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.
Assistant Commissioner of Vs. NitIn Mukesh Mathur
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-17-2002
Reported in: (2002)83ITD641(Mum.)
1. The assessee, an individual, is aplay-back singer by profession.Four grounds have been raised by the Revenue in this appeal. Ground No.1 reads as under :- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding that the Assessing Officer was not justified in taxing the income of M/s. Nitin Mukesh Films (P.) Ltd. in the hands of the assessee and thereby erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,30,240 without appreciating the fact that forming a company and the assessee becoming a director of the company is clearly an arrangement made to divert the income of the assessee from his individual talent to other members on his family.2. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee along with his family members had invested in a company incorporated as M/s. Nitin Mukesh Films (P.) Ltd. The entire share capital was contributed by the assessee, his wife and two children. The total paid up...
Kaikshroo H. Billimoria Richard A. Godhino Vs. Prothonotary and Senior ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-17-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Bom34; 2002(4)ALLMR493; 2002(6)BomCR311; (2002)4BOMLR200; 2002(3)MhLj527
V.K. Tahilramani, J. 1. Heard parties.2. Admit. By consent, the appeal is taken up for final hearing.3. The appellant (original petitioner) applied for probate of the Will of late Shri K. H. Billimoria on 13th October, 2000, for an estate being Bank Account No. C 0193569 EB in Switzerland in the United Bank of Switzerland which was Willed by the deceased Shri Kaikshroo Harmusji Billimoria to the appellant.4. The appellant handed over blank stamp papers amounting to Rs. 75,000/- to the testamentary department as he had assumed the value of Rs. 50 lakhs in the abovesaid account and he was informed that the maximum value of the Court fees was Rs. 75,000/-.5. The probate was granted to the appellant on 27th April 2001 by the Prothonotary and Senior Master. The probate petition was issued by the Prothonotary and Senior Master with the remarks that probate Court fee payable was 'NIL'. It is stated on behalf of the appellant that the appellant was informed that foreign assets did not require ...
indubai Vedu Khairnar Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-17-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR110; 2003(2)BomCR239
D.G. Karnik, J.1. Heard.2. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent. 3. The village panchayat Chaitane consists of 17 elected members. The petitioners was elected as a Sarpanch by the elected members some time in the year 2000. The respondent No. 21 was elected as Upsarpanch at the same time. Respondents 6 to 21 are the other members of the village panchayat out of them respondents 18 to 20 and the Upsarpanch i.e. respondent No. 21 supported the petitioner. The respondents 1 to 4 are the State and Government authorities are represented by learned Assistant Government Pleader who supports the judgment of the Additional Commissioner confirming the judgment of the Additional Collector. 4. Shri N.Y. Pagare, respondent No. 8 and 8 other members of the Gram Panchayat, Chaitane gave a notice to the Tahsildar of motion of no confidence against the Sarpanch and separate notice was also issued for a notice of no confidence against the Upsarpanch. In pursuance of the said notice, the Tahsildar c...
V.D. Chavan (Dr.) Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-17-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)BomCR29
V.G. Palshikar, J.1. By this petition the petitioner Dr. V.D. Chavan has challenged the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal on 4th May, 2001, allowing the petition of respondent No. 4 herein, quashing the order of superannuation passed in relation to respondent No. 4 by the State and consequently directing her reinstatement in the post on which she was working prior to 25-5-2001. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that both, the petitioner in this Court and the respondent No. 4 in this petition are working in the Sir J.J. hospital run by the Government of Maharashtra. The respondent No. 4 is working in a honorary capacity whereas the petitioner is working as a full time professor of cardiology. The petitioner has admitted that he is next senior most professor to respondent No. 4. The petitioner has also admitted that respondent No. 4 has been reinstated as Director and Professor in the head of the department of cardiology in the J.J. Group of hos...
Singh Scrap Processors Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Mumbai-i
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC910Tri(Mum.)bai
(a) The Appellants are inter alia engaged in procuring ferrous scrap in loose conditions from various manufacturers on payment of appropriate Central Excise Duty. Thereafter, the said scrap is brought to the Appellants premises and after removing the impurities the same is compressed with the aid of mechanical presses and formed into bales and removed on sale basis. (b) They approached the Central Excise Authorities for granting a Registration certificate as a manufacturer & dealers as they were informed that the processes carried out by them amounting to manufacture and directed levy under Central Excise Act, 1944. (c) Accordingly they filed an application on 8-6-1994 and obtained registration on dated 20-7-1994 which covers manufacturing and wholesale trading of their above said activity. They filed a classification list which was approved on 24-7-1994 and declaration under Rule 57G was filed on 21-7-1994 which was acknowledged on 22-7-1994. Thereafter they filed RT 12 return ev...
Cable Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Mumbai-v
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-2002
Reported in: (2002)(144)ELT378Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 1,86,204 arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai by which the order of the Asstt. Commissioner confirming the above duty demand on the ground that the applicants were not entitled to follow the procedure of Rule 57F(3) of the Central Excise Rules in respect of PVC waste during the period 1996-97 has been upheld.Wyeth Laboratories Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai [2000 (120) E.L.T. 218] the Larger Bench of the Tribunal has held by majority that the procedure of Rule 57F(2) [now Rule 57F(3)] is permissible to be followed in the case of waste. The lower Appellate Authority has held that the Larger Bench decision has already been distinguished by Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Aqua Vin Pipes Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE [2001 (136) E.L.T. 717 (T) = 2001 (44) RLT 300]. However, on perusal of the decision of the Chennai Bench, we find that prima facie it is the view of the minority of the Larger Bench d...
Haribhai D. Sagar Vs. Commissioner of Customs (P)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-2002
Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT482Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The applicant herein is stated to have been the owner of the vessel Vikram Prasad. He had preferred an appeal against the order dated 20-11-91 passed by the Addl. Collector of Customs, Marine & Preventive, Mumbai, who had ordered absolute confiscation of the vessel. The appeal bearing No. C/27/94-Bom. was disposed of by Final Order No. 467/94/WRB, dated 24-3-94 by which absolute confiscation was converted into confiscation with option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 75,000/-. Aggrieved by that order, the Revenue preferred an application for rectification of mistake which was allowed by Order No. 1321/94/WRB dated 25-7-94 and the order dated 24-3-1994 was recalled and the appeal fixed for fresh hearing. Subsequently, by the Final Order No.1780/94/WRB dated 29-9-94, the Tribunal upheld the order of absolute confiscation of the vessel.2. The applicant submits that there is a mistake in the Tribunal's recall order dated 25-7-94 and prays that the error may be corrected...
Vinayak Nilkhant Nikhar (Deceased) Through L.Rs. Smt. Shobha Vinayakra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR492; 2002(4)BomCR478; (2002)2BOMLR609; 2002(2)MhLj959
R.S. Mohite, J.1. Rule. By consent rule is made returnable forthwith.2. This is a writ petition challenging an order dated 23-1-2001 passed by the Additional Collector, Nagpur rejecting an appeal filed by the petitioner on the ground of limitation. The order passed by the Rent Controller which is under appeal is dated 30-12-1996. It is not seriously disputed that just before passing of this order on 23-12-1996 the father of petitioner Nos. 2 to 7 and husband of petitioner No. 1 i.e. the original tenant had expired. It appears that the order of the Rent Controller was not communicated by the Rent Controller to any of the present petitioners.3. It was the contention of the appellants in the appeal memo that they received summons in a consequent suit being Civil Suit No. 335/98 for delivery of possession and recovery of damages from them. The appellants applied for grant of certified copy of the order thereafter on 18-9-1998. The certified copy was received by them on 18-2-1999 and the ap...
Mohd. Rafique S/O Abdul Rajjak Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR496; 2002(5)BomCR260; (2002)2BOMLR808; 2002(4)MhLj745
J.N. Patel, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. These three writ petitions can be disposed of by common judgment as the only question involved in these three petitions is whether the Collector has any jurisdiction to adjudicate upon an application made by a person interested who has not accepted the Award, so as to determine the correctness of the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The land of the petitioners in these petitions came to be acquired for rehabilitation of the project affected persons from the village Kumbharkinhi, Taluka Darwha, District Yavatmal, the particulars of which are as under: Sr. No.NameS.No.AreaSituated at1.Mohd. Rafique s/o Abdul Rajjak159/34.5 HDarwha.2.Mohd. Suffi s/o Abdul Rajjak159/11.5 HDarwha.3.Mohd. Suffi s/o Abdul Rajjak & 3 others.159(2)4.5 HDarwha.3. The proceedings were initiated vide Land Acquisition Case No. 35...
Jayanti Gobindram Jagtiani and anr. Vs. Ilac Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)BomCR337
J.G. Chitre, J.1. This writ petition pertains to the year 1988. Inspite of notice of hearing having been served on the respondents and that a copy of this petition was served on the Official Liquidator, the Official Liquidator of Ilac Limited refused to participate in the hearing of this writ petition by telling the Advocate of the petitioners that they should file a petition for venting out their grievances before the Bench of the Gujarat High Court where the winding up proceeding is going on in context with respondent No. 1 company which is under the process of winding up. As this petition pertains to the year 1988, this petition has been finally heard and is being decided by this judgment finally treating the respondents ex parte in view of the facts mentioned above. 2. Mr. Bharucha, Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that Single Bench of Small Causes Court dismissed Regular Eviction Suit No. 1182/4122 of 1979 holding that if the said petition is allowed and respondent...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »