Mumbai Court December 2001 Judgments
Niraj S/O Janardhan Kherde Vs. Member, Maharashtra Administrative Trib ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-21-2001
Reported in: 2002(3)ALLMR841; 2002(3)BomCR673; 2002(2)MhLj253
H.L. Gohale, J.1. This petition is filed by a person, who was initially selected as Police Patil on 14th March, 2000, for a period of five years, but whose appointment came to be subsequently cancelled on 19-8-2000. The petitioner challenged that decision in the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal but, that proceeding was dismissed on 7-3-2001. In place of the petitioner, respondent No. 5 came to be appointed, by an order dated 1st of March, 2001. The petition seeks to challenge the orders dated 19-8-2000, 1st of March, 2001 and the order dated 7-3-2001 by M.A.T. and seeks consequential reliefs.2. When this matter came up earlier, some interim orders were passed from time to time, which will be subsequently referred. This is however, a matter which will have to be heard finally at the admission stage itself and accordingly,it is being heard and disposed of. The respondents have already filed their reply. Accordingly, Rule returnable forthwith and heard by consent of the parties. The re...
Tag this Judgment!income Tax Officer (T.D.S.), Nagpur Vs. Sultan Enterprises, Chandrapur ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-21-2001
Reported in: 2002BomCR(Cri)401; [2002]256ITR185(Bom); 2002(2)MhLj368
J.N. Patel, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The applicant is the original complainant who filed complaint against the respondents for having committed offence under Section 276B read with Section 278-B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which has been registered as Regular Criminal Case No. 146/1992. The respondents moved the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandrapur seeking their discharge from it, and by order dated 8-2-1999 the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, arrived at a finding that there is no ground for proceedings against the accused as they have not committed any offence, on the ground that the respondents have already been saddled with penalty under Section 221(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, and therefore they cannot be prosecuted again on the same facts, for having committed offence under Section 276-B of the Income Tax Act, oh the application of principle of Double Jeopardy, as defined under Section 300 of Criminal Procedure Code. Secondly, the respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Uttam Manohar Nakate Vs. Bharat Forge Company Ltd., Pune and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-21-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)ALLMR329; 2002(1)BomCR401; [2002(93)FLR293]; 2002(2)MhLj395
1. The learned Single Judge, by his judgment dated 9th February, 1995, affirmed the judgment of the Industrial Court dated 12th June, 1987, whereby the appellant's dismissal .from service was held to be proper. In this Letters Patent Appeal, the said judgment of the learned Single Judge is under challenge. 2. For the sake of brevity and convenience, we shall refer to the appellant as "employee" and the first respondent as "employer". The employee who was working as a helper in the service of the employer, at about 11.40 a.m., on 26th August, 1983, in the first shift, was found lying fast asleep, on an iron plate in the corner of the department. The security officer of the security department, then, had to shake him vigorously to wake him up from his slumber. On the next date, i.e. 27th August, 1983, the employee was chargesheeted for the misconduct of an act subversive of discipline within the meaning of Standing Order 24(1). The enquiry officer was appointed and he proceeded with enqu...
Tag this Judgment!Gandhi Sons Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-21-2001
Reported in: 2002(3)ALLMR187; 2002(81)ECC261; 2002(3)MhLj239
J.P. Devadhar, J. 1. Since the issues raised in these petitions are common, the same are disposed of by a common Judgment.2. For the sake convenience, we have taken the facts in writ petition No. 2961 of 1987 while deciding the issues raised in these petitions.3. The petitioner inter alia carries on business as exporter of spices. To encourage exports the Government has been announcing various schemes such as cash compensatory support (C.C.S.), duty drawback, etc.4. On 30-6-1986, the Spices Export Promotion Council issued a circular to all registered exporters announcing revised rate of C.C.S. for the exports made on or after 1-7-1986 upto 31-1-1989. Under the said circular, the rate of C.C.S. for export of spices was 10% 'for consumer packs under specified brand names' and 5% 'for all others in consumer packs.' It was clarified in the circular that while the Government intends to keep the above rates stable for the above period, the Government reserves the right to withdraw/alter them...
Tag this Judgment!Manmala Exhibitors Vs. M.C. Joshi, Commissioner of Income Tax, Central ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-21-2001
Reported in: 2002(3)MhLj373
J.P. Devadhar, J.1. By this Petition, the petitioner challenges the order of C.I.T. passed under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the I. T. Act'). By the said order, the C.I.T. his dismissed the RevisionApplication filed by the assessee both on the ground of maintainability as well as on merits.2. We propose to take up the issue of maintainability of Revision Petition first.For the assessment year 1996-97 the return of income was filed on 30-10-1996 disclosing capital gains at Rs. 4,78,19,737/- by taking book value as the cost of acquisition of the asset at Rs. 31,50,000/-. A revised computation of income was filed and on 12-1-1999 assessment order was passed accepting the revised computation of income.3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the assessee filed an Appeal before C.I.T. (A), inter alia, raising a plea that the assessee is entitled to substitute book value of asset by indexed value of the asset as per Section 48 of the I.T. Act and the A. O. was wron...
Tag this Judgment!Manmala Exhibitors Vs. Joshi (M.C.), Commissioner of Income-tax and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-21-2001
Reported in: [2002]257ITR563(Bom)
J.P. Devadhar, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax, passed under Section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the I. T. Act'). By the said order, the Commissioner of Income-tax has dismissed the revision application filed by the assessee both on the ground of maintainability as well as on the merits.2. We propose to take up the issue of maintainability of the revision petition first. 3. For the assessment year 1996-97, the return of income was filed on October 30, 1996, disclosing capital gains at Rs. 4,78,19,737 by taking the book value as the cost of acquisition of the asset at Rs. 31,50,000. A revised computation of income was filed and on January 12, 1999, assessment order was passed accepting the revised computation of income.4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), inter alia, raising a plea that the assessee is entitled to substitute the...
Tag this Judgment!Bhavesh Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector of Customs
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-21-2001
Reported in: 2002(144)ELT50(Bom)
V.C. Daga, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the rival parties.CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS 2. The petitioners arc a private limited company. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the officers of the Customs Department working under the Control of respondent No. 4, the Union of India. The respondent No. 3 is a nationalised bank wholly owned and controlled by the Government of India ('Bank' for short).3. The petition is directed against the action taken by the Assistant Collector of Customs (Central Intelligence Unit) Bombay, the respondent No. 1, directing the Bank vide his letter dated 17th March, 1983 not to allow M/s. Bharat Export Corporation, Bombay and/or M/s. Bhavesh Exports Pvt. Ltd., Bombay (the petitioners) to withdraw any amount lying in the credit of their bank account with them on the assumption that the amount lying in the account of the petitioners represents the sale proceeds of the goods imported by their alleged sister concern M/s. Bharat Export Corporation under D.E.E.C. Scheme ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: I.C.i.C.i. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-21-2001
Reported in: 2002(4)BomCR403; [2003]115CompCas465(Bom)
D. G. Karnik, J.1. ICICI Ltd. (hereinafter called the 'transferor-company') which is the applicant herein has proposed a scheme of arrangement by way of amalgamation/merger into ICICI Bank Ltd. (hereinafter called as the 'transferee-company').2. By this petition under Section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956, the applicant seeks a direction to convene a meeting of the equity shareholders of the applicant-company. No direction is sought to convene a meeting of the creditors or any class of the creditors of the applicant-company. It was contended that merger of a company with another involves only an arrangement between the company and its members and as such it is not necessary to order convening of a meeting of the creditors or any class of them and it is not necessary to obtain their consent for the proposed amalgamation. 3. There are three types of arrangements which are common, namely, (i) An arrangement between a company and its members ; (ii) An arrangement between a company and its...
Tag this Judgment!Wasudeo Anandrao Deshmukh and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra Through Co ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-21-2001
Reported in: 2002(3)ALLMR198; 2002(5)BomCR284
P.S. Brahme, J.1. Rule returnable early. Heard finally with consent of the Counsel for the parties.2. All these revision applications are heard together since they are arising out of common controversy of ownership and possession of temple premises on Sheet No. 10, City Survey No. 11/1991 situated within the municipal limits of Tahsil Katol, District : Nagpur. As such these revision applications are being disposed of by this common judgment.3. In order to understand the controversy involved in this matter, it is necessary to state first the factual position that emerges from the pleadings of the parties in Special Civil Suit No. 511/2000 pending on the file of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur. Applicants claim to be the owners of the temple premises in which their family deity is installed. Admittedly, this temple is known to the residents of Katol and also registered in the Revenue Records and in the Maharashtra State Gazetteer and Central Provinces District Gazetteer as 'Chandika...
Tag this Judgment!Aqnelo Alias Robert Fernandes and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-21-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ3007
P.V. Hardas, J.1. The appeal is filed by the appellants challenging their conviction for offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(a), 342, and 354 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default 6 months simple imprisonment, rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default 1 month simple imprisonment and rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-in default 1 month simple imprisonment. The appellants have also been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and are sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default 1 month simple imprisonment. The aforesaid conviction and sentence has been passed on the appellants by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Panaji, in Sessions Case No. 16 of 1996, vide judgment dated 15th November 2000.2. P.W. 18 Bosco George then P.S.I., received a wireless message on 1st August 1995, from the casualty dep...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »