Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2003(2)ALLMR642
Gokhale, J.1. These petitions are filed to protect theinterest of the employees working either under theMarathwada Development Corporation and/orcompanies/units which are subsidiary to thisCorporation. The last of these petitions (WritPetition No. 5783 of 1999) is filed by oneMarathwada Janata Wikas Parishad, a voluntaryorganisation, registered under the SocietiesRegistration Act, 1860. The purpose of thispetition is also same as that of the earlierpetitions.2. All these petitions apprehend theclosure of the Marathwada Development Corporation(for the sake of brevity, hereinafter referred toas the 'MDC') and the aforesaid subsidiaries andthe consequences thereof on the existing employeesand the future employment in the region. Two ofthese petitions i.e. Writ Petitions Nos. 3346 and3704, both of 1993, came up for considerationearlier. The petitions were admitted and interimrelief in terms of prayer clauses (b) and (c) wasgranted. In Writ Petition No. 3704 of 1993, prayerclause (b) sought...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2003(1)ALLMR984; 2003(1)MhLj1005
S.A. Bobde, J.1. Both these petitions can be disposed of by a common judgment since in both these matters the petitioner is the landlord of the respective respondents who are his tenants.2. Writ Petition No. 3425 of 1987 is in respect of land of which the tenants are said to be members of Nakhate family. It is in respect of survey No. 109/2/3 admeasuring 36% gunthas situate at village Kamshet. In Writ Petition No. 3426 of 1987, the tenants are legal heirs and representatives of Maruti Janku Shinde. The tenanted land is survey No. 36/2/2 admeasuring 5 acres and 26 gunthas. The petitioner obtained a certificate for exemption under Section 88C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') on 6-8-1959. Upon obtaining the certificate, he filed an application under Section 33B for possession of the lands held by the aforesaid respondents. These proceedings eventually reached this Court. This Court by judgment and order in Special Civil Applicat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2003(1)ALLMR1028; 2003(2)BomCR54; 2003(2)MhLj17
S.A. Bobde, J.1. The petitioner is the heir of the deceased landlady Krishnabai. He acquired the suit land in a partition effected in the family of Krishnabai on 24-3-1958.2. One Kisan Ingole, predecessor of the respondent, was a tenant on 1-4-1957. The A.L.T., Pandharpur, held by its order dated 28-4-1978 that since Krishnabai was a widow, the tiller's day was postponed. That during the period of postponement, the interest in property came to the lot of Pandurang by way of partition dated 24-3-1958. When the property came to Pandurang, he was a minor. He became a major on 18-10-1962. Therefore, Kisan ought to have sent an intimation that he intends to exercise his right of purchase within a period of two years on the date on which Pandurang attained majority. Since Kisan did not do so, he was not entitled to purchase the land under Section 32G. The purchase, therefore, was declared ineffective and possession of the land was directed to be taken from the tenant and disposal of the land...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (2003)179CTR(Bom)80; [2003]260ITR507(Bom)
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. For the assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79, the following questions have been referred to this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the assessee and at the instance of the Department:Questions referred at the instance of the assessee : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the amounts paid by the assessee to Mannesmann-Export AG, Dusseldorf, West Germany (non-resident), for the period from October 1, 1976, to March 23, 1977, did not get merged in the purchase price on the exercise by the assessee of the option to purchase ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee, was an agent of Mannesmann-Export AG, Dusseldorf, West Germany (non-resident) under Section 163 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' Questions referred at the instance of the Department : 3. Whether, the Tribunal was right in holding ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
1. Shri Kamal Parsurampuria, learned advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri S.S. Bhagat learned S.D.R. appeared on behalf of the revenue.2. The learned counsel contended that the appellant is covered under Notification No. 129 dt. 17.02.1986 and the appellant has fulfilled all the conditions as mentioned in the said Notification and as such the appellant is fully entitled to the benefit as contained therein. He contended that the lower authorities have failed to deal with the conditions as mentioned therein.3. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on the decision in the case of Echjay Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr. reported in 1994 (52) ECR 366 (Bombay), and the case of Kesoram Industries Ltd. reported in 1999 (108) ELT 0694 (Tri.). he also contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) has proceeded ex-party in the matter. He finally concluded that since the issue involved is squarely covered by the aforesaid two decisions, the impugned orde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (2003)179CTR(Bom)121; [2003]259ITR377(Bom)
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. At the behest of the assessee, the Tribunal has referred the following three questions under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to this court. The three questions are as follows :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in holding that the burden was on the assessee to prove by cogent and convincing evidence that the recipient had actually paid tax on the income or the income had been held to be non-assessable ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal ought to have held that whatever burden lay on the assessee for not being regarded as an assessee in default under Section 201 had been discharged ? 3. Whether the Tribunal erred in holding that the proceedings initiated under Section 201 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were not barred by limitation ?' Preface :2. At the outset, it may be mentioned that the Tribunal did not refer to this court the first two questions. That, the Tribunal ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2003(2)ALD(Cri)113; 2003BomCR(Cri)1158
J.G. Chitre, J. 1. Heard Shri Ingawale and Shri Saste. The petitioners are hereby assailing correctness, propriety and legality of the order passed by J.M.F.C. Ichalkaranji in the matter of Criminal Case No. 404 of 1997. 2. Shri Ingawale submitted that the respondent/original complainant did not issue a notice to the petitioners, as contemplated by provisions of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and filed the said complaint and hence the said complaint is bad in law. He submitted that the learned Magistrate did not notice this glaring infirmity and directed the police to make the enquiry in view of provisions of Section 156(3) of Criminal Procedure Code 1973. Shri Saste, A.P.P. appearing for the prosecution, submitted that the said complaint is revolving around the provisions of Section 420 of Indian Penal Code and not around Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and therefore, there is no need of seeing, whether the said notice has been issued or not. He justified the said ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2004)265ITR57(Mum.)
1.These two appeals have been filed by the assessee against the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for the assessment years 1980-81 and 1982-83. As common facts and issues are involved in these two appeals the same were argued together by the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee and the learned Departmental Representative. We are deciding these two appeals together for convenience.2. The facts of the case leading to these two appeals, briefly, are that originally the assessment orders were completed for these two assessment years in which the assessee's explanations in respect of fresh loans were accepted. A search under Section 132 of the Act took place on April 27, 1983. During the course of this search and thereafter the Department carried out certain investigations. During the course of enquiry thus made, the following four cash creditors denied having made loans to the assessee which as per the assessee's books of account were as follows : By application dated J...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [2003(97)FLR770]; 2003(1)MhLj801
R.S. Mohite, J.1. Heard Shri Gilda, Advocate for the petitioners, Shri Kankale, AGP for respondent No. 2 and Shri Issac, Advocate for respondent No. 3. 2. This is a writ petition impugning an order dated 5-1-2002 passed by the Second Labour Court, Nagpur, in purported exercise of powers of review and order of the Learned Member, industrial Court, Nagpur, dated 23-7-2002 passed in Revision (ULPN) No. 61 of 2002, by which the order of the Labour Court referred to hereinabove has been confirmed. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows : (a) That, on 12-4-1980, respondent No. 3 was appointed by the petitioners as a Mustering Assistant. There was an enquiry against him against charges of insubordination and absenteeism and after enquiry, by an order dated 14-9-1993, the services of respondent No. 3 came to be terminated. (b) On 22-9-1993, respondent No. 3 filed a complaint under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 197...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (2004)88TTJ(Mumbai)289
ORDERI.P. Bansal, J.M.This is an appeal filed by the assessee and is directed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), dated 8-10-1995 for the assessment year 1992-93.2. In ground No. 1, the grievance of the assessee is regarding set off of unabsorbed carried forward depreciation. According to the assessee there was unabsorbed carried forward depreciation amounting to Rs. 8,75,143. As per the provisions of section 34A the assessee claimed set-off of unabsorbed depreciation for the year under consideration at the rate of 6-2/3 per cent amounting to Rs. 5,83,370. According to the assessing officer the amount of depreciation is amounting to Rs. 5,64,033 and by application of section 34A, the assessing officer allowed the sum of Rs. 3,76,022. The assessing officer calculated the unabsorbed carried forward depreciation at Rs. 5,64,033 on the basis of capitalised incidental expenses which were not considered for depreciation for the assessment year 1986-87. Therefore, the assessing offic...
Tag this Judgment!