Mumbai Court February 2002 Judgments

Hindustan Conductors Ltd. Vs. the D.C.i.T. Spl. Rg. 1

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. The Assessee is in appeal arising out of the order of CIT(A)-I, Mumbai dated 22/3/93 and raised and raised two issues, first in respect of disallowance of carried forward losses of unabsorbed depreciation and investment allowance reserve under Section 115J(2) and second, claim of depreciation on foreign exchange rate difference.2. Apropos Ground No. 1, the claim of the assessee was that deduction on account of depreciation and investment allowance should be allowed for the year under consideration only to the extent it was necessary to reduce the income to the level of the income computed under Section 115J. The A.O has not accepted the said claim of the assessee and made an observation that the provisions of Section 115J(2) of IT Act were explicit on the subject which would not effect the determination of amount in relation to the previous year to be carried forward to the subsequent years. Being aggrieved, assessee went in appeal and ld.CIT(A) has endorsed the view taken by the A...

Gangubai Poonja Angre and anr. Vs. Mukesh Textile Mills and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(3)MhLj218; [2003]41SCL27(Bom)

D.G. Deshpande, J. 1. All these Revision Applications involve common question, therefore they have been disposed of by this common judgment, by consent. 2. These Revisions were for admission and at that time it was decided finally, therefore initially oral arguments of Mr. Shamrao G. Samant learned counsel for the petitioners-accused and Mr. Yande on the otherwise for respondent No. 1 were heard. Then both the counsels gave comprehensive written notes of arguments with case laws and on that basis all these Revision Applications are being disposed of. 3. Petitioners in all these Revision Applications were accused before the trial Court i.e. Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 19th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai, under Section 630 of the Companies Act. The complaints were filed by respondent No. 1 against them for refusal to vacate the premises. The Magistrate found them guilty and by his Common Order dated 24th August, 2000 ordered them to hand over possession of the premises to the res...

Kisan Pandurang Varkad Vs. Jaising Maruti Varkad

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(6)BomCR283; (2002)2BOMLR481; 2002(4)MhLj106

A.B. Naik, J.1. Both these Writ Petitions are based on identical set of facts and the Collector and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal have decided two applications together and disposed of by a common judgment. Both these writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by the common judgment. (The parties will be hereinafter referred to as per their status in this writ petition). The facts that are required to be stated in brief are as follows :Land Gat No. 57/1 and Gat No. 57/2 situate at Ghospuri, Taluka Parner, District Ahmednagar were previously owned by Moro Ganesh Kulkarni. Moro Ganesh Kulkarni, by a registered sale deed dated 11-8-1947 sold this land to the father of the present respondent. The present respondent in both these applications claims to be the owner on the basis of the said sale deed.2. One Sawalaram claimed to be a tenant over both these lands. This Sawalaram has two sons namely Pandurang and Ranganath. Both predeceased their father Santaram. Two sons o...

Maneklal D. Shah Vs. P.K. Gupta, Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)184CTR(Bom)523; [2004]267ITR340(Bom)

V.C. Daga, J.1. This petition is directed against the order dt. 4th Sept., 1986 (Ex.-E) passed by the CIT, Central-II, Mumbai under Section 273A of the IT Act, 1961 ('Act', for short), r/w Section 18B of the WT Act, 1957 ('WT Act', for short) being arbitrary, perverse and self-contradictory.The Facts 2. The facts necessary to appreciate the rival contentions may be stated briefly as under :The petitioner is a Karta of Maneklal D. Shah, HUF which is carrying on proprietary business of dealing in polyester yarn in the name of M/s Amsons Export Corpn. Sometime in the month of November, 1978, search operation was carried out in the office as well as residential premises of the assessee and its Karta Mr. M.D. Shah. The petitioner contended that nothing incriminating was found during the search operation carried out under Section 132 of the Act.3. The petitioner submitted that at no point of time any material much less legally acceptable material was brought on record by the Tax Authorities....

M.K. Mulki Vs. Kemen Pvt. Ltd. and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(5)BomCR315; [2002(95)FLR567]

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the Award of the Labour Court dated 16th August, 1994 rejecting the reference against continuity of service and full back wages. 2. The petitioner joined the services of Chemical Engineering Corporation as a Peon-cum-dispatch Clerk on 5th October, 1949. The said company was then taken over by the first respondent herein in 1967. Individual letters were issued by the first respondent regarding the taking over of the company to each workman. On 31st July, 1972, the first respondent confirmed the services of the petitioner with them and the petitioner was informed that his service conditions would continue unchanged. It appears that the employees of the erstwhile Chemical Engineering Corporation were permitted to continue in service till they were mentally fit or the employees themselves decided to retire from service. These service conditions were continued by the first respondent. The petitioner was, therefore, surprised to receive reti...

Rangnath R. Kulkarni and anr. Vs. Bhiwandi Nizampur Municipal Council ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(5)BomCR278; [2002(95)FLR542]

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. Both these writ petitions can be disposed of by a common judgment since the facts and the order impugned in both the writ petitions are same. 2. The petitioners have impunged the common order of the Industrial Court dated 28th July, 1995 denying them permanency and the benefits attached to the same from the date of their appointments. Both the petitioners were employed as 'fireman' with the first respondent Municipal Council. They were employed to fill in permanent vacancies. However, in order to avoid the effect of the Standing Orders and the labour laws applicable, the first respondent discontinued the petitioners from service on completion of three months. The petitioners continued in service, always with breaks, from 1976 onwards. They were also given wage rise every year while in service. However, the benefits of permanency were not given to the petitioners. They, therefore, filed individual complaints before the Industrial Court, Thane, for a declaration that...

National Textile Corporation (South Maharashtra) Limited Vs. Madhukar ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(5)BomCR766; [2002(95)FLR725]

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the orders of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court granting reinstatement and full back wages from 18th January, 1982 to the first respondent workman.2. The first respondent workman was one of those workman who could not remain present on duty because of the strike declared in the mills on 18th January, 1982. On 29th March, 1986, his services were terminated on account of his alleged active participation in the illegal strike. The petitioner also informed the workman that his services were terminated as despite several advertisement in various newspapers calling upon the mill employees to join duty, he had failed to response. On receipt of the letter of termination of service, the first respondent workman approached the petitioner by his letter dated 7th May, 1986 and requested them to withdraw the order of termination. As this was not acceded to by the petitioner, the workman filed an application under sections 78 and 79 of the B...

Ardeshir B. Cursetji and Sons Vs. Abdulla Fakir Jambarkar and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(5)BomCR236; [2002(95)FLR556]

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner has impugned the Award dated 14th November, 1994 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Bombay granting the first respondent workman the relief of reinstatement with consequential benefits upto 14th July, 1992 that is his deemed date of retirement.2. Facts giving rise to the present petition may be stated in brief as under :-On 25th April, 1977, the first respondent workman was appointed as a Sarang by the petitioner. The petitioner being a Stevedoring Company required the certificate issued by the Mercantile Marine Department of the Government of India to prospective employees in order to recruit them. This certificate dated 23rd February, 1960 was produced by the first respondent. The said certificate issued to, the first respondent workman declared his year of birth as '1929' and since no specific date was given, the petitioner while recruiting the first respondent noted his date of birth a...

Babu Govekar Vs. State

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(84)ECC6

P.V. Hardas, J.1. The Appellant has filed the present Appeal challenging the conviction and sentence passed by the Special Judge, NDPS Court, Mapusa, in Special Criminal Case No. 20/2000 convicting the Appellant for an offence punishable under Sections 21 and 22 of the NDPS Act, 1985, and sentencing him for the aforesaid offence, on each count to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 6 months. It is this aforesaid conviction and sentence that is challenged in the present Appeal by the Appellant. 2. The facts necessary for the decision of the Appeal are set out hereunder:On 13th January 2000, at about 11.00 a.m., two panchas namely P.W. 3, Francis Almeida and Sadat Nizamuddin, both Government servants, working in the Director of Education, Panaji, were summoned by P.I. Shri Lavu Mamledar (P.W. 6) to the Anti Narcotic Cell, Panaji to act as panch witnesses. On the same day, at about 5.00 p.m., P.W. 4, P.S...

Maneklal D. Shah Vs. P.K. Gupta

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2003]130TAXMAN469(Bom)

ORDERV.C. Daga, J.This petition is directed against the order dated 4-9-1986 (Exhibit-E) passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-II, Mumbai under section 273A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), read with section 18B of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 being arbitrary, perverse and self-contradictory.The Facts2. The facts necessary to appreciate the rival contentions may be stated briefly are as under :The petitioner is a karta of Maneklal D. Shah, Hindu undivided family (HUF) which is carrying on proprietary business of dealing in Polyester Yarn in the name of M/s. Amsons Export Corporation. Sometime in the month of November, 1978, search operation was carried out in the office as well as residential premises of the assessee and its karta Mr. M.D. Shah. The petitioner contended that nothing incriminating was found during the search operation carried out under section 132 of the Act.3. The petitioner submitted that at no point of time any material much...