Mumbai Court July 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.
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Sumati Pandurang Padave
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)ALLMR486; 2004(5)BomCR6; 2005(1)MhLj329
F.I. Rebello, J.1. Both these petitions can be disposed of by a common judgment as the issue involved is the same. A few facts may be set out. Smt. Sumati Pandurang Padave is the widow of a deceased railway employee who may be designated as CPF employee. He resigned from the services of the Railways. Subsequent to his death, his widow applied for ex-gratia payment in terms of the Office Memorandum (O.M.) dated 15th June, 1988 issued by the Department of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare Board, Government of India, which provided for grant of ex-gratia payment to families of deceased CPF retirees. The relevant portion of the said O.M. may be reproduces hereunder :-'The undersigned is directed to state that the recommendation of the 4th Central Pay Commission in part II of its report regarding grant of relief to the families of deceased civilian Central Government Employees, who were governed by Contributory Provident Fund Scheme, has been under consideration of Government. The President i...
Cmm Limited Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-2004
Reported in: 2004(6)BomCR71; 2005(1)MhLj224; [2005]59SCL633(Bom)
S.J. Vazifdar, J.1. The petitioner impugns the execution proceedings sought to be initiated by an auction notice dated 16th October, 2002 issued by the respondent-Corporation for arrears of property tax.2. It is not necessary to set out in detail the disputes between the parties regarding the liability of the petitioner to pay the property tax and the quantum thereof. Suffice it to say that the respondent claims that there are arrears of property taxes which ought to have been paid in respect of the property that is the subject matter of the present petition viz. 4th Floor of 'B' Wing and 'C' Wing of a building named 'Paragon Condominium'.3. For the purpose of this order, I shall proceed on the basis that the property tax is due in respect of the said premises from the petitioner.4. On 28th February, 2001, the petitioner made a reference under Section 15(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies, (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter the 'S.I.C. Act'). By a letter dated 28th February, ...
Kesuram Laddharam Lakhani and anr. Vs. Gowardhandas Surajmal Mor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)ALLMR606; 2005(1)MhLj185
Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. This is a Second Appeal filed by the original defendants, appellants herein, against the original plaintiff, respondent herein, and thereby challenged the judgment and decree dtd. 30th March, 1991 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 104 of 1989, whereby the appellant for the first time ordered to pay Rs. 10,980/- towards the use and occupation charges of the suit tenement for the period since 1st August, 1987 to 31st January, 1989, after deducting the earlier amount as decreed by the Court below in Regular Civil Suit No. 35/89 between the parties.2. The Second Appeal in question was admitted on 18-9-1991 on the following question of law.'Whether in the absence of valid termination of the tenancy, the claim for damages could be made on the basis of the alleged agreement dated 1st of July, 1982?.3. The undisputed position on the record shows that the respondent is the owner of the house situated at Main road at Yavatmal. Pursuance to terms and conditions between the p...
Vijayan V. Vs. Wimco Limited and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-2004
Reported in: (2005)ILLJ337Bom
S.J. Vazifdar, J.1. The Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari against the impugned order dated November 30, 2002 holding a complaint filed by the Petitioner under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter the 'said Act') to have become infructuous.2. The Petitioner joined the services of the first Respondent on April 1, 1981 as a Clerk 'B' Grade. He remained in the post throughout. He was the Secretary of the Wimco Employees Union which is the recognized union of the first Respondent.3. In 1998, a charter of demands was made and referred to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act for adjudication. The same is registered as Ret'. (I.T.) No. 3 of 2001. One of the demands of the Union was that that first Respondent ought to stop the system of reducing the strength of the bargaining cadre of the workers.4. On December 4, 2001, the Petitioner himself was offered promotion by t...
Neena Murudeshwar Vs. Key Publication Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-2004
Reported in: [2005(105)FLR505]; (2005)ILLJ918Bom
S.J. Vazifdar, J.1. The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to quash and set-aside the order dated May 29, 2002 passed by 6th Labour Court, Mumbai, dismissing the petitioner's application filed for the recovery of various amounts. The impugned order directed Respondent No. 1 to pay only Rs. 5000/-.2. Respondent No. 2, Prakash Bafna, is the Director of Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 3, Western India Art Litho. The petitioner was employed by Respondent No. 1 in accordance with the General Terms of Employment of Respondent No. 1, Clauses 5 and 9 whereof read as under:'5. On confirmation you will be entitled to the following perquisites.(a) House Rent Allowance at the rate of 10 per cent of your total salary.(b) Leave Travel Allowance at the rate of one month's salary in a calendar year provided that you go out of Bombay on privilege Leave of not less than 10 days.(c) You will be eligible to 30 days privilege leave with full pay in a calendar year. You will be allowed to accumulate ...
Galaxy Clocks Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-2004
Reported in: (2004)(172)ELT378Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal, whereby the claim of the appellants to avail Modvat credit on capital goods has been rejected. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants had a balance credit of Rs. 1,48,899/- as on 31-3-2000, which was on account of the cap of 50% credit availment on capital goods that was permissible in the financial year of installation of capital goods in a factory. In other words, if the restriction of utilisation of only 50% of the credit of capital goods was not to exist under the said Modvat rules, the appellants could have utilised the entire credit of duty paid on the capital goods as against the utilisation of 50% of credit amount. However, on account of this restriction, the appellants had balance credit of Rs. 1,48,899/- on 31-3-2000 as stated earlier. The appellants had surrendered their Central Excise registration on 7-4-2000 on account of introduction of full exemption to finished goods (clocks) manufactured by them. The ...
S.P. Hinduja Bigger (Huf) Vs. Ito
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-2004
Reported in: (2005)97ITD235(Mum.)
All these three appeals filed by the assessee are arising out of a common order of CWT(A) XVIII, Mumbai dated 10-12-2003 relevant for the assessment years 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99. The solitary ground is in respect of levy of penalty under Explanation 3 to section 18(1)(c).For these three years penalty levied amounted to Rs. 24,243, Rs. 21,820 and Rs. 19,773 respectively for the assessment years 1996-97,1997-98 and 1998-99.The short issue is whether in case of an old assessee Explanation 3 to section 18(1)(c) can be invoked when the assessee has defaulted in filing the wealth-tax return more particularly when the wealth was assessed as per the wealth declared in the return filed in compliance of a notice.Facts of the case leading to these appeals briefly were that no returns were filed as prescribed under section 14 of wealth Tax Act. There upon notice under section 17 was issued calling upon the appellant to furnished wealth-tax return. In compliance wealth-tax returns were furni...
S.P. Hinduja Bigger Huf Vs. the I.T.O.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-2004
Reported in: (2005)279ITR178(Mum.)
1. All these three appeals filed by the assessee are arising out of a common order of CWT (A), XVIII, Mumbai dated 10/12/2003 relevant for the assessment years 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99. The solitary ground is in respect of levy of penalty under Explanation 3 to Section 18(1)(c). For these three years penalty levied amounted to Rs. 24,243/-, Rs. 21,820/- and Rs. 19,773/- respectively for the assessment years 1996-97, 1997-97 and 1998-99.2. The short issue is whether in case of an old assessee Explanation 3 to Section 18(1)(c) can be invoked when the assessee has defaulted in filing the Wealth Tax return more particularly when the wealth was assessed as per the wealth declared in the return filed in compliance of a notice.4. Facts of the case leading to these appeals briefly were that no returns were filed as prescribed Under Section 14 of WT Act. There upon notice Under Section 17 was issued calling upon the appellant to furnished Wealth Tax return. In compliance Wealth Tax returns...
Prakash Anant Pawar Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ3681
A.S. Aguiar, J.1. Both these appeals are from the common Judgment and order dated 31st March, 1994 passed by the Special Judge, Thane, convicting accused No. 1 Prakash Anant Pawar of the offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- i.d. S.I. for three months and convicting accused No. 2 Sawalaram Kachere Mukadam of the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- i.d. S.I. for three months. Criminal Appeal No. 236/94 is filed by accused No. 1 Prakash Anant Pawar while Criminal Appeal No. 294/94 is filed by Sawalaram Kachere Mukadam, accused No. 2.2. Both the accused were charged for offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the allegations that at the relevant time i.e. in ...
Shri Jaysing Rangarao Raut Vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Board a S ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR248; 2004(6)BomCR641; 2004(4)MhLj115
S.U. Kamdar, J.1. By the present petition, the petition is seeking quashing of an order dated 12-12-1991 by which it has been inter alia held that the petitioner shall not be entitled to pay fixation benefits and he shall also not be entitled to arrears for the period of deemed date promotion since he has the period of deemed date promotion since he has not performed duties in the said post. By a further writ of mandamus, the petitioner is seeking direction that the petitioner should be paid back wages consequent of his deemed date promotion to the cadres of Assistant Accountant with effect from 1-10-1969. Some of the material facts, briefly stated, are as under:-2. On 17-10-1958 the petitioner joined service as Lower Division Clerk with the 1st respondent. Sometime in or about 1967, the petitioner was prosecuted both under the Criminal Procedure Code and also was subjected to departmental enquiry on the charge that the petitioner has participated in an illegal strike. On 2.12.1968, pu...
- ‹ Prev
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- Next ›
- Last »