Mumbai Court December 2002 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.
Anil R. Joshi Vs. Air India Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-2002
Reported in: (2003)ILLJ788Bom
1. Admit.2. Mr. C.U. Singh, learned counsel, waives service for the respondent. Paper book dispensed with.3. Appeal is heard finally at this stage.4. The appellant, who is the original respondent in Writ Petition No. 2671 of 2002, is aggrieved by the order dated October 21, 2002 passed by the learned single Judge, to the extent the interim relief has been granted while issuing rule in writ petition filed by the present respondent.5. Ordinarily, we would not have entertained this appeal arising out of the interim order, but taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and that if the impugned order is allowed to stand as it is, it would occasion in failure of justice to the appellant.6. The case has chequered history but we need not go into events that had taken place prior to dismissal order dated December 6, 1996. The appellant who was employed with the respondent, was dismissed from service on December 6, 1996. There is no dispute that when the appellan...
Mohanlal S/O Dipchand Bhansali Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)ALLMR612; 2003(4)MhLj462
R. G. Deshpande, J. 1. Petitioner has approached this Courtchallenging the Order No. ZP/Madhya/C/C2A.178/88 dated January 14, 1988whereby the petitioner is removed from the post of Head Master and in his placerespondent No. 5 Mr. Damodar Madhavrao Mathane is ordered to be promoted inview of the decision of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 2034/81 decided onDecember 18, 1987. He has also challenged the Order dated January 22, 1988,whereby the petitioner has been directed to hand over the charge to ShriDamodar Madhavrao Mathane and further that the approval which was granted tothe appointment of the petitioner as Head Master has been withdrawn by theDepartment. The contention of the petitioner is that in fact he happened to besenior to respondent No. 5 as he was shown senior to respondent No. 5 in theseniority 1st which was then in existence on December 31, 1965. This contentionis based on the ground that the petitioner happened to be an employee of oldMadhya Pradesh State and his sen...
Evaristo Remedios Sequeira ManuelIn Sequeria Alias Manuel Sequeria Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)BomCR449
P.V. Kakade, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent.Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents.2. The petitioner has come with a case that he was denied the opportunity to cross-examine the witness in the course of the suit and could not gather the antecedents of the witness because the affidavit of the witness was provided to the Counsel of the petitioner on that very day and hence there is gross failure of justice when the learned trial Judge denied the opportunity to him to cross-examine on the next day by adjourning the matter by one day. In view of this position, the order dated 8-10-2002 is sought to be set aside.3. After hearing all the parties, I am satisfied that it is not in dispute that the affidavit of the witness was provided to the party on that very day and the Counsel of the petitioner was expected to cross-examine the witness on the basis of the said affidavit. The grounds mentioned by the learned trial Judge denying the reque...
Amjadkhan Mehmood Khan Pathan and anr. Vs. the State of Maharashtra an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-2002
Reported in: (2003)105BOMLR18
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This Petition, filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, impugns the decision of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 309 of 2002 rendered on 28th of October, 2002 whereby the appointment of the Petitioners made on 24th October, 2000 to the post of constable in Prohibition and Excise Department was set aside.2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties as well as learned A.G.P., at length and we have also perused the record pertaining to the subject selection proceedings originally made in September/October, 2000 as well as the fresh selection pursuant to the impugned decision of the Tribunal.3. Rule. Leave to amend.4. Learned Counsel for the respective Respondents waive service.5. Rule is taken up for final hearing forthwith.6. Sometime in the month of July, 2000 the Respondent No. 1 initiated steps for recruitment of 7 constables by nomination against the vacant posts sanctioned by the Commissioner, S...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-2002
Reported in: (2003)(152)ELT379Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs against the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-VII, dated 26-6-2000 wherein he had allowed the appeal and granted interest on delayed refund of deposit in terms of Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act.2. The facts of the case are on 4th December, 1992 a show cause notice was issued to the respondent to show cause why a duty amounting to Rs. 16,39,84,343/- should not be recovered from them for the period 5-6-1992 to 31-12-1992. The said demand was raised in respect of Partially Oriented Yarn (POY) which was cleared without payment of duty under Rule 57F(2) of the Central Excise Rules from its Patalganga unit to Naroda unit for texturising. By its order dated 28th August, 1996, the Commissioner of Central Excise by Order-in-Original No. 209/96 confirmed the said show cause notice and demanded the duty indicated above. Respondent filed an Appeal E/2093/R/96-Bom. in the Tribunal. On 10-1...
Jay Mahakali Rolling Mill Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-2002
Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT749Tri(Mum.)bai
1. For reasons recorded below, we waive the pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 19,79,811/- and penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs and proceed to hear the appeal itself with the consent of both sides.2. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of M.S. CTD bars and rods of iron and steel falling under Chapter 72 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff and availing benefit of exemption under SSI Notification No. 1/93-C.E., dated 28-2-1993. It was found that the appellants had availed deemed credit on re-rolling materials in terms of deemed credit Order F. No. TS/36/94-TRU, dated 1-3-94, without filing a separate declaration in terms of Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. For this reason, credit was sought to be disallowed by issue of the show cause notice which also proposed imposition of penalty. The credit was disallowed and penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority whose order was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence, this appeal by the company.3. We have heard Shri Maru, Ad...
Commissioner of Customs Vs. Sumer Enterprises
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-2002
Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT425Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The Revenue seeks condonation of delay of one month in filing the above appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) setting aside the confiscation of goods imported by the respondent with option to redeem the goods on payment of fine and also set aside the penalty.2. The delay is explained as due to transfer of the concerned appraising officer out of the Air Cargo Complex and due to the fact that successor of the transferred officer could not locate the file in time.3. On hearing both sides and satisfying ourselves after perusing the case records produced before us, which shows that action is being initiated for lapse of concerned officer, and after perusing the affidavit of the Commissioner of Customs, we are satisfied with the reasons for the delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay....
Tolani Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Special Range 31
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-2002
Reported in: (2004)89ITD551(Mum.)
1. The following grounds have been taken by the assessee in this appeal: "1. Payment of tax in Foreign Countries on Freight Earning Rs. 9,45,665/-. The learned CIT (Appeal) has erred in confirming the disallowance of a sum of Rs 9,45,665/- incurred by the company as income Tax on Foreign Ports on freight earning not following the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of South East Asia Shipping Co. Ltd. in which case Bombay High Court rejected the reference application of the Department allowing the tax on foreign port as deductible expenditure. The Bombay High Court Judgment is binding on the department (page 4 of the assessment order) Kanga and Palkhiwala's Income Tax Law Book, 8th Edition, Page 701, 1st para and note no. 1 (page 4 of Ass. Order and para 2.2. of CIT(A)'s order). 2. Deduction u/s. 80-I out of Profits Derived from Shipping Business (Rs. 20,00,020/-) The learned CIT(Appeal) has erred in computing deduction u/s 80-I at nil by considering the deduction of allowance o...
Discount and Finance House of India Ltd. Vs. S.K. Bhardwaj, Cit and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)ALLMR621; 2003(3)BomCR283; (2003)180CTR(Bom)278; [2003]259ITR295(Bom); 2003(2)MhLj772
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. The short question of law which arises for determination is : Whether interest on debentures, bonds and securities, is taxable under Section 5 of the Interest-tax Act, 1974 ?Facts :2. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It was promoted by the RBI, ICICI, UTI, SBI, IDBI, etc. It is an investment company as defined under Section 2(5B)(ii) of the Interest-tax Act, 1974, as it then stood. The petitioner is a dealer in money market instruments such as call/notice/term money, treasury bills, commercial paper, certificate of deposit and Government Dated Securities. The Government Dated Securities market has two segments, viz., primary market and secondary market. The primary market consists of issuers and subscribers. The issuers are the Central and State Governments. The secondary market includes banks, financial institutions, insurance companies, provident funds, trusts, individuals, primary dealers, etc. The petitioner is a primary dea...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. United Western Bank Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-2002
Reported in: (2003)181CTR(Bom)285; [2003]259ITR312(Bom)
S.H. Kapadia, J. 1. This group of appeals by the Department under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with Section 24 of the Interest-tax Act, 1974, raises the following question of law for the assessment year 1993-94. Question of law : 'Whether, the Tribunal was justified in holding that loans and advances do not include interest on securities, bonds and debentures and, therefore, not liable to tax under the provisions of the Interest-tax Act when the interest on securities fall within the meaning of 'interest chargeable to tax' as defined under Section 2(7) of the Interest-tax Act, 1974. Moreover, requirements of tax deduction at source from interest on securities as per Section 193 of the Income-tax Act makes it clear that interest on securities is chargeable to tax under the Interest-tax Act, 1974 ?'Facts :2. For the sake of convenience, we are reproducing hereinbelow the facts in Income-tax Appeal No. 71 of 2001.3. United Western Bank Limited is a banking company. The b...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »