instituted a suit against the Respondent-tenant for eviction and possession of the suit premises along with arrears on the ground that the Respondent-tenant had committed default and was in arrears for more than 6 months within the meaning of Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act.3. The short question that arises in the present writ petition is that whether the suit notices Exhibits 40 and 47 dated 6.6,1981 were duly served on the Respondent-tenant? This question assumes relevance in view of the mandatory requirement of Section 12 of the Bombay Rent Act which postulates that no suit for recovery of possession could be instituted by the landlord against the tenant on the ground of non-payment of standard r...

irne Wanjiru Vs. the State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)1480; 2001BomCR(Cri)665; (2001)3BOMLR421; 2001(2)MhLj635

N.V. Dabholkar, J. 1. The appellant accused was tried by the Court of Special Judge for Gr. Bombay in the case registered as Special Case No. 175/94.By a judgment delivered on 26th and 27th March, 1997. the learned Judge found appellant accused to be guilty for offences punishable under Section 21 r/w 8(c) of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 as also under Section 80 of the N.D.P.S. Act r/w 135A of the Customs Act. 1962. She is sentenced to suffer R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1 lac i/d R.I. for one year on the first count, and R.I. for 5 years and fine of Rs. 50,000/- i/d R-I. for six months on the second count.The substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently, after giving set off under Section 428 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.This conviction and sentence is being impugned by present appeal.2. The story with which the prosecution approached the Court, in a nutshell, is as under :-Mr. Sanchis, Superintendent of Customs Department, Marine and Preventive Wing, received informa...

industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Veena T ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(2)BomCR348; [2001]104CompCas503(Bom)

D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. This is a notice of motion taken out by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs-ICICI Ltd. have filed the suit in their capacity as trustees of the debenture-holders for recovery of amounts that are due to the debenture-holders from the defendants. By this notice of motion, the plaintiffs seek appointment of the court receiver in relation to the securities.2. Learned counsel appearing for the defendants submits that this suit filed by the financial institution is not maintainable before this court in view of the provisions of section 18 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1995. Learned counsel submits that the amount for which a decree is claimed by the plaintiffs is the amount due to the bank and the decree is claimed by the plaintiffs in their own favour. Learned counsel submits that the amount that is claimed in the suit is a debt within the meaning of the Act due to the plaintiffs from the defendants. Therefore, the jurisdiction of this ...

Obedur Rehaman Shaikh Vs. Suresh J. Khade and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2001(90)FLR456]; (2002)IVLLJ918Bom

F.I. Rebello, J. 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. Heard forthwith.2. On consideration of the impugned order the learned Labour Court has proceeded on the footing that after the Award is published there is no power in the Labour Court to set aside the ex parte award.3. Rule 26(2) of the Rules framed in the State of Maharashtra under the Industrial Disputes Act, provides that, if within 30 days of the receipt of a copy thereof a party applies to set aside this Award, the Labour Court has jurisdiction to set aside such an Award, order or decision, if sufficient cause is made out. The said Rule reads as under:'26. Board, Court, Labour Court, Tribunal or Arbitrator may proceed ex parte. -(1) If without sufficient cause being shown, any party to a proceeding before a Board, Court, Labour Court, Tribunal or an Arbitrator fails to attend or to be represented the Board, Court, Labour Court, Tribunal or Arbitrator may proceed ex parte. (2) Where any award, order or decision is made ex parte u...

Air India Ltd. Vs. N.P. Wadkar

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(3)ALLMR755; 2001(3)BomCR420; [2001(90)FLR782]; (2001)ILLJ1150Bom

ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.1. The aircraft of the Petitioners Air India, appears to have landed on a wrong airport of full adjudication under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, instead of the approval proceedings under Section 33(1). The facts are very simple. The petitioners had filed an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for approval for its action taken against the Respondent workman on January 24, 1997. There is no dispute that the said approval application was simultaneously filed after the order of dismissal was passed and the Respondent-Workman was paid wages for one month as provided under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act. I may mention here that the petitioners are required to file such application underSection 33 of the Act as the industrial dispute pertaining to the conditions of service of the workmen employed by the Petitioners is pending adjudication before the National Industrial Tribunal since the last ...

Jamnadas G. Hundalani Vs. Asstt. Cit and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)87TTJ(Mumbai)268

ORDERM.A. Bakshi, V.P.We find it convenient to dispose of these two appeals of the assessee for assessment years 1990-91 and 1991-92 by this consolidated order. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused.2. One of the common issues involved in these appeals is relating to the computation of deduction under section 80HHC. The assessee had derived income from exports, interest on loans, hiring charges for surplus space and LIC commission. Deduction under section 80HHC was claimed on the entire income except LIC commission. Under section 80HHC(3) the profits derived from exports is to be worked out in proportion to the export turnover vis-a-vis total turnover. The assessee has taken the export turnover and the total turnover as same. In other words whereas income from sources other than exports is included in the profits, these items have not been taken into account for working out the total turnover. As a result of this, deduction has been claimed in respect of the entire profi...

M/S. Hari Leela Process House Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is an application for waiver of predeposit of penalty of Rs.29,50,000/- imposed by the Dy.Commissioner and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). Reason for imposition of penalty is delayed payment of duty by the applicants who are processing fabrics falling under Chapter 54 and 55 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 with the aid of Hot Air Stenter. Duty is to be paid as per Rule 96 ZQ(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 by 15th of every month, while duty has been paid beyond that date and the delay ranges from one day to 15 days during the period of dispute namely March to July 1999. Under the Rules penalty is also imposable, if an independent processor fails to pay the amount of duty or any part thereof by the date specified in Sub-rule (3) to Rule 96ZQ, namely 15th of each month and the Rules provide: (i) pay the penalty equal to an amount of duty outstanding from him or Rupees five thousand, whichever is greater.2. The adjudicating authority's order was appealed against...

M/S. Gr Engineering Works Ltd. and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The issue involved in this case relates to improper removal of modvat inputs (C S Pipes). The further issue relates to the non-receipt of inputs into the factory and direct movements to work site. There is a seizure of certain CS Pipes also which were subsequently released provisionally. The applicants stated that they have already deposited entire duty of Rs. 17,88,883/- together with interest and a sum of Rs.4,80,502/- towards the penalty imposed of amount equal to duty under Rule 571 (4). Therefore the present application is confined to waiver of predeposit and stay its recovery for penalty of Rs.75,000/-. On M/s.GR Engineering Works Ltd. under Rule 173Q (1). Applicant No.2 has been penalised by imposition of penalty of Rs.25,000/- as he is the Executive Director of applicant No.1.2. On hearing both sides and having regard to the payment of the entire duty amount together with the payment of 25% of the penalty, we are of the view that no further predeposit may be called for in t...

Shri Vinod Vithal Rane Vs. Shri R.H. Mendonca and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001BomCR(Cri)537; (2001)2BOMLR307; 2001(2)MhLj437

A. M. Khanwilkar, J.1. All these five writ petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seek to challenge the respective detention orders passed by Shri R. H. Mendonca, Commissioner of Police, Birhan Mumbai, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3(1) of Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Act 55 of 1981) with a view to prevent the detenus therein from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.2. That each of the detenu in the respective writ petition has been detained on the ground that he is a dangerous person of violent character and a weapon wielding desperado indulging in terrorizing activities. The grounds of detention served on each of the detenu mention that they were indulging In criminal activities and had created a reign of terror in the minds of public in the areas of Geetanagar and areas adjoining thereto wi...