Mumbai Court January 2003 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.
NagIn Das M. Goradia Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-2003
Reported in: (2004)83TTJ(Mum.)151
1. The assessee in IT(S&S)A 100/Mum/1996, Neeta V. Goradia is the wife of one Vijay N. Goradia. Vijay N. Goradia is a Civil Engineer who renders architectural services to various clients, including M/s Prakash Corporation, Dahisar, Mumbai. There was a search and seizure operation in the case of Vijay Goradia on 14th Nov., 1995, along with the case of M/s Prakash Corporation. Block assessment was done in the case of Vijay Goradia. The block assessment in the case of the present assessee, for the block period 1st April, 1985 to 14th Nov., 1995, was done separately, vide the impugned assessment order.2. A notice under Section 158BC of the IT Act was issued to the assessee. Later, a notice under Section 143(2) was issued. In response to the notice under Section 158BC, the assessee filed her returns of income for the block period in Form No. 2B on 15th Nov., 1996, admitting undisclosed income for the block period at nil. She contended having not filed her returns of income for some of ...
Hemendra Mathradas Kothari of Bombay Indian Inhabitant, Vs. State of M ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-2003
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR1146; 2003(3)BomCR576
C.K. Thakker, C.J.1. Rule. Mr. V.P. Malvankar, Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 waives service of rule. Mr. A.A. Kumbhakoni appears and waives service of rule of behalf of Respondent No. 4. In the facts and circumstances, the matter is taken up for final hearing.2. This Petition is filed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 16th March, 2002 passed by the State Government, Respondent No. 1 herein.3. The learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that in an earlier Petition being, Writ Petition No. 5020 of 1991, the Division Bench of this Court while allowing the Petition, issued three direction. By Directions 1 and 2, the matter was remitted to the competent authority to decide the same in accordance with law. Those questions related to the jurisdiction of the competent authority, i.e. Collector under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The third direction related to exemption fr...
Nagnath Manikrao Kushnure Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Kailash Bab ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD(Cri)83; 2003BomCR(Cri)843
N.V. Dabholkar, J.1. This is an application for bail inconnection with the offence under Section 302 of theIndian Penal Code (IPC) registered as Cr. No. 37 of1997 with Sonkhed Police Station, Taluka Loha,District Nanded.2. With the passage of time, the petition,although for bail, has some peculiar features of itsown. The incident in question had taken place on1.7.1997 at about 8.30 or 9 a.m. There is no disputethat as many as 33 persons were arrayed as accused.According to prosecution story, these persons chaseddeceased Babarao Dhonde, while he was walking on theroad. Babarao entered the house of witness Manik inorder to save himself but the assailants entered thehouse and Babarao was consigned to death with severeattack resulting into as many as 23 injuriesincluding 20 incised injuries and two fractures, ofparietal bone and frontal bone. As many as 27persons were arrested and others were reported to beabsconding. Arrested persons were tried by thelearned Additional Sessions Judge, Nan...
Indian Bank, a Banking Corporation Incorporated Under the Banking Corp ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Bom484; 2003(2)ALLMR69; II(2003)BC317; 2003(4)BomCR99
C.K. Thakker, C.J. 1. Rule. Shri. Janak Dwarkadas appears and waivesservice of rule on behalf of the Respondents. In thefacts and circumstances, the matter is taken up forfinal hearing.2. This petition is filed against an order passedby the Presiding Officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunalon 12th July, 2002 in applications below Exhibits 14and 15 in O.A. No. 2617 of 1999 and confirmed by theDebt Recovery Appellate Tribunal in MiscellaneousAppeal No. 356 of 2002 on 13th November, 2002.3. In a suit filed by the Appellant - Bank thisCourt on June 26, 1996 issued certain directions.Paragraph 2 of the said order reads as under:'2. The motion is for appointment ofReceiver in respect of all the property.While giving reply to the arguments of thePlaintiff, the counsel for the defendantagreed to give Bank Guarantee within fourweeks from today of a Nationalised Bank for asum of Rs. 1.10 Crores of assurance that Bankguarantee will be enhanced after every fiveyears considering the pendency of the su...
Adani Exports Ltd. and anr. Vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Board an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-2003
Reported in: 2003(5)BomCR743; 2003(4)MhLj391
A.P. Shah, J.1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent. Rule ismade returnable forthwith.2. On 12th November 2002 the 1st respondent MSEB issued Tender Noticebearing No. SP/T-301/11-02 inviting bids for supply of 0.375 MT of high gradeimported coal for Nashik and Koradi Thermal Power Stations. The tenderdocument is divided into three sections. Section 1 contains instruction to bidders,section II contains the general terms and conditions of the contract while sectionIII contains technical specifications. Clause 6.6 of Section 1 reads thus :'6.6 Bidders/Associates should not have/had any criminal proceedingswithin India against the partner(s) Director(s)/employee(s) of thecompany on account of supplies or handling of coal to any organizationwithin the country during the past five (5) years. The bidder shall give an affidavit to the effect that. 'There is no criminalproceedings within India against the partner(s)/Director(s)/employee(s)of the company and/or they are not convicted by ...
Antonio R. Borges and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through Its Secre ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)BomCR529
D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard learned Advocate for the petitioners and learned Advocates for the respondents.2. The petitioners, who are four in number, have challenged the order dated 2nd May, 2001, issued by the surveyor-in-charge, Captain K.P. Jayakumar, which had the effect of discharging the petitioners from their services. The order was based on the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958. The petitioners have also challenged the enquiry sought to be initiated against them pursuant to the letter dated 1st August, 2001.3. The facts giving rise to this petition are that all the petitioners have served the eighth respondent for more than 20 years. Since 1980 they were the members of Jahazi Mazdoor Union, but they alongwith others became members of the Forward Seamen's Union of India. Intimation in this regard was given to respondent No. 8 and respondent No. 8 was also informed that it was not implementing the M/s. Kumud Bansal Award dated 17th April, 2000.4. On 16th April, 2001, ...
Larson and Toubro Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-2003
Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT827Tri(Mum.)bai
2. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) reducing the penalty imposed on the appellant from Rs. 1.82 lakhs to Rs. 79,000/- approx. The penalty was imposed on the ground that the appellant did not pay duty on the scrap that arose in the manufacture of components of heat exchangers. The scrap emerged between 1995 and 1998 at the premises of the job worker, whereas the duty was paid in June, 2000.3. The contention Mr. R. Viswanathan, Senior Executive of the appellant are these. The duty amount involved is Rs. 1,80,000/- approx. whereas the appellant paid Rs. 500 crores annually. In the larger perspective a sympathetic view should be taken.4. I do not see how these contentions are of any assistance to the appellant. I am not aware of any provision of law which lays down the assessee not to pay duty in proportion to the duty that it paid. I would be surprised if this appellant or any other assessee forgoes such short supply by its suppliers on the ground that it onl...
Commissioner of C. Ex. and Customs Vs. Besta Cosmetics Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-2003
Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT728Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee-respondent does not object to the condonation of the delay in filing the Appeals Nos. E/3468 and 3469/02, hence the delay is condoned.2. The question involved in these three appeals are whether the assessee-respondent is entitled to the refund of the amount of Rs. 36,30,350/-, Rs. 43,61,900/- and Rs. 35,07,858/-.3. The assessee-respondent is engaged in the manufacture of tooth paste and tooth powder falling under Chapter sub-heading 3306.00 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. The products were being sold under two different brand names, namely "PROMISE" owned by M/s. Balsara Hygiene Products Ltd., and "BABOOL" owned by the assessee-respondent.The price lists were filed by the assessee-respondent in terms of erstwhile Rule 173C of the Central Excise Rules before the authorities from time to time declaring the value of the said goods for the purpose of assessment. The Department contested the declared prices on the grounds that the...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Ksb Pumps Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-2003
Reported in: (2002)LC98Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in these appeals is the classification of various goods which formed part of the pumps that KSB Pumps Ltd. manufactured. The assessee had initially classified these goods in Heading 84.13 as parts of pumps. The department was of the view that this classification was not correct and issued notices proposing to amend the classification. Adjudicating on these notices, the Assistant Commissioner classified all the goods in Heading 84.83.The assessee appealed this order. The Commissioner (Appeals) modified the classification of coupling pilot box to Heading 73.07, accepted the assessee's contention with regard to some goods to classification to Heading 84.13 and confirmed the classification of other goods in Heading 80.83. Both the assessee and the department are in appeal against those parts of the order.2. Heading 73.07 is for tubes, pipes and fittings therefor. The contention in the department's appeal is that the coupling, which connects together with ...
F.D.C. Limited Vs. Federation of Medical Representatives Association I ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Bom371; 2003(2)ALLMR510; 2003(5)BomCR376; 2003(3)MhLj327
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard learned Advocates for the parties:Perused the records. Rule. By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith.2. The petitioner challenges the order dated 20.8.2002 passed by the City Civil Court, Mumbai in S.C. Suit No. 7280/1998 rejecting the contention of the petitioner that petitioner can produce the evidence of the plaintiff in the form of affidavit under Order XVIII Rule 4 of CPC. The trial court has held that for the purpose of allowing the parties to produce the evidence in the form of affidavit, the suit must be of the type wherein evidence could be recorded in terms of un-amended Rule 4 of Order XVIII of CPC and not the suit to which Rule 5 of the Order XVIII is applicable. Therefore, the points which arise in this petition are whether Rules 4 and 5 of Order XVIII prescribes two different methods of recording of evidence, and if so, what are those methods? In what circumstances those different methods are to be followed? Whether the provisions...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »