Mumbai Court April 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.
Cit Vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-2002
Reported in: [2002]122TAXMAN643(Bom)
H.L. Gokhale, J.Heard Mr. Desai for the appellant. Mr. Vyas appears for the respondent.2. This appeal, at the instance of the revenue under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), seeks to challenge the judgment and the order passed by the Tribunal dated 14-1-1999.FACTS-IN-BRIEF3. The facts leading to this appeal and the grounds raised therein are as follows :The respondent is a public limited company engaged in the manufacture of chemicals, salt and detergents in its factories. One of such manufacturing units is at Mithapur in Gujarat. Subsequently, it set up a subsidiary company known as 'Tata Fertilizers', but this subsidiary company amalgamated with the respondent under the order of this court passed on a company application on 7-9-1989. The respondent thereafter set up a fertilizer plant at Babrala in State of U.P. Certain deductions were claimed by the respondent for the assessment year 1992-93. The assessing officer disallowed some of the d...
Ulka Shah an Indian Inhabitant, Residing at E/204, 2nd Floor, Simla Ho ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-2002
Reported in: 2002(83)ECC297
1.Heard Mr. Maqsood Khan in all thesepetitions and Mr. R. M. Agarwal, PP for Union ofIndia and learned Acting P.P and APP for the State.All the aforesaid Advocates admitted that these threepetitions involve a common question. The detenus areco-detenus and that the petitions can be decided by acommon order. Hence, this common Judgment.2.In Criminal Writ Petition No. 1362 of 2001,the Order of detention is bearingF.No.673/30/2001-CUS-VIII dated 25.7.2001 issued by theJoint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry ofFinance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi againstdetenu Sevantilal Mafatlal Shah under Section 3(1) ofthe Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention ofSmuggling Activities Act, 1974 ( for short 'COFEPOSAAct'). The Order of Detention was served upon theDetenu on 8.9.2001.3.In Criminal Writ Petition No. 1363 of 2001,the Order of detention is bearingF.No.673/31/2001-CUS-VIII dated 25.7.2001 issued by theJoint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry ofFinance, Depar...
Vardhaman Chemicals, Near Sharda Ispat, Kamptee Road, Nagpur, a Partne ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)BomCR537; (2002)2BOMLR826; (2003)185CTR(Bom)163; 2003(160)ELT132(Bom); [2003]263ITR460(Bom); 2002(2)MhLj187
J.N. Patel, J.1. The petitioner-Assessee has approached thisCourt invoking its extra ordinary jurisdiction to quashand set aside the communications dated 10/8/1999(Annexure No.4) and 1/9/1999 (Annexure No.6), and forseeking declaration that the petitioner has made paymentin time and is entitled to the benefit of 'Kar VivadSamadhan Scheme, 1998', and for directions to therespondents to issue necessary certificate in thatbehalf.2. The petitioner is engaged in manufacturingand trading of Synthetic Organic Dye falling underheading No. 3204.29 in the Central Excise Tariff. Byorder-in-original No. 46/95 dated 20/12/1995, therespondents held that the assessee is liable to pay Rs.4,22,043/- towards the Central Excise Duty and Rs.20,000/- towards penalty, on the ground that theassessee had taken excess MODVAT credit. The said orderwas challenged before the CEGAT by filing an appealunder Section 35-B of the Central Excise & Salt Act,1944, which came to be registered as Appeal No.E/845/96-Bom. Wh...
Shahinara Salim Baig Vs. B.M.C. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALLMR368; 2002(5)BomCR128; 2002(2)MhLj940
ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.1. Rule. By consent returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service.The petitioner after having lost the municipal election from Ward No. 108 of the Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai, approached the Court of Small Causes at Bombay under Section 33 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 to challenge the election of the respondent No. 3 Mrs. Geeta Laxmi Gore, who was declared elected by a margin of 646 votes. In the said election held on 10th February, 2002, the petitioner received 3241 votes while the respondent No. 3 received 3087 votes and was declared elected by the competent authority. The petitioner in her election petition has prayed for the following reliefs:--(a) That the necessary inquiry be made with regard to the aforesaid allegations and this Hon'ble Court be pleased not to confirm the election of the 3rd respondent as a Municipal Corporator from Ward No. 108.(b) That the declaration about the election of the 3rd respondent as elected from W...
Western India Metal Industries Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-2002
Reported in: 2002(144)ELT525(Bom); 2002(5)KarLJ321
ORDER1. Heard Mr. Hidaitullah for the petitioners. Mr. Desai appears for and respondents.2. This petition seeks to challenge the order passed by the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal ('CEGAT' for short), whereby the CEGAT has completely declined to waive pre-deposit for the purposes of entertaining the appeal.3. The petitioners have contended that large number of documents were not made available in the original proceedings and that is how grave prejudice has been caused in defence of the rights of the petitioners. The petitioners are already in appeal before the CEGAT. In affidavit in reply of R.S. Sangia, Assistant Commissioner, Legal, Central Excise filed on behalf of respondents it has been pointed out that on number of dates inspection was offered to the petitioners: and the dates are specifically referred in paragraph-4 for 48 days. Mr. Hidaitullah, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there are errors in all these dates and still the inspection is n...
Hillson and Dinshaw Ltd. Vs. P.G. Pednekar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)BomCR541; [2002(95)FLR20]; (2002)IIILLJ77Bom
ORDERA.P. Shah, J.1. These two appeals are directed against the order of the learned single Judge passed in a writ petition under Article 226 by which the respondent workman was directed to be reinstated with back wages. Appeal No. 1200 is filed by employer whereas Appeal Lodging No. 519 of 2001, is filed by the Union, as the union has been directed to pay the back wages.2. Briefly stated, the facts are as follows:The Government of India had referred to the Industrial Tribunal the following industrial dispute for adjudication: 'Whether the action of the management of Hillson and DinshaW Ltd. Mumbai in not reinstating Shri P.G. Pednekar who is senior among the retrenched employees in the same category is just, proper and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?' The respondent workman who was in the employment of the appellant company, was retrenched from employment alongwith other 4 employees vide notice dated April 27, 1995. The respondent workman was given retrenchme...
Hindustan Composites Ltd. Vs. Jasbir Singh Randhawa and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)BomCR511
D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. The petitioner has presented this petition invoking the powers of this Court under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and section 151 r/w Order XXXIX of the Civil Procedure Code.2. The facts that are relevant and material for deciding this petition are as follows :-a) The petitioner claims that it is a company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of manufacture of brake linings, clutch facings and other friction materials used in the automobile industry. The petitioner has been in this business for more than thirty years and is a leader in the development, manufacture and marketing of asbestos industrial products and friction materials. The petitioner has a Research and Development Center which is engaged in constantly updating the technology used by the petitioner and the same has been accorded recognition by the Department of Science and Technology, Government of India. The...
Vinodini N. Kothari Vs. Divyatirth Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)BomCR347
J.G. Chitre, J.1. Heard Shri Kini for the petitioner. Perused the material which is placed before this Court for justifying his prayer for pulling the respondents for the alleged contempt. If the litigant wants to make the allegation that his adversary has flouted the orders of the Court and, therefore, prays that he should be pulled for Contempt of the Court, he is obliged to point out that inspite of a clear order of the Court, such an adversary flouted that order. In addition to that he has to make out a case that such disobedience was intentional. Thirdly, he has to make out a case that while doing so the intention of such an adversary was to lower down the dignity and authority of the Court. If all these things are brought on record to the satisfaction of the Court, the Court may think of considering his prayer favourably by reminding itself that the action in context with Contempt of Courts Act is not to be taken for paltry and unmeaning disobedience of the order of the Court whi...
Peter Alex D'Souza Vs. Prithi Paul Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Bom471; 2002(4)ALLMR524; 2002(4)BomCR552; (2003)1BOMLR286; 2002(3)MhLj437
A.P. Shah, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 4-11-1997 passed by the learned single Judge in Suit No. 556 of 1976 dismissing the suit. The suit was originally filed by two brothers Joe D'souza and Peter D'souza. During the pendency of the suit, plaintiff No. 1, Joe D'souza died and therefore, his name came to be deleted and the suit is continued by plaintiff No. 2, Peter D'souza, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff. The suit was filed by both the plaintiffs in the capacity as executors named in the last Will and Testament dated 17-9-1966 of their late mother Milagrina D'souza who died at Mumbai on 27-7-1968. The property in dispute consists of a cottage and a garden situated at Chapeal Road, Bandra, Mumbai and was jointly owned by Milagrina D'souza and her husband Diego D'souza and after death of her husband Milagrina alone became entitled to the said property. Under an agreement of leave and licence dated 25-5-1965 the defendant Prithi Paul Singh c...
Lalitkumar Ramlal Sharma and ors. Vs. Jadavbai Murlidhar Sharma and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR501; 2002(4)BomCR548; (2002)3BOMLR679; 2002(2)MhLj649
D.D. Sinha, J. 1. Heard Shri Palshikar, learned counsel for the applicants, and Shri Moharil, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The Civil revision application is directed against the order dated 9-12-1994 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gondia in Regular Civil Suit No. 42/1989 filed by the respondents, whereby application moved by the present applicants under Order VII, Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure came to be rejected. 3. Shri Palshikar, learned counsel for the applicants, states that the present applicants are the legal representatives of deceased Gulabbai. Deceased Gulabbaifiled Special Civil Suit No. 12/1971 for partition and separate possession of the house property bearing Plot No. 18/5, Sheet No. 28, Goshala Ward, Gondia against Ramprasad, Tarabai and Shankarlal. It is contended that the said suit was decreed on 21-2-1979 and Gulabbai was held to be entitled to 1/3rd share in the suit property. The teamed Counsel further states that being aggrieved ...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »