Mumbai Court June 2006 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.
N.P. Karandikar (Since Deceased Through Legal Representatives Mandakin ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-05-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)BomCR520
ORDERD.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing for the Respondent waives service. By consent taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. In these proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution an order passed by the competent authority on 7th October, 2004 declining to frame a preliminary issue in regard to the maintainability of proceedings under Section 13A(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 has been called into question. 3. The facts in these two petitions lie in a narrow compass and are as under: Some time in the year 1995, the Respondent instituted a suit (Special Civil Suit 767 of 1995) against Shri N.P. Karandidar, the predecessor in interest of the Petitioners. In the suit a case was set up that the defendant thereto who was the owner of certain immovable property comprised in CTS Nos.48, 48A, 49, 50 and 51 at Kharkar Ali, Thane, entered into an oral agreement under which an amount of Rs.8 lacs was fixed ...
Nandkumar Kashinath Deorukhkar and ors. Vs. Standard Mill Company Ltd. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-05-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)MhLj668
D.G. Karnik, J.1. This petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 31st January, 2003 passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai, dismissing the revision application of the petitioners.2. The workers in most of the textile mills in Mumbai struck work indefinitely with effect from 10th January, 1982. The strike continued for years and many of the textile mills were closed. However, some of the stronger mills after terminating the services of the striking workmen resumed work by recruiting new employees. The petitioners were employed by respondent No. 1 and had participated in the strike since 10th January, 1982. In the year 1992 the petitioners issued five individual notices to the respondent No. 1, alleging that the respondent No. 1 was indulging in unfair labour practice under Item 1 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act'). The respondents denied the allegation and contended that ...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Yogendra Bhalchandra Patil and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-05-2006
Reported in: 2007ACJ2051
A.S. Oka, J.1. Heard advocates for the parties. The appellant Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. has taken exception to the judgment and award dated 26.10.1989 passed by the learned Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mumbai in a claim petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. By the impugned judgment and award, learned Member of the Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 67,780 together with interest in favour of the respondent No. 1-claimant.2. The present appellant insurance company is the insurer of motor taxi No. MMQ 2678 which was involved in the accident. The accident occurred on 5.12.1984. The defence of the appellant was that insured, viz., respondent No. 2 herein had issued a cheque dated 23.7.1984 on account of premium in favour of the appellant insurance company and on the basis of the said cheque, a policy of insurance was issued by the appellant. The case of the appellant is that by a letter dated 11.8.1984 addressed to respondent No. 2, the a...
J.M. Shah Vs. Commissioner of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-02-2006
Reported in: (2006)(106)ECC291
2. One M/s. M, J. Exports, had obtained a DEEC Advance Licence and made imports of certain raw materials. They were required to fulfill the export obligations by manufacturing the final products as held by them from the raw materials imported by them. M/s. M. J Exports did not meet the export requirements. They in turn diverted/supplied/sold the goods to M/s. Tudor India Ltd, one of the appellants herein. M/s. Tudor India Ltd manufactured the final product from the said imported goods and exported the entire quantity to their buyers. Such export was not under DEEC. The other appellant before us, to day, is one Mr. J. M. Shah, who at the relevant time was the Managing Director of M/s. M. J exports, who is also a Director in M/s. Tudor India Ltd. M/s. Tudor India Ltd and Mr. Shah has been imposed penalties under Section 112 (a)/112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 of Rs 30.00 lakhs and Rs 20.00 lakhs respectively. Hence these appeals.3. On a careful perusal of the impugned order, we do not f...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Gandhi Travels
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-02-2006
Reported in: (2006)(106)ECC242
1. Application is filed by Revenue seeking stay of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that the vehicle in question has not been employed as a tourist vehicle. The vehicle is used as a contractor, as submitted by the Ld. Advocate for the Respondents.in Sri Pandyan Travels v. CCE Chennai II wherein the High Court has held that contract carriage vehicles and the use therein, since the vehicle is not a tourist vehicle, service tax not payable, was not upheld and Service Tax under Section 65 (115) of Finance Act, 1994.3. The ld. Advocate relies upon Division Bench decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Secy. Federn. of Bus-Operators Assn. of T.N.v. Union of India 4. The issue revolves around the fact whether the said vehicle would meet the requirement of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 128 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. In the present case, there is no material at this stage to show that the vehicle has been so constructed as in the case of Sri Pa...
Gujarat Glass Ltd. Vs. Commissioner (Appeals) C. Ex. and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-01-2006
Reported in: (2007)8STR220
1. The appellants in this case have been denied Modvat credit on split air-conditioners, fluidic finish kit, lamps, saipper pads as capital goods on the ground that they cannot be considered as part cum-components and accessories of capital goods.2. The learned Advocate for the appellants submits that the air-conditioner is used in the furnace control room which is attached to the furnace itself. The furnace is where the glass in molten form is made before being released to mould Section for making glass bottle.The air-conditioner keeps the furnace control room cool at the required temperature so that the same can function properly. If the air-conditioner is not attached to the furnace control room, furnace control room will be get heated up as the furnace is having its temperature between 2000-2500 C. In the absence of furnace control room it will not be possible to measure the temperature nor functions of furnace of releasing molten glass to the mould Section could be controlled. In...
Zuari Industries Ltd. Vs. Acit
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-01-2006
Reported in: (2007)105ITD569(Mum.)
1. Both the appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by the common order for the sake of convenience.1. The first issue arising in this appeal relates to computation of capital gains Under Section 50B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act).Briefly stated, the facts are these: The assessee was engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of chemical fertilizers and allied products as well as cement and furniture. It sold its cement division located in the State of Andhra Pradesh to Zuari Cement Ltd., in which 50% shares were held by assessee against lump sum consideration of Rs. 75.98 crores paid by way of allotment of 7,59,80,000 fully paid up equity shares of face value of Rs. 10/- each under the scheme of arrangement approved by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court vide order dated 12.1.2001. This scheme was effective from 1.4.2000. In the return filed for the year under consideration, it was stated that net worth of cement division as per computation done Under Section 5...
Vinod Kumar Pittie Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-01-2006
Reported in: (2006)103TTJ(Mum.)504
1. The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dt.30th June, 2004 passed by the learned GIT(A). The assessee had originally taken only two effective grounds of appeal. He subsequently raised four additional grounds of appeal, which have since been admitted by order dt. 28th Sept., 2005 passed by this Tribunal. Thus, there are, in all, six grounds of appeal, which read as under: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 94,56,500 made by the AO on account of an alleged confessional statement made to the Enforcement Director, under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned GIT(A) was not justified in endorsing the addition of interest under Sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act made by the AO. 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the said assessment deserves to be annulled/set aside, as no proper notic...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›