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.
Shilpa Vaman Bapat Vs. Manish Satyanarayanrao Mehadia and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-19-2002
Reported in: 2003ACJ1137; 2002(3)ALLMR321; 2002(5)BomCR240; 2003(1)MhLj898
J.G. Chitre, J.1. The respondent No. 2 has not been served, but as the insurance company has been served and has been heard, this Court dispenses the need of service a notice of the final hearing of this petition.2. Shri Kotak, Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that in view of the provisions of Section 166(2) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as New M. V. Act for convenience), every claimant, in view of Sub-section (1) of Section 166, is entitled to file the claim petition either to Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred or to the Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides or carries on business or within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides. He submitted that the learned MACT did not properly interpret this provision and therefore, passed the order rejecting the prayer made by the petitioner for withdrawing her claim petition from MACT, Thane and for transfe...
ibrahim Hanif Mulani Vs. General Manager, Walchandnagar Industries Ltd ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-19-2002
Reported in: [2002(94)FLR346]; (2002)IVLLJ207Bom
Nishita Mhatre, J. 1. This petition is directed against the order of the Industrial Court dated July 22, 1994 rejecting Complaint (ULP) No. 112 of 1988 filed under Item 5 of Schedule IV read with Items 1 and 4 of Schedule II of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the '1971 Act'). The case of the Petitioner is that voluntary retirement schemes were floated by Respondent No. 1 company in 1976, 1979, 1983 and 1989. The strength of the workmen was substantially reduced. On February 2, 1988, a Settlement was arrived at between Cooper Kamgar Sangh, the recognised Union in the establishment under the 1971 Act, and the Respondent No. 1 Company agreeing to retrench 492 permanent employees. As a consequence of this Agreement, the services of the Petitioner were terminated with effect from February 5, 1988. The Petitioner and other workmen filed Complaints before the Industrial Court under Item 5 of Schedule I...
Raghunath Vyankatrao Phadnis and ors. Vs. Sayyad Mahamood Sayyad Nizam ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-19-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)BomCR807
D.G. Karnik, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith by consent of the parties.2. Respondent No. 1 filed petition under section 41-A of the Bombay Public Trust Act (for short the Act) praying that either the Tahsildar should be appointed as Custodian for the property of the Dargah. Prayers were also made for a direction to the respondents to produce accounts and for restraining the respondent No. 1 from making any changes in the building of the Dargah. The application was opposed by the respondent No. 1 as well as the respondent No. 2 (since deceased) by filing a say. During the pendency of the proceedings, petitioner filed an application at Exhibit 27 praying for an interim relief that an officer from the office of the Assistant Charity Commissioner be appointed as a Receiver which was granted by order dated 27th December, 2001.3. Section 41-A of the Act empowers the Charity Commissioner to issue directions to the trust or a person connected with the trust to ensure that the trust is properly...
Prerna A.P. Singh Vs. Vice Chancellor, Amravati University and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-19-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)BomCR430
Acts/Rules/Orders: Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 - Section 37(2)R.S. Mohite, J.1. Rule. By consent Rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. All respondents waive notice. 3. This is a writ petition which challenges an order passed by the Vice Chancellor, Amravati University on 5-4-2002 on an appeal made by the petitioner under the provisions of Statute 15 of 2000. In the present case the petitioner was appointed as lecturer in English language in S.S.R.M. Mahila Mahavidyalaya, Khamgaon in August, 1990. The respondent No. 3, Principal of the same college was earlier working in Dr. G.K. College, Telhara since 23-7-1973. In that College he was a Lecturer in English language. He joined S.S.R. Mahila Mahavidyalaya, Khamgaon in the year 1995, where the petitioner was working as lecturer in the department of English. Under Statute 11, the name of seniormost lecturer has to be designated by the principal for the purpose of election to the Board of Studies as contemplated under section 37(2)(b...
German Remedies Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC881Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by German Remedies Ltd., is whether the capital goods credit under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, is available to them in respect of the capital goods supplied to them by Madaus Pharmaceuticals (I) Pvt. Ltd. (in short Madaus).2.1 Shri V. Sridharan and Shri J.J. Bhatt, learned Advocates, submitted that the appellants entered into an agreement with Madaus in 1995 to manufacture certain pharmaceutical formulations for Madaus on loan licensee basis; that Madaus provided them with capital goods, purchased by Madaus and the same were received by the appellants under invoices which showed them as consignee by indicating "German Remedies Limited (A/c Madaus Pharmaceuticals (I) Pvt. Ltd.)"; that the capital goods thus received have been entirely used for the manufacture of formulations which were exported under bond in terms of Rule 13 of the Central Excise Rules; that the Commissioner of Central Excise, under the impugned order, disallo...
American Express International Banking Corporation Vs. I.S. Nigam and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)BomCR304; [2003]261ITR349(Bom)
H.L. Gokhale, J. 1. Heard Mr. Mistry for the petitioners. Mr. Desai appears for the respondents.2. This petition seeks to challenge the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated September 30, 1986, passed under Section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short), in so far as it referred four questions for the consideration of this court in para. 9 of that order in addition to two questions which were initially proposed to be referred when the draft statement of case was prepared. The question sought to be raised in this petition is as to whether such a modification in the draft statement amounts to a review and whether the same is permissible in law.3. The facts leading to this petition are as follows :The petitioner is a company having a licence to carry on banking business in India under Section 22 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax by his order dated March 21, 1980, disallowed certain claims of the petitioners f...
Sahebrao Khandu Patil and ors. Vs. Joharabai Latif Patel and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR81; 2003(1)BomCR172
D.G. Karnik, J.1. Rule, made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties. 2. The respondent No. 1 was elected as 'Sarpanch' of the Lohgad Gram Panchayat, Taluka & District Dhule. The Gram Panchayat consists of 7 members. 5 out of the 7 members, gave a notice to the Tahsildar of proposed motion of no confidence against the respondent No. 1. In accordance with the notice, the Tahsildar convened the special meeting of the Gram Panchayat for considering the motion of no confidence on 11th September, 2001. In the meeting held on 11th September, 2001, the motion of no confidence was passed by majority of 5 versus 2. Thus, the motion was passed by a requisite majority of not less than 2/3rd of the total number of members entitled to sit and vote at the meeting. Being aggrieved by the passing of the said motion; the respondent No. 1 filed a dispute/appeal before the Collector under sub-section (3-B) of section 35 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act'). The dispute/...
Ramakant Laxman Sarmalkar Vs. Nowrojee Wadia Maternity Hospital and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALLMR322; 2002(5)BomCR139
R.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 26-4-2000 passed by the Industrial Court in Complaint U.L.P. No. 504 of 1990 dismissing the complaint filed by him under section 28 read with Items 5, 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV and Items 1(a), (b) and 4(a) of Schedule II of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices, Act, 1971 (for short M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act.). The main thrust of the petitioner in the complaint appears to be on Item 6 of Schedule IV of the Act though other items are mentioned in the complaint. The petitioner had filed the complaint originally along with his union against the respondent No. 1 praying precisely, for the benefits and privileges of permanency from the respondent No. 1. It further appears that though the complaint initially was filed on behalf of a number of employees by the union finally, it was the petitioner alone who contested the complaint on behalf of himself. Even the present petition is fi...
American Express International Banking Corpn. Vs. I.S. Nigam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-2002
Reported in: [2002]123TAXMAN255(Bom)
Gokhale, J.Heard Mr. Mistry for the petitioners. Mr. Desai appears for the respondents.2. This petition seeks to challenge the order of the Tribunal dated 30-9-1986 passed under section 256 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') insofar as it referred four questions for the consideration of this court in para 9 of that order in addition to two questions which were initially proposed to be referred when the draft statement of case was prepared. The question sought to be raised in this petition is as to whether such a modification in the draft statement amounts to a review and whether the same is permissible in law.3. The facts leading to this petition are as follows :The petitioner is a company having a licence to carry on banking business in India under section 22 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner by his order dated 21-3-1980, disallowed certain claims of the petitioners for the assessment year 1977-78. On the petitio...
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Glamour Restaurant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-17-2002
Reported in: (2003)80TTJ(Mum.)763
1.All these appeals are filed by the Revenue and are being directed against the. consolidated order of CIT(A), dt. 26th Feb., 1993. "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the CIT(A) erred in cancelling the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) accepting the assessee's contention that the case gets covered by Expln. 5(1) to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act as note book containing unaccounted transactions are books of account maintained by the assessee for its source of income whereas the AO has proved beyond doubt that these note books were kept by the assessee for his own use and the transactions recorded therein were not found recorded in the regular books of accounts maintained and seized by the Department. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty holding that there was no concealment when in fact the assessee had in its possession papers containing unaccounted transactions and undisclosed income at the time of filing ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »