Mumbai Court January 2004 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.
Sandvik Asia Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors. Overruled
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)BomCR590; (2004)189CTR(Bom)226
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Since a common question of law and facts arises in all the petitions, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The order rejecting the claim for interest on interest is sought to be challenged while contending that the petitioners are entitled to be paid with the interest at the rate of 15 per cent. per annum on the total amount of refund, including the interest accrued thereon from the day such refund amount became due and payable till the date of actual payment, in terms of Sections 214(1), 214(1A), and 244(1A) read with Section 240 and Section 244(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), and in the alternative, assuming that no such interest on interest is payable under any of the provisions of the said Act, then the same shall be ordered to be paid in exercise of writ jurisdiction since the amount of interest payable under Section 214(1) read with Sections 214(1A) and 244(1A) of the sa...
Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd., a Company Incorporated Under the Companies ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-2004
Reported in: 2005(102)ECC61
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned advocates for the parties and perused the records.2. The Petitioners challenge the order dated 28th April, 1994 passed by the respondent No. 2 rejecting the refund claim made by the petitioners. The refund claim has been rejected on three counts, firstly that the same was bared by law of limitation, secondly that the petitioners did not maintain any record of the processes to which the goods were subjected after they were returned to the factory as was otherwise required to be maintained under Rule 173 L(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, (hereinafter called as 'the said Rules'), and thirdly that the petitioners did not furnish any evidence in support of their claim that they had not recovered the amount of duty from the persons to whom the materials were originally sold and who had returned the same.3. The petitioners are carrying on the business, inter alia, as the manufacture of woollen fabrics and for that purpose they have their facto...
Gas Authority of India Ltd. Vs. the Official Liquidator, Through Indoc ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)ALLMR743; IV(2004)BC306; 2004(3)BomCR540; [2005]128CompCas690(Bom); 2004(3)MhLj337; [2004]53SCL209(Bom)
V.M. Kanade, J.1. Since in all the above three Appeals from Order parties are same and question of law involved is also the same, they can be conveniently disposed of by this common judgment.2. Brief facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding the above three Appeals from Order are as under:-3. The appellant is the original defendant and the respondent No. 1 is the original plaintiff. The appellant is a Company registered under the Companies Act and they wanted to set up a UPPC Complex at Patna in State of UP and in connection with the completion of the said work, respondent No. 1 was awarded the contract dated 26/4/1995 for design, engineering, supply, fabrication, erection, testing, commissioning and performance testing of DM Water Plant and Condensate Polishing Unites (CPU). As per the said contract, it was agreed that the work should be completed within 16 months in the first phase and 16 months in the second phase. In connection with the said contract, respondent No. 1 ha...
Garware Polyester Limited and Mr. S.S. Vaswani Vs. Union of India (Uoi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)BomCR545; 2005(101)ECC420
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard. Perused the records. The rejection of refund claim is sought to be challenged as being contrary to the directions issued by this Court in its order dated 7-12-1990 in Writ Petition No. 3040 of 1982 as well as the law laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Mafatlal Industries Limited and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., reported in : 1997(89)ELT247(SC) , while challenging the legislative competency and the constitutional validity of the provision of law contained in Section 11B of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944.2. The petitioners have their factory at Aurangabad for manufacturing polyester films in their factory at Aurangabad and such films are metallised or lacquered at their factory at Nasik. A question arose whether the process of metallising or lacquering of the manufactured polyester films amounted to 'manufacture' under the provisions of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, hereinafter called as 'the said Act' and in ...
Vijaykumar Hanumanprasad Goenka and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)ALLMR907; 2004(3)MhLj1069
S.G. Mahajan, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith by consent of the learned counsel for revision-petitioners and the learned A.G.P. appearing for respondent.2. The present revision-petitioners are the owners of field Gat No. 111, admeasuring 7.96 hectares, situated at Village Yeota, Taluka and District Akola. The abovesaid land was acquired by the State of Maharashtra. The Land Acquisition Officer (General), Akola, in Case No. LAQ/47/Shioni-Shivapur, Yeota and Kumbhari/2/91-92 passed an award. Dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded, the revision-petitioners filed a reference under Section 34 of Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 and the same was registered as LA Case No. 386/97. The case was allotted to the Court of 3rd Additional District Judge, Akola. As per the revision-petitioners, when the case was fixed for evidence, it was adjourned from time to time. On 27-3-2002 when the case was for evidence, the counsel for the revision-petitioners, who were the applicants...
Sandvik Asia Ltd. Vs. Cit and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-2004
Reported in: [2004]267ITR78(Bom)
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.Since a common question of law and facts arises in all the petitions, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.The order rejecting the claim for interest on interest is sought to be challenged while contending that the petitioners are entitled to be paid with the interest at the rate of 15 per cent. per annum on the total amount of refund, including the interest accrued thereon from the day such refund amount became due and payable till the date of actual payment, in terms of sections 214(1), 214(1A), and 244(1A) read with section 240 and section 244(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), and in the alternative, assuming that no such interest on interest is payable under any of the provisions of the said Act, then the same shall be ordered to be paid in exercise of writ jurisdiction since the amount of interest payable under section 214(1) read with sections 214(1A) and 244(1A) of the said Act...
Mahavir Metal Mart and ors. Vs. Indian Bank and anr.
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-2004
Reported in: II(2005)BC138
1. This Misc. Appeal is filed by the appellants/original defendants being aggrieved by the Order dated 30.5.2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Mumbai on Exhibit No. 135 in Original Application No. 597/2000. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer rejected the application made by the appellants for appointment of Commissioner to work out calculations of both the loan accounts in dispute i.e. cash credit (O.C.C.) account from 21.10.1976 and cash credit (key loan) account from 12.6.1973, after taking into account allegedly wrong entries in the credit facilities. Prayer of the application is that it would be just necessary and proper to appoint Court Commissioner, who is well acquainted with the subject of accountancy.2. The whole controversy had arisen because of the allegation of the appellants that calculation of the interest amount shown as due from the defendants is not properly done by the applicant Bank and, therefore, the ...
Basf India Limited and anr. Vs. M. Gurusamy and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)ALLMR499; [2004(101)FLR724]; (2004)IILLJ500Bom; 2004(2)MhLj164
R.M. Lodha, J.1. This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated February 23, 1995 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the Writ Petition filed by the present Appellants aggrieved by the order dated July 8, 1992 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Maharashtra and Goa (for short 'Commissioner') came to be dismissed.2. On 28th December 1984 the Commissioner issued summons to M/s. BASF India Limited (first Appellant and hereinafter referred to as 'the Company') under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short 'Act of 1952'). In the summons it was recorded that the Commissioner had reason to believe that the Company failed to remit the provident fund dues in respect of their establishment covered by the Act of 1952 and the Rules framed thereunder and that provident fund benefits were not extended to the trainees and contractor employees after completion of 60 working days. The Company was thereby directe...
Esquire Polymers Ltd. Vs. Appellate Authority for Industrial and Finan ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)ALLMR15; III(2004)BC157; 2004(2)BomCR475; [2005]128CompCas601(Bom); 2004(2)MhLj739; [2004]53SCL183(Bom)
H.L. Gokhale, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner is a Public Limited Company. It made a reference under Section 15(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (for short, 'the SICA') on the basis of its Annual Statement of Accounts as on 31st March 2001. As against the net worth of the Company which is Rs. 231.60 Lacs, its losses have mounted to Rs. 422.29 Lacs. The Board of Directors of the Company passed a Resolution on 3rd September 2001 to approach the Board of Industrial and the Financial Reconstruction ('BIFR' in short). The accounts were settled and approved by the Board of Directors on 27th September 2001. The reference was filed and received by the BIFR on 13th November 2001. The BIFR, by its order dated 5th July 2002, took a view that the reference was beyond the limitation of 60 days as provided under Section 15(1) of the SICA. The BIFR counted the period of 60 days from 3rd September 2001. It, therefore, dismissed the ref...
Smt. Ram Dulari and Others Vs. Maniram Ram Prasad Tiwari and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Bom359; 2004(2)ALLMR20; 2004(2)BomCR480; 2005(1)MhLj77
V.M. Kanade, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 1.2. Appellants are challenging the impugned order dated 15th September, 2003 passed by the City Civil Court dismissing the Chamber Summons which was taken (SIC) by the Appellants - Original Plaintiffs for bringing the heirs of Defendant No. 1 on record, by holding that the suit had abated and no sufficient cause was made out by the Appellants - original Plaintiffs for condoning the delay.3. Brief facts are as under:-4. Appellants filed a suit for partition of the plot of land bearing No. 36(1) and (a) situate at Majas Road, Jogeshwari (East), Bombay and 11 other chawls which were constructed on the said plot. Further relief was claimed by the Plaintiffs that Defendant No. 1 may be directed to render the accounts.5. Written Statement was filed by Defendant No. 1. During the pendency of the suit, Defendant No. 1 died on 7/3/2001. Plaintiffs ...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »