Mumbai Court February 2001 Judgments

Kiran Madhukar Saoji and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(3)ALLMR198; (2002)104BOMLR16

S.K. Shah, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the parties.2. The Petitioners have filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the Order passed by the Respondent No. 1 on 9.3.2000 dismissing the Petitioners' appeal against the Order of the Additional Registrar, Co-operative Society (Administration), Maharashtra Stale, Pune dated 23.6.1999 whereby the Additional Registrar held the petitioners to be disqualified from becoming the members of the Managing Committee of the Respondent Co-operative Society.3. The briefly stated facts leading to this writ petition are as under:Nagrik Sahakari Rugnalaya and Research Centre Ltd., is a Co-operative Society duly registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 having registration No. NGP/GNL-26/1970, situated at North Ambazari Road, Nagpur. The Petitioners are the Doctors by Profession and are practising at Nagpur having their own in...

Mastan TIn Works Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The question in the appeal is essentially, whether the date on which the assessee pays an amount into a bank with the T.R.6 challan is the date on which his personal ledger account is deemed to be credied with this amount,, or it is the date on which the T.R.6 challan, is receipted by the bank after the cheque is realised, should be construed to be credit.3. Having regard to the facts involved, I waive deposit of the penalty imposed of Rs 16,000/- and interest demanded of Rs 1347/-, and stay their recovery.4. The appeal prima facie can be decided on this simple issue and it is listed for hearing on 30.3.2001....

D.H. Patkar and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Customs (G)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT651Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Application No. C-MA (EH)31/2001-Mum. filed by International Shipping Agency is for early hearing of the appeal. The ground made is that the facts are akin to another appeal filed by another CHA (C/710/2000-Mum. D.H. Patkar & Co.) which appeal is posted for final hearing today. On verifying that the facts are akin we allow this application and take up the appeal No. C/34/2000-Mum. for final disposal along with Appeal No. C/710/2000-Mum.2. We have heard Shri S.P. Mathew, Advocate, for both the appellants and have heard Shri A.K. Jain, ld. DR.The Joint Commissioner of Customs in his order dated 7-4-2000 dealt with a case of undervaluation by M/s. Internate Impex. The consignments were handled by M/s. D.H. Patkar, CHA, the appellants in the present case. The Joint Commissioner confirmed the differential duty. However no penalty was imposed under this order, another adjudication order having been passed. The Joint Commissioner directed a report to be made to the concerned Customs O...

Shri Ganesh Chandra Ghosh and Shri Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(75)ECC795

1. Vide order no. C-II/3261-3262/99/WRB dated 25.11.99 Shri Ganesh Chandra Ghosh was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/- and Shri Gautam Ghosh was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as pre-condition to hearing of their appeals. Today Shri M.H. Patil, advocate reports and shows that compliance has bene made with the stay order. He also submits that the issue in this case having been settled by both the benches of the CEGAT in Mumbai, the appeals themselves could be taken up for disposal. This was done.2. In the order in original no. 29/1998 dated 15.6.1998, the Commissioner, Central Excise, Mumbai III had held that the three units of the company Spacetech Equipments and Structural Pvt. Ltd. were not independent entities but that they should be clubbed together.Consequently, the demand of duty amounting to Rs. 32,58,476/- was confirmed and penalty of Rs. 32 lakhs was imposed on the company. Shri G.C. Ghosh was the Managing Director. He was penalised to the extent of Rs. 1...

B.K. Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the appeal was entitled to take modvat credit of the duty paid on wire mesh and foil used by the appellant in the manufacture of paper.2. In its decision in Union Carbide India Ltd. vs. CCE 1996 (86) ELT 613, the larger bench of the Tribunal has held that these items, used as parts of machines or machinery for manufacture of paper are eligible inputs.3. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order set aside.Consequential relief according to law....

Babasaheb Yeshwant Anandrao Patil Vs. Smt. Manjulabai Balwant Gaikwad

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(2)ALLMR574; 2001(3)BomCR245; (2001)2BOMLR417; 2001(2)MhLj945

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution, takes exception to the order passed by the 4th Joint Civil Judge, S. D. Kolhapur dated 4.11.1993 below Ex. 67 in Misc. Civ. Appln. No. 217 of 1986.2. The said application was moved by the respondent No. 1 herein, Sow. Vimal Babasab Killedar, being legal heir and representative of Smt. Manjulabai w/o Balwant Gaikwad, for impleading her in the main petition (Ex.1) as the legal heir of the opponent No. 1 therein, viz. deceased Manjulabai Balwant Gaikwad, who had expired during the pendency of the main proceedings. The main proceedings, are stated to be still pending before the Civil Judge, S.D., Kolhapur, being M.C.A. No. 217 of 1986, Instituted by the present petitioner, claiming for probate under section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, being the legatee under the Will dated 23.10.1985 executed by Nanibai the second wife of deceased Balwant Gaikwad. The main petition was contested by Manjulabai, the first wife ...

Shri Vasant Mahadev Pandit and anr. Vs. Zaibunnisa Abdul Sattr Dhuru a ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(2)ALLMR289; 2001(2)BomCR616; (2001)2BOMLR437; 2001(3)MhLj118

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Both these writ petitions are directed against the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Thane dated 2.9.1993 In Civil Appeal No. 294 of 1989.2. Both these writ petitions can be disposed of by a common judgment as they relate to the same suit property between the same parties arising from the suit instituted by the respondent No. 1.3. Briefly stated, the respondent No. 1 herein filed suit against (1) Vasant Mahadev Pandit - Petitioner No. 1 in W.P.No. 4171 of 1993: (2) Laxman Mahadev Pandit - brother of Vasant Pandit and husband of Sunanda Pandit - petitioner No. 2 in Writ Petition No. 4171 of 1993: and (3) V. R. Salvi father of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4195 of 1993. The said suit was filed before the Civil Judge. S. D.. Pune being R. C. Suit No. 759 of 1977 for possession of the suit property bearing Tika No. 3 City Survey No- 243, Mahagiri. Thane. The gravamen of the ground in the said suit was that the suit premises were let out to Vasant Pandit...

Bank of Baroda Vs. Virsen Santhram Pradhan and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(2)ALLMR645; 2001(2)BomCR606; (2001)2BOMLR513; [2001(90)FLR401]; (2001)IILLJ733Bom

1. From the impugned award of the Industrial Tribunal in a pending Reference dated 28.9.1994 the present two writ petitions. Writ Petition No. 377 of 1995 has been filed by the Employer.'lt is contended therein, that Part-1 Award to the extent it has held that the denial of representation by lawyer to the workman vitiates the enquiry, is liable to be quashed and set aside.2. Writ Petition No. 2062 of 1996 is by the workman contending that even if this Court comes to the conclusion if the findings based on which Part-1 of the Award is liable to be set aside for the reasons given in the order, nonetheless the findings on the other contentions which were raised before the Industrial Tribunal and answered against the workman are perverse. This must result in holding that the enquiry conducted was conducted against the principles of natural justice and fair play, as such the award as made is not liable to be set aside.Whether a petition against a mere finding is maintainable is debatable. H...

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai City - Vi Vs. M/S. Echjay Forgi ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)166CTR(Bom)100; [2001]251ITR15(Bom)

S. H. Kapadia. J. 1. Being aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal dated 4th August, 1999, the Department has filed this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act.2. The short question which arises for consideration before this Court in the above appeal is as follows :'Whether on the fads and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal erred in law in holding that the provisions made for doubtful debts, bonus, gratuity, wealth tax liability and Foreign Exchange rate difference could not be added to the net profit shown in the profit and loss account within the meaning of Explanation to section 115J(1A) while working out the book profit under Section 115J of the 1A Act, 1961?'FACTS : 3. The assessee Company filed its return on 31.12.1990 for the assessment year 1990-91 declaring total loss of Rs. 32.34 lacs. The business of the assessee is to manufacture steel forgings. The AO disallowed the deductions claimed by the assessee on account of payment of wealth tax. He also disall...

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai City-ii Vs. M/S. Veekaylal Inve ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)166CTR(Bom)96; [2001]249ITR597(Bom)

S. H. Kapadia. J. 1. 1. Being aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal, the Department has filed this appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act.2. The substantial question of law which arises for determination is as follows:(a) Whether the income from capital gains should be included for the purposes of computing book profits under section 115J of the Income Tax Act?3. The above appeals raise common question of law. Hence, they are disposed of by this Judgment, For the sake of convenience, we arc relying Upon facts in Income Tax Appeal No. 27 of 2000. FACTS :4. The asscssee M/s. Veekaylal Investments Co. Pvt. Ltd. filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 1989-90 declaring a net less of Rs. 29.120. During the previous year relevant to the above Assessment Year 1989-90. the asscssee sold part of the land admeasuring 36,693 sq. yards to Manish Builders, Bacchubhai Parekh and S. N. Apte and others, in the return of income, the assessee treated the income derived from the a...