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.
Dattatraya S/O Ramrao Thorat Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through the ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-24-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR807; (2002)104BOMLR561
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. Heard Shri Golegaonkar, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner.2. The petition was heard by us on 27th and 28th of March, 2002 as well as on 1st April, 2002.3. Rule, Shri Sawant, learned Government Pleader waives service for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 6, Shri Shelke, learned Advocate waives service for Respondent No. 4 and Shri Soman, learned Advocate waives service for Respondent No. 5. Rule made returnable forthwith.4. The Petitioner claims that he belongs to the 'Kunbi' caste which is listed in Other Backward Classes at Serial No. 83 in the list, as published by the State Government, and the Taluka Executive Magistrate, Aurangabad had issued to him a Caste Certificate to that effect on 15th June, 1996/2nd July, 1996. On the basis of the said Caste Certificate he contested the elections of the Aurangabad Municipal Corporation from Ward No. 42 which was reserved for the Other Backward Classes. He was declared elected sometimes in April, 2000. The Commissioner of ...
Echjay Industries Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-24-2002
Reported in: (2004)88TTJ(Mumbai)1089
ORDERJ.P. Bengra, V.P.These two cross appeals, against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)-VI, Mumbai (S.K. Dasgupta) pertaining to assessment year 1992-93, are being disposed of by this consolidated order, for the sake of convenience.2. We shall first take up the appeal filed by the revenue, in which the first ground urged reads as under :'On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding that the incidental expenses connected to tour should not be included while computing the disallowance under rule 6D of the Income Tax Rules and thereby erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,17,475 made by he assessing officer.'The learned Departmental Representative submitted that the conveyance, telephone and miscellaneous expenses incurred have to be disallowed under rule 6D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT ...
Mohammad Hasan Khan Vs. Mohammad Majidulla and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-24-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR512; (2002)104BOMLR544
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. The appellant was initially appointed in a Primary School run by the present respondent No. 2 Madarse Madinatual Uloom as Assistant Teacher on 16th June, 1975, though untrained with S.S.C. qualifications. He was, by an order dated 29.6.1979 appointed as a Junior Clerk under the Madinatual Uloom Boys Primary School, Nanded w.e.f. 20.10.1978 and he continues to be in the said post till this date and presently, he is posted as Head Clerk pursuant to the order passed by the School Tribunal in his Appeal No. 174/1994.2. It appears that the respondent No. 2 also runs a High School by the same name i.e. Madinatual Uloom High School, Nanded and the respondent No. 1 came to be appointed in the said High School as Laboratory Assistant w.e.f. 13.9.1979. He was appointed to the post of Junior Clerk on or about 7.1.1981 and immediately, on the next day, he was promoted to the next higher post i.e. Senior Clerk in the High School. Admittedly, the respondent No. 1 holds qualific...
AshwIn S. Mehta (Huf) Vs. Asstt. Cit
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-24-2002
Reported in: (2002)75TTJ(Mumbai)960
ORDERR.P. Tolani, J.M.These six appeals filed by the above two assessees pertain to assessment years 1990-91 to 1992-93. As the issues are common, for the sake of convenience, these are disposed of by this consolidated order.2. The common issue raised in all the above appeals pertain to the issue of adoption of status as HUF and the assessment of income thereof.3. The appeals are filed later. In the case of Ashwin S. Mehta, the appeals are late by 110 days and in the case of Hitesh Mehta also by 110 days. The learned counsel for the assessees contended that they were members of Harshad Mehta family. The assessees were declared as 'notified person' along with other members of the family and other entities under the Special Court Act, 1992, on 8-6-1992. Prior to the notification, they had large infrastructure, qualified staff of about 200 persons and they could avail services of competent professionals. Due to notification and freezing of our bank accounts and multiple raids by governmen...
Carrier Aircon Ltd. Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-23-2002
Reported in: (2002)(105)LC143Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The Appellants filed this appeal against the Adjudication Order passed by the Commissioner of Customs. The Appellants were not contesting the demand of duty. They were only contesting penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority.3. Contention of the Appellants is that the penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act cannot be imposed in view of the provisions of Section 3(3) of Custom Tariff Act. The Appellants relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Tarsem Singh Multani & Sons v.Commissioner of Customs, Amritsar .5. The Tribunal in the case of Tarsem Singh Multani (supra) after taking into consideration the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Pioneer Silk Mills, reported in 1995 (88) ELT 507 : 1998 (79) ECR 553 (Del) held as under: However, we find substance in the submissions of the learned Advocate that penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act is not imposable on them in view of the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Pioneer Si...
Relax Safety Industries Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-23-2002
Reported in: (2002)(144)ELT652Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These three appeals are against the order of the Collector of Customs, Bombay. By that order, the Collector has ordered confiscation under Clauses (d) and (m) of Section 111 of the Act, a consignment comprising of dust and mist respirators, one of earplugs and a mould and permitting them to be redeemed on payment of fine. He has ordered enhancement of the assessable value of the respirators and earplugs and imposed penalties under Section 112 of the Act on Jayant Maru, Proprietor of Relax Safety Industries (appeal 1807/94) and Himant Tank (Appeal 1776/94).2. Relax Safety Industries had imported in 1994, a consignment of what it described in the bill of entry that it filed for their clearance as "moulded plastic parts" and "plastic fabricated cups." The value of the consignment was declared by the importer to be of Rs. 85,670/-. The bill of entry that was filed for their clearance shows that some or all the goods were subjected to some adjudication, as a result of which they were pe...
Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Treto Chem Specialities (i) Pvt.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-23-2002
Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT620Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The application for condonation of delay of 7 days in filing of the above appeal is sought to be explained as due to difficulty in filing 7 appeals against one Order-in-Appeal on the same date i.e. 21-8-2001 which was the last date for filing of the appeal. This is not sufficient ground for condoning the delay. Hence, we decline to condone the delay and accordingly dismiss the COD application. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed as time barred....
Madanrao S/O Nanasaheb Chavan Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-23-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)BomCR447; 2002(4)MhLj872
D.G. Karnik, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for respective parties.2. The petitioner claims to be a trustee and Chairman of respondent No. 3 Trust. Respondent No. 4 was the Secretary of the Trust at the relevant time. Respondent No. 4 filed a change report on 30th April 2001 stating therein thatnew trustees/Managing Committee were elected unopposed in the general meeting held on 29th December 2000,3. Under Sub-section (1) of Section 22 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1948 (for short the Act) the change report is required to be filed within a period of 90 days of the occurrence of the change. This change report filed by respondent No. 4 was delayed by about a month.4. Respondent No. 4 filed separate application for condonation of delay in filing of the change report. The application for condonation of delay was not filed along with the change report but was filed subsequently. The petitioner contends that application for condonation of delay should have been filed along with change rep...
Rajesh Namdeo Mhatre Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-23-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD(Cri)37; 2002BomCR(Cri)708; 2002(4)MhLj266
D.B. Bhosale, J. 1. The four appellants/original accused Nos. 2 to 5 in three connected Appeals and Suo Motu Application No. 1 of 1998, viz. (1) Rajesh Namdeo Mhatre, (2) Dilip Mahadeo Surve, (3) Ashok Prafulla Naik, and (4) Chandrakant Ganpat Patre, were convicted by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, in Sessions Case No. 860 of 1994. The appellants were originally charged and tried for the offences under Sections 376(2)(g), 341 read with Section 34, Section 506 read with Section 34 and Section 366 read withSection 34 of the Indian Penal Code along with three other accused, viz. original accused Nos. 1, 6 and 7, who were acquitted of all the aforesaid offences. The appellants alleged to have committed rape on Suman Bhimrao Banpate during the intervening night of 22nd August, 1993 and 23rd August, 1993 between 12.15 a.m. and 2.30 a.m. on the terrace of the building at Koyana colony situate within the jurisdiction of R.C.F. Police Station.2. The appellants were sentenced to under...
Mining and Allied Machinery Corporation Workers' Union and Ors. Vs. Mi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-23-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)BomCR204; [2002(95)FLR1127]; (2003)ILLJ660Bom
J.P. Devadhar, J. 1. By this petition, the petitioners, a Trade Union, seek a writ of mandamus directing the Mining and Allied Machinery Corporation Ltd. to pay wages to its workmen at the regional workshop at Nagpur on par with the wages paid to the workers of the Durgapur establishment of the Corporation by applying the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' as the workmen at both places perform identical duties and functions. The Mining and Allied Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the company') carries on the business of production and maintenance of machineries principally required in the business of mining. The said company has a factory at Durgapur and several service centres in different States. The said company has a Regional Workshop at Hingna Industrial Estate, Nagpur, and also a service centre at 19, New Verma Layout, Nagpur. The company for the purposes of its factory has classified its employees into four categories, namely-(i) unskilled workman, (ii) semi-ski...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »