Mumbai Court December 2001 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.
Nagdevi Kamgar Sabha Vs. Hiralal Maganlal and Company and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)BomCR459; [2002(93)FLR865]; 2002(1)MhLj834
V.C. Daga, J.1. The petitioner herein is a registered trade union complaining breach of the order dated 3rd August 1995 passed below Ex. C-2 by the Industrial Court at Bombay in Revision Application (ULP) No. 98/1995; whereunder the respondents therein had agreed to pay wages to the workmen from 4th August 1995 subject to the outcome of the revision. In lieu of this offer made, and accepted by Mr. Bhat, appearing for the respondents before the Industrial Court, a statement was made by the counsel appearing for the workers union that the workers shall not report for work. This Statement was taken on record by the Industrial Court. The same was also acted upon by the Court by admitting the revision petition for final hearing.2. The petitioner Union prayed for initiating action under the Contempt of Courts Act against respondent Nos. 1 to 3 for flouting the above order of the Industrial Court emanating from the statement made on behalf of the respondents, (which ultimately culminated in t...
Vijendra Manjunath Shenai Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-2001
Reported in: (2003)181CTR(Bom)423; [2003]260ITR176(Bom)
J.P. Devadhar, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. The respondents waive service. By consent, the petition is taken up for final hearing. Heard learned counsel on both sides. 2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated March 30, 2001, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the I. T. Act'), wherein two review petitions filed by the petitioner have been dismissed. 3. The assessment year relevant herein is the assessment year 1996-97. 4. During the course of search on January 6, 1995, the petitioner (assessee) admitted and surrendered to have received on money from 17 parties (for sale of shops/flats in a project called Barkha Project) amounting to Rs. 3.56 crores in the previous year 1994-95 relevant to the assessment year 1995-96. In thestatement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Income-tax Act, the petitioner admitted to have spent the above on money received in paying extra consideration for the acquisition...
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Rajendra Bhagwan Gand ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-2001
Reported in: 2002(3)ALLMR482; 2002(4)BomCR319
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The respondent was a conductor in the services of the petitioner and was appointed as such in December, 1994. The services of the respondent came to be terminated by an order dated 9th June, 1995. Prior thereto, a charge-sheet was issued on 2nd March, 1995 alleging that while proceeding from Madangad to Pevekond as a conductor on scheduled duty, the respondent had failed to issue a ticket despite the recovery of the fare from the passenger. Consequently, the respondent was charged with fraud, dishonesty or misappropriation in connection with the business or property of the undertaking.2. A disciplinary enquiry was held after which a show cause notice dated 2nd June, 1995 was issued to the respondent together with the enquiry report. The show cause notice called upon the respondent to submit his reply within a period of 72 hours, in accordance with the Discipline and Appeal Regulations of the Corporation. The respondent who was posted at the Depot at Dapodi furnis...
Shri Balasaheb Narayan Ingale and ors. Vs. Aran Bruhat Vividh Karyakar ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-2001
Reported in: 2002(3)ALLMR150; (2002)104BOMLR872
ORDERD.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents waive service. By consent, taken up for hearing and final disposal.2. In these proceedings, the petitioners have challenged an order passed by the Co-operative Appellate Court on 12th March, 2001. The short question which arises is as regards the period of time with reference to which, a Co-operative Society has to be regarded as a notified society within the meaning of Section 73-1C of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 for conducting elections. Elections to the Managing Committee of the First Respondent, which is a Co-operative Society registered under the Act were held on 14th February, 1996. The first meeting of the Managing Committee was held on 28th February, 1996. Consequently, it is common ground that the term of the Committee came to an end on 27th February, 2001 on or before which date elections to constitute a new Managing Committee were required t...
Veerchand Anna Valwade and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Bom197; 2002(1)ALLMR698; (2002)1BOMLR775
R. M. Lodha, J. 1. An interesting question which arises in this writ petition is whether once the land has been acquired for the purposes of resettlement of project affected persons from the holding of the land holder under the Land Acquisition Act and the Maharashtra Resettlement of Project Displaced Persons Act, 1976 is it open to the concerned authorities to further acquire the land from the holding of such land holder for resettlement of project affected persons of the same project. 2. The aforesaid question arises from the following facts and circumstances :--The petitioners were holding various pieces of agricultural land within village Kavathepiran, Taluka Miraj, District Sangli. Vide notification dated 30th November, 1982, provisions of the Maharashtra Resettlement of Project Displaced Persons Act, 1976 (for short 'Act of 1976') were made applicable to various villages in Sangli district including the village Kavathepiran where petitioners' holding is situated. In the said noti...
Regional Director, E.S.i.C. Vs. Golden Gate Restaurant
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-2001
Reported in: [2002(92)FLR1078]; (2002)ILLJ972Bom
ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.1. The Appellant is the Regional Director of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation, a statutory Corporation, established under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 for the benefits of the persons employed in the establishment covered by the said Act. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated December 20, 1996 passed by the Employees' Insurance Court, Mumbai in exercise of its powers under Section 75 of the Act in the two separate Applications filed by the Respondent-Restaurant to challenge the orders passed by the Appellant-Corporation for the recovery of the amounts mentioned in the impugned orders to the tune of Rs. 56,772.21 and Rs. 49,176.15 towards the contribution in respect of the employees employed by the employer for two different periods viz. January 1980 to October 1982 qua 37 persons and April 15, 1983 to August 1985 qua seven persons. 2. The facts are straight and, simple. The employer is a Restaurant catering to the needs of t...
Kohinoor Carpet Manufacturers Vs. Forbes Gokak Ltd. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-2001
Reported in: 2002(3)ALLMR796; 2002(4)BomCR295
F.I. Rebello, J.1. Plaintiffs are a registered partnership firm who have filed the present suit against defendant No. 1 as the shipping agent of the defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 2 is the shipping company incorporated under the laws of Norway having its office c/o. Sirachan Shipping Company, 390, World Trade Center, Norfolk, Virginia 23510, U.S.A. Defendant Nos. 2 are carrier of goods. On 30th August, 1990 plaintiffs sent six rolls of carpets for Am Pak Trading Company in container No. TRIU 403005-8 vide Bill of Lading No. HOLU 0404 ROM NF 010 per vessel 'HOEGH DRAKE' Trading Co. to U.S.A. The port of loading was at Bombay and the port of discharge was Norfolk. The goods were to be exported by the plaintiff through the agent of defendant No. 2 i.e. the first defendant. The consignment was to reach its destination on 27-9-1990 and was to be cleared at Norfolk by clearing agents of consignee namely M/s. Cavilior Shipping Co. Inc. The clearing agents were advised that the cargo would arr...
Tata Infotech Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-2001
Reported in: (2002)(81)ECC86
1. M/s. Tata Infotech Ltd. (TIL) are engaged in the business of development and export of computer software. One of their units is situated in the Noida Export Processing Zone (NEPZ). Units so situated are entitled to import capital goods and equipment without payment of duty provided the resultant products are exported on required value addition. The following machinery and equipment were so imported by TIL:- 2. Show Cause Notice dated 16.2.93 was issued to TIL alleging failure to comply with the terms of Notification 339/85 dated 21.11.85. It was alleged that the actual software exported was worth only Rs.6.9 crores.It was alleged that their claim of export of expertise in the form of consultancy charges amounting to Rs. 7.44 crores could not be taken as export earnings so as to qualify for the benefit of the said notification. It was alleged that such earnings were not authenticated by the Customs.3. M/s. TIL filed their reply. It was claimed that consultancy export was also to be ...
Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Vs. Silkon Silk Mills (Exp) Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-2001
Reported in: (2002)(81)ECC498
1. The Revenue has filed the above application in terms of Section 130(1) of the Customs Act for reference of the following questions of law purported to have arisen out of Tribunal's final order No.2528-29/96-WZB dated 31.7.1996:- (2) Whether the provisions of Foreign Trade (Development and Regulations) Act, 1992 as stated in para 1 above and that of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, 1973 as stated in para 2 above should be considered as restrictions imposed by or under any other law for the time being in force; (3) Whether the provisions of customs Act, 1962 as mentioned in para 3 above should be considered as restriction imposed by/or under the Customs Act; (4) If the provisions as mentioned in para 1, 2 & 3 above are considered restrictions, whether any export contrary to these restrictions will be considered as export contrary to prohibition imposed by or under the Customs Act, 1962 or any other law for the time being in force and hence the goods would be liable to confis...
Corn Products Company (India) Ltd., Mumbai and anr. Vs. State of Mahar ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)MhLj39
V.M. Kanade, J.1. Heard counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.2. The brief facts, giving rise to the present petitions, are as under.3. The petitioner No. 1 is a Company registered under the provisions of Indian Companies Act, 1913 and is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of food products inter alia soft drink concentrate. The petitioner No. 2 was at the relevant time the Manager, Quality Control and Development of petitioner No. 1 company.4. The petitioner No. 1 Company was the manufacturer of one of its consumer food products by name 'TRINKA' which was a soft drink concentrate, The petitioner No. 1 company had entered into an agreement with the respondent No. 11 Company for bottling the said 'TRINKA' soft drink concentrate and thus the petitioner No. 1 Company used to supply bulk quantity of the said concentrate to the respondent No. 1 and, thereafter, the said concentrate was bottled by the respondent No. 11 Company and the same used to be supplied to various dis...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »