Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (2003)180CTR(Bom)319; [2003]259ITR391(Bom)
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. Two questions of law have been referred to us under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the assessee arising in the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78, which are as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the final dividend income accrued to the assessee on the date of declaration even though the Reserve Bank of India had not granted permission under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 ? Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee, a non-resident company, can be assessed on the basis that the accounts are maintained on cash basis ?' Facts :2. The assessed-Pfizer Corporation, is a non-resident company. The assessee is a shareholder in its Indian subsidiary--Pfizer Limited--a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, and assessed to tax in Company Circle No. V, Bombay. In this case, we are concerned with the assessment year 1976-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2003(2)ALLMR608
F.T. Rebello, J.1. The questions for determination in thisappeal form order arise from two agreements. Thefirst agreement was between the appellant and theRespondent No. 1 dated 9.11.2000 and the arbitralagreement dated 9th December, 2000. The secondagreement is dated 18.1.2001 between the Petitionerand Respondent No. 2. Both the agreements containarbitral clauses. In the agreement betweenappellant and Respondent No. 1 the arbitralclauses reads as under:'All disputes arisen in connection withthis agreement shall be referred to arbitration.The arbitrator shall be appointed by the courts ofU.K. Hearing shall take place in london. Thisagreement shall be governed by U.K. 'law'.In so far as agreement dated 18.1.2001between Appellant and Respondent No. 2 isconcerned, the arbitral clause is contained inClauses 13 and 15 and they read as under:'13. If at any time any dispute or questionshall arise between the parties to this Agreementin connection with this Agreement or its validityconstructio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2003(3)MhLj861
C.K. Thakker, C.J. 1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Industrial Court, Nagpur on April 5, 2002 passed in Revision (ULP) No. 333 of 2001, the petitioner has approached this Court. 2. The petitioner was appointed with the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation ('MSRTC' for short) as a conductor. It is the assertion of the petitioner that he was discharging his duties diligently and honestly. His bus was checked on April 3, 1998 and out of 24-1/2 passengers, 9 passengers were found without tickets. An inquiry was instituted against the petitioner wherein it was found that the petitioner had not issued tickets to those passengers. Holding the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him, he was dismissed from service by the Corporation. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the petitioner approached the First Labour Court at Nagpur by filing Complaint (ULP) No. 711 of 1998. The Labour Court, vide its order dated October 3, 2001, held th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2003(1)ALLMR1030; 2003(4)BomCR322
F.I. Rebello, J.Heard forthwith. 1. Petitioners have invoked provisions of section 11 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 and have sought reliefs that a third arbitrator be appointed considering provisions of the Arbitration Act and the agreement between the parties and pending hearing final disposal of the application to direct respondent No. 1 not to proceed further by granting injunction to that effect. A few facts may be noted which will be relevant for the purpose of resolving the controversy in issue. The arbitral Clause in the agreement between the parties reads as under: 'If any dispute arises between I.E.I. and P.P.C.I. each one shall continue the performance of its obligation without hampering the work and shall make reference to the arbitration of such disputes as cannot be mutually resolved. Both the parties will nominate/appoint one arbitrator each and an umpire to be appointed by the two arbitrators, where one party shall fail to appoint an arbitrator, after due notic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR2003Bom228; 2003(1)ALLMR1013; 2003(3)BomCR299; [2003]43SCL486(Bom)
F.I. Rebello, J.1. At the threshold it was contended on behalf of the Respondent company that petition for review considering Order 47 was not maintainable. In so far as power of review is concerned, it is now a settled proposition of law that the power to review must be conferred for exercising the power of review. The company court while exercising jurisdiction under the Companies Act does not cease to be civil court. The rules framed under the Companies Act, will be applicable to company proceedings. In the absence of any specific rule, procedure provided under the Code of Civil Procedure would be applicable. In the instant case, Order 47 is power of the Civil Court and in those circumstances, the High Court functioning as a company court, but nonetheless a Civil Court has the power of review.2. The only question which remains to be answered is whether the power of review can be exercised at the instance of the party who was not a party to the proceedings. This is the argument which...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Mumbai
Reported in : IV(2004)BC238
1. This Misc. Appeal is filed by the appellants/original defendant Nos.1 to 4 being aggrieved by the order dated 20.8.2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur on Interlocutory Application No. 387/2002 in Original Application No.203/2001. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer dismissed stay application made by the appellants for staying proceedings in Original Application till final decision is taken by the B.I.F.R. in case No. 160/2002. Applicant Bank, namely Canara Bank had filed Spl. Civil Suit No. 574/1998 in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Nagpur against the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 for recovery of Rs. 10,57,41,633/-. The defendant Nos. 5 and 6 were proforma parties. Some how, the case was kept dragging in the Civil Court till the year 1999. No written statement was filed by the defendants, Thereafter on the passing of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred as the 'Act') and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Mumbai
Reported in : IV(2004)BC203
1. This Misc. appeal is filed by the appellants/original defendant Nos.1 and 2 being aggrieved by the order dated 5.8.2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur on interlocutory application No. 421 of 2002 in Original Application No.266 of 2001. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer rejected the application made by the appellants for stay of the proceedings in the DRT till final decision of the Complaint Case No. 41 of 1996 pending before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai with exemplary costs of Rs. 2500/- payable to the applicant Bank by each appellants i.e. defendants Nos. 1 and 2 by way of demand draft on or before 19.8.2002.2. I have heard Mr. Deo for the appellants and Mr. Bhagwat for the respondent No. 1 Bank. I have also perused the proceedings. The respondent No. 1 namely the Sangli Bank had filed Special Civil Suit No. 30 of 1999 against the appellants and two more, in the Court of Civil Judge (SD), Am...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2003)(3)SLJ370CAT
1. This is an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for direction to the respondents to regularise the services of the applicants by taking into account the vacancies of all the Military Firms in Southern Command and by following common seniority lift and to restrain the respondents from terminating their services.2. By amendment of the O.A. the applicants have further sought the declaration that proposed action of the respondents in terminating the services of the applicants in pursuance of the order dated 15.12.2001 being illegal be quashed and respondents be restrained from terminating the services of the applicants as per order dated 15.12.2001.3. By a further amendment the declaration is sought is that proposed termination of services of the applicants and offer of job basis work being illegal be quashed and applicants have acquired temporary status.4. The applicants claimed that Applicant No. 1 Om Prakash Yadav, Applicant No. 2 Shiv Bhushan Yadav...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2003)(161)ELT457Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 54,55,922/- confirmed and penalty of equal amount imposed upon the applicants herein for the reason that the product Tetmosol Soap manufactured and cleared by them during the period Septembers, 1998 to September, 1999 falls for classification under Chapter sub-heading 3401.19 of CETA, and not under Chapter sub-heading 3401.11 as a medicated soap, as claimed by the applicants.2. On hearing both sides and noting that it is not in dispute that Tetmosol soap is a medicated soap use for the treatment of the skin infection "scabies", and also noting that the method of usage is only at the time of bathing, we see prima facie force in the submission of the applicant that the more appropriate classification is under sub-heading 3401.11 as claimed by them. We also note that the Commissioner has noted from the package/literature of Tetmosol soap that 'it should not be used by patients who have previously reacted badly in any way ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2003(2)ALD(Cri)72; 2003BomCR(Cri)1698; 2003CriLJ1496
D.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard Mr. Dhote, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Appellant-State.2. The Criminal Appeal is filed by the State against the judgment and Order of acquittal, dated 9-2-1990, passed by the Sessions Judge, Buldana, in Sessions Trial No. 104 of 1988, whereby the present respondent is acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Mr. Dhote, the learned APP for the appellant, contended that in the instant case the prosecution has examined in all fourteen witnesses in order to prove the offences charged against the respondent. It is contended that out of these witnesses, evidence of Samadhan (PW. 5), father of deceased Shashikala, Digambar (PW. 8), Bhagwat (PW. 9) and Kasturabai (PW. 10) is relevant to unfold the material particulars of the prosecution case in respect of the offence of murder as well as dowry death and cruelty committed on the deceased by the respondent-accused. Mr. Dhote states that the evid...
Tag this Judgment!