Mumbai Court June 2001 Judgments

income Tax Officer Vs. Chem Mech (P) Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)83ITD427(Mum.)

1. These appeals of the Department and the cross-appeals of the assessee have been directed against the orders of the CIT(A)-XXXVI, Mumbai, dt. 22nd March, 1999, for the asst: yrs. 1989-90 and 1993-94.We are disposing of all these appeals with one consolidated order as the issues involved are identical, for the sake of convenience and brevity. The common grounds of appeal for both the assessment years taken up by the Department reads as follows : "(i) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in directing the AO for not including the sum of Rs. 3,32,500 while arriving at the ALV for the purpose of computing the income from house property. (ii) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that ALV of the extended additional property is Rs. 27,02,458 and not Rs. 23,69,958." The common grounds of appeal taken up by the assessee for both the assessment years are as follows : "(i) On the fac...

The State of Maharashtra Vs. Sayyed MohsIn Sayyed Hassan and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)1354; (2001)3BOMLR764

Dr. Pratibha Upasani, J. 1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the Appellant/State under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 26th November, 1985 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No. 677 of 1983.2. By the impugned Judgment and Order, learned Additional Sessions Judge. Greater Bombay had acquitted all the seven accused of the charges levelled against them under Sections 143. 148 r/w 149, 323 r/w 149, 394 r/w 149 and 506(ii) r /w 149 of the Indian Penal Code.3. It has to be pointed out that the present Criminal Appeal filed by the State was directed only against the acquittal of original accused Nos. 1 and 5 i.e., Sayyed Mohsin Sayyed Hassan and Prakash PandharinathJoshi, who are Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively, to the present Criminal Appeal. It also has to be stated that all the other remaining accused namely accused No. 2 Anthony Veerswamy John @ Kalya Anthony, accused No. 3...

Crest Communications Ltd. and ors. Vs. Sheetal Shenoy

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(3)ALLMR612; (2001)4BOMLR339; [2001(90)FLR1039]; 2001(4)MhLj919

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order passed by the Industrial Court, Maharashtra, Mumbai, dated 30th March, 1998 in Complaint (U.L.P.) No. 107/98.2. The Respondent herein filed the aforesaid complaint before the Industrial Court for a declaration that the Petitioner herein have engaged and are engaging in unfair labour practices under Item Nos. 3, 9 and 10 of Schedule 4 of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity). The Respondent further prayed for a direction against the Petitioners to cease and desist from continuing to engage in unfair labour practices referred to above. The main ground on which the Respondent approached the Industrial Court, by way of complaint under the said Act, was that, when she had joined the services of the Petitioner Company, there was no agreement between the Respo...

Bapu Dhopndi Devkar Vs. Tukaram Sakharam Nagaonkar

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)BomCR772; (2001)4BOMLR336; 2001(4)MhLj401

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This writ petition under article 227 takes exception to the order dated 20.6.1995 passed by the 4th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kolhapur below Ex.52 (Review Application) in Suit No. 794 of 1992. The petitioner also challenges the original order passed by the Trial Court dated 5.6.1995 in application below Ex. 48 filed by the petitioner praying that disputed documents be sent to the General Manager. Indian Security Press for expert opinion.2. The petitioner has filed suit before the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division. Kolhapur bearing RC Suit No. 794 of 1992 for relief of possession of the suit property. The petitioner's case in the said suit is that the plot in question has been allotted to the petitioner by the Government in the year 1986 and thereafter the petitioner constructed residential house in the suit property and inducted respondent as licensee. This suit is resisted by respondent by filing written statement. The stand taken by the respondent ...

Gulabben Wd/O Chimanlal Maniar and ors. Vs. Narendra Balchandra and or ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)BomCR751; (2002)4BOMLR540; 2002(4)MhLj313

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This Writ Petition under Article 227 takes exception to the order dated 14.11.1995 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Bombay in Int. Notice No. 1975 of 1995 in R.A.E. & R. Suit No. 4628 of 1972.2. The petitioners have filed the above suit in the Court of Small Causesat Bombay praying for possession of the suit premises from the defendantsor any other person(s) claiming through or under them. According to thepetitioners one Pragji Vallabhadas Ukeda was the tenant in respect of theentire ground floor in the property owned by the petitioners known as'Chudawalla Bungalow' bearing Municipal Ward No. P - 6819 House No.121 on Daftarl Road. Malad (East), Bombay-64. The said Pragji died on orabout 3.9.1971 in the house of his sister defendant No. 1 KrishnabaiVithaldas. The petitioners claim that defendant No. 2 is the widow ofBhalchandra and defendants 3 and 4 are the sons of Bhalchandra whowere in possession of the suit premises after the death of said Pragji. Thepl...

Shabbir Sharafally Harianawalla and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)ALLMR734; 2001(4)BomCR796

D. Y. Chandrachud. J.1. In these proceedings, the petitioners seek to challenge proceedings for acquisition initiated under Section 91(3) of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act. 1976 in respect of property situated at 51-53, Keshavrao Khade Marg, Mumbai - 400 011. The property in question is stated to have been purchased by the First and Second Petitioners and their deceased brother In a public auction held by the Municipal Corporation for Greater Bombay on 15th September. 1970 under the provisions of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. A certificate of sale dated 14th January. 1971 was issued to the Petitioners which was then registered with the Sub-Registrar of Assurances. The brother of the First and Second Petitioners expired on 15th September. 1992 and the Third Petitioner is his widow.2. Prior to September, 1976, the property comprised of a ground floor and three upper floors. The upper floors and a portion of the ground floor were being used for residential ...

Avni Dyechem Industries Vs. Commissioner of Customs Acc,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(137)ELT1316Tri(Mum.)bai

2. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether duty could be demanded from the appellant before us by seeking to revoke the benefit of exemption contained in notification 203/92 which was extended on their importation. The show cause notice issued to the appellant alleges that modvat credit had been taken of the duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of exported goods thus contravening the condition contained in clause v (a) to notification 203/92. The notice invoked the expended period contained in the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 27 of the Act on the ground that the exporter had made a wrong declaration on the shipping bill that modvat credit has bene availed of.3. Counsel for the appellant contends that the issue is covered by the ratio of the Tribunal in Plastchen Industries Vs. CCE 2000 (120) ELT 775. In that decision the Tribunal has concluded that it was open to the department, when the import took place to ask the importer to satisfy that modvat ...

ideal Sheet Metal Stampings and Vs. Commissioner of Customs,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(133)ELT807Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal is taken up for disposal with consent of both sides after waiving deposit.2. The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification of "regrind polycarbonate" imported by the appellant. In its earlier order relating to identical goods imported by the same appellants (appeal C/1023/00), the Tribunal had held that the regrind polycarbonate would be correctly classified under heading 3907.40 of the Customs tariff, and accordingly, heading 390740 00 of the import policy. It had noted that, by application of the provision of note 7 to the chapter, heading 3915 which is for waste, parings and scrap of plastics would not apply to such waste, parings and scrap of a single thermoplastic material transformed into primary forms, further nothing that this provision was based upon the Explanatory Notes to the Harmonised System of the World Customs Organisation. Since the goods in question were made entirely of polycarbonate which is a single thermoplastic material and we...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Milton Plastics Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(147)ELT689Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Application 479 and 480 taken on record with consent of counsel for the respondents. There being no objection from the counsel for the respondent, the miscellaneous application for amending the ground of the stay application and adding to the grounds of appeal are allowed.2. The Commissioner (Appeals) had held in his order that the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 11B of the Act requiring evidence that the incidence of duty had not been transferred to any other duty would not apply to the refund which he found admissible to the applicant for the reason that the refund arose as a result of finalisation of provisional assessment.3. The challenge to this conclusion is one the ground that there was no formal order issued under Rule 9B and therefore the assessment were not provisional. The respondent filed a classification list in 1996, claiming that no duty was payable in terms of exemption notification.This was modified by the Asst. Commissioner without giving and opportunity ...

Vishnu Dyeing and Printing Works Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal is taken up for disposal with consent of both sides after waiving deposit.2. The appeal is against the order of the Joint Commissioner of Central Excise, holding that the appellant was liable to pay duty in terms on goods cleared by it in 1996, 1997 and end of May 1998 in terms of a notice issued on 10.9.99. The notice invoked the extended period under proviso (1) of Section 11A of the Act, alleging suppression of the cost of the grey fabrics that the appellant processed. It was the contention before the Commissioner (Appeals) that the extended period was not available to the department since there was no suppression by the manufacturer of the cost of the grey fabrics by him, which the department found undervalued. The Commissioner accepted this claim. In paragraph 10 of his order he says "Nothing has been brought on record where by the charge of suppression or misdeclaration can be fastened to Ms. (VDPW)". He also says that the merchant/trader i.e. the person who suppli...