Mumbai Court April 2003 Judgments

Shri Anand Patwardhan Vs. the Central Board of Film Certification and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(3)ALLMR25; 2003(5)BomCR58; 2004(1)MhLj856

Gokhale, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks to involve Article 14, 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution to challenge the order dated 9/12th December 2002 passed by the Film Certification Appellate tribunal ('FCAT' for short) under Section 5-D of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 ('the Act' for short). The impugned order directs two cuts and one addition in the documentary film made by the Petitioner. The petition is opposed through an affidavit in reply of the Assistant Regional Officer affirmed on 27th February, 2003.2. The facts leading to this petition are as follows:-The Petitioner is a well known figure in the field of documentaries in India and has been making socially relevant documentaries for last nearly three decades. In the past, he has made films which have won national and international awards, wherein he has dealt with various subjects like those regarding street dwellers (Bombay Our City, 1985), religious fundamentalism ('Ram Ke Nam'--...

Siemens Limited, a Company Incorporated Under the Companies Act, 1956 ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(5)BomCR520; 2003(3)MhLj897

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. This petition challenges the order of the Industrial Court declaring that they have committed an unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and directing them to pay to the Respondent workmen Rs. 188/- per month, from the date they attain the age of sixty years, as pension. 2. The facts giving rise to the present Petition are as under:- A settlement was arrived at between the Union representing the Petitioner's workmen and the Petitioners on 4th November 1992. Under this settlement, a superannuation scheme providing for pension to be paid to the employees was formulated and the scheme came into effect from 1st November 1992. The respondents resigned from service on the basis of an early voluntary retirement scheme. Under this scheme, the workmen were allowed to resign from service prior to attaining the age of superannuat...

J.N. Marshall and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)183CTR(Bom)599

S.H. Kapadia, J.1. M/s J.N. Marshal & Co. is the assessee-appellant before us. In this appeal we are concerned with financial year ending 31st Dec., 1986, relevant to asst. yr. 1987-88. Facts 2. Assessee is a trader of ingot steel, grinding wheels, cutting tools, etc. Assessee filed its return of income for the impugned assessment year on 30th June, 1987, declaring the total income at Rs. 23,353. In the impugned assessment year, the assessee employed the method of valuation of closing stock, consistently adopted by it from asst. yr. 1965-66. Under this assessment, goods lying in the closing stock, which are less than one year were valued at cost; those lying in closing stock for a period of one to two years, were valued at cost less 25 per cent; goods lying in closing stock for a period between two to three years were valued at cost less 50 per cent, and those which were lying in stock for a period between three to four years, were valued at cost, less 75 per cent. Lastly, goods which ...

J.N. Marshall and Co. Vs. Income Tax Officer and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)183CTR(Bom)603; [2003]264ITR690(Bom)

S.H. Kapadia, J.1.Being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal dt. 29th Dec., 2000, in Misc. Appln. No. 219/Bom/1999, the assessee has come by way of appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act, In this appeal, we are concerned with the financial year ending 31st Dec., 1985, relevant to the asst. yr. 1986-87. Facts 2. The assessee-firm is a trader in grinding wheels, cutting tools and ingot steels. For the year under consideration, the stocks were valued at Rs. 16,64,320. Referring to the assessment order for the earlier assessment year, the AO found that there was no evidence to show that the market value of the stock had gone down by Rs. 8,30,996 as claimed by the assessee. According to the AO, no stock register was produced to show that the items purchased by the assessee, three to four years before, were still lying with the assessee. Therefore, the AO added Rs. 8,30,996 to the total income of the assessee. The matter was carried in appeal to the CIT(A), who took the view that the meth...

Mr. Kishore Shankar Singapurkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Mafatlal ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(2)ALD(Cri)4; I(2004)BC398; 2003(4)MhLj938

J.G. Chitre, J.1. The petitioner is hereby taking exception to the order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 37th Court, Mumbai, dated 24/3/1999, whereby the said Court took cognizance of a complaint filed by respondent No. 2 an issued process against the petitioner in context with provisions of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as Act for convenience).2. The respondent No. 2 filed a complaint by alleging that the petitioner issued following cheques to him and when they were presented for encashment, were dishonoured.1. Cheque No. 58534, dated 15.3.1998 for Rs. 17,005/-2. Cheque No. 58535, dated 15.4.1998 for Rs. 17,005/-.3. Cheque No. 58536, dated 15.5.1998 for Rs. 17,005/-.4. Cheque No. 58537, dated 15.6.1998 for Rs. 17,005/-.5. Cheque No. 58538, dated 15.7.1998 for Rs. 17,005/-.The respondent No. 2 complained, that by dishonouring of the cheques the petitioner committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. The lear...

Anubai W/O Vishnu Savant Vs. Vithoba Shripati Savant (Deceased) and or ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)ALLMR159; 2004(1)MhLj545

V.C. Daga, J.1. This is a second appeal filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('C.P.C.' for short) by the original plaintiff challenging the judgment and order passed by the Third Additional District Judge, Sangli in Regular Civil Appeal No. 337 of 1984 dated 13th September 1990; whereunder the 8/28th share (in the suit property) granted by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Islampur in a Regular Civil Suit No. 173 of 1979 vide his judgment and decree dated 28th February, 1984 came to be reduced to 1/21st share.THE FACTS :2. The facts are not in dispute. The relationship between the parties is also not in dispute, The genealogy is as under : Shripati (died on 6-8-1962) | Wife Girija (died in 1976) | ________________________________________ | | | Vithoba (son) Vishnu (son) | (died on 3-2-1989 (died in 1960) _____________________________________________________________ | | | | Tarubai Parubai Balkabai Shalubai (daughter) (daughter) (daughter) (daughter) 3. Vishnu died i...

Mohanlal S/O Ramdulare Vishwakarma and ors. Vs. Mohanlal S/O Maniklal ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(3)ALLMR1049; 2004(2)BomCR871

J.N. Patel, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Parties.2. On 8th January, 2003 this Court had made it clear that the appeal would be disposed of at the stage of admission itself, therefore, the learned Counsel for the parties have addressed the Court on merits of the matter. Therefore, the appeal is Admitted and is taken up for hearing.3. The appellants have preferred this appeal aggrieved by the order dated 11.12.2002 passed by the Additional District Judge, Amravati below Exh. 30, 31 and 37 i.e. applications for condonation of delay, setting aside of abatement and for bringing legal heirs of the appellant No. 2 Harishchandra, who died on 19.07.2001. The applicants are his widow and a minor daughter.4. The appellant nos. 1 to 3 purchased a plot No. 5-B admeasuring 1950 sq.ft., out of Sub Division No. 7 of plot No. 10 bearing Nazul Plot No. 69-D from the respondent No. 5 by Registered Sale deed. Thereafter they have constructed a building on the said plot after obtaining necessary...

Bhai Pradhan Singh and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the valuation of resins of Iranian origin imported by the appellant. In the bill of entry that was filed for the goods described as industrial grade resins value declared was Rs. 7,40106/- for a quantity of 21,300 kgs. This value was based on the invoice which indicated the goods to be sold at US dollar 700 per ton. The import of the goods was taken up by the directorate of Revenue Intelligence in a letter dated 22.11.02. The Asst. Director (DRI) the partner of the importing firm has said that on account of stiff competition "I declared less than the actual price of the goods i.e. 1 USD per kg. and I am ready to pay my customs duty liability thereupon. I request you not to issue a show cause notice. I do not want any personal hearing in the matter." Solely on the basis of this communication that the Commissioner has assessed that value of the goods should be one dollar per kg. and accordingly ordered confiscation of the goods under C...

Suresh M. Jumani Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Vide stay order No. CI/353-54/WZB/2000 dt.21.1.2000 the Tribunal directed predeposit of the entire penalty amount of Rs. 1000/- imposed on Shri Suresh M. Jumani. The appeals were dismissed for non-compliance vide order No. C-II/604-605/WZB/2000 dt.28.2.2000.2. In the application for restoration the applicants states that the predeposit of Rs. 1000/- was made on 13.1.2000 after pronouncement of order and compliance report was sent to the Registry on the same date.On perusal of the challan for payment of the penalty I am satisfied that the appeals are required to be restored. I therefore set aside the order of dismissal, restore the appeals to their original number fixed them for final hearing on 25.7.2003. Notice to issue....

Mafatlal Holdings Ltd. Vs. Additional Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)85TTJ(Mum.)821

1. This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-I, Mumbai, dt. 28th Feb., 2001, for the asst. yr. 1998-99. The assessee is a company belonging to the Mafatlal Group. The main objects of the company are to carry on the business of an investment company and to invest in and acquire and hold, sell or otherwise deal in shares, stocks, debentures, debenture-stocks, bonds, units, obligation and securities issued or guaranteed by Indian or foreign Governments, States, Dominion, Sovereigns, Municipalities or public authorities or bodies or any company corporation, forum or person whether incorporated or established in India or elsewhere. Thus, the main object clause of the company is to carry on business of finance and investments.2. The first three grounds of appeal taken up by the assessee pertain to the disallowance of interest of Rs. 1,74,12,682. The AO observed that the assessee-company has not given out any new finances during the accounting year relevant to a...