Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1997(3)ALLMR620; 1997(4)BomCR10
A.P. Shah, J.1. Whether naval officers who have attained the rank of lieutenant in the executive branch of the Indian Navy are entitled to a certificate of service as the master of a foreign going ship without examination under section 80(1) of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 (Act for short) after repeal of the said section on 14th August, 1986, is the short but interesting question which falls for my consideration in this group of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The facts are simple and very shortly stated. The petitioners are naval officers serving in the executive branch of the Indian Navy. The petitioners have attained the rank of lieutenant in the executive branch of the Indian Navy long prior to repeal of section 80(1), which provided for grant of a certificate of service as the master of a foreign going ship without appearing for the examination if the concerned officer has attained the rank of lieutenant in the executive branch of the Indian Navy. It may...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1997)58TTJ(Mumbai)416
ORDERT. A. BUKTE, J.M. :This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of the CIT, Central-II, Bombay, passed under s. 263 of the IT Act, 1961 on 28th March, 1994, holding that the assessment as framed by the AO was erroneous insofar as it was prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, on the following two grounds :(i) that the claim of the assessee for bad debts of Rs. 28,77,420 was allowed by the AO without proper scrutiny and without looking into the conditions prescribed under cl. (i) of sub-s. (2), of s. 36, of the IT Act, 1961; and(ii) the AO also completed the assessment without making enquiries about the source of funds for the amount of Rs. 8,35,000 given by the assessee to his wife, Smt. Harvinder Singh Kaur.2. It would be necessary to reproduce para 6 of the assessment order in this connection :'6. Assessee has claimed bad debt of Rs. 28,77,420 along with the details of the bad debt. It is stated that he sold the above goods to Shri Bhagwandas Aggarwal whose office is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1997)61ITD129(Mum.)
1. These are two cross-appeals, one by the assessee and the other by the revenue directed against the order of the CIT (Appeals) dated 24-10-1989 for the assessment year 1986-87. As certain common points are involved, they were heard together and are disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. We shall first take up the appeal of the assessee. "Disallowance under section 37(4) - Guest house Expenses of Rs. 8,83,372. - CIT(A) has erred in not accepting the appellant's contention that the occupancy charges and administration charges of guest house amount to Rs. 8,83,372 are not for the maintenance of guest house as referred in section 37(4)(1) and could not be disallowed under section 37(4)." 3. The assessee claimed expenditure on guest house of Rs. 23,31,317 and this was disallowed by the Assessing Officer under the provisions of section 37(4) of the Income-tax Act. The CIT (Appeals) deleted the following expenditure :- equipments, furniture, etc. Rs. 2,11,447 -...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1998(1)BomCR437; 1998(1)MhLj333
ORDERR.G. Deshpande, J.1. In the present petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 22nd July, 1993 passed by the Secretary, Home Department, Government of Maharashtra (respondent No. 1), arising out of the order dated 14th May, 1992, passed by the Commissioner, State Excise, Maharashtra State, Bombay, in Appeal No. 55/1992 which, in its turn, arose out of the order dated 31st March, 1992, passed by the Collector, Aurangabad in Case No. 851/90.2. The facts of the present case, in brief, are :That the present petitioner - Uttam holds a licence of retail business in country liquor under Form No. C.L. III since 26th April, 1974, which was renewed from time to time. Petitioner -Uttam continued the said business till 1978 in the same style and capacity under the name and title 'Madira Sagar'.3. In the year 1978 and, to be precise, on 21st November, 1978, the petitioner entered into an agreement with the respondent No. 2 - Pradeep for doing the business in partnership. This deed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1998)65ITD73(Mum.)
1. All these appeals by the 20 appellants are against the penalty orders under s. 271(1)(c) and the facts, circumstances and grounds being the same; therefore, all these appeals of 20 appellants which is known as 'Jhunjhunwala Group of cases' are heard and decided by this common order.2. Before the start of the arguments, it was agreed to by the parties that the arguments, counter-arguments and the decisions may be with respect to the decision in the case of Nirmal Kumar P. Jhunjhunwala, in whose case, the loading order has been passed and that decision will govern all these appeals.3. The detailed facts, as are relevant to various submissions made by the parties, through, are mentioned at the relevant place, yet, we would like to extract a brief before we proceed to discuss and decide various solutions. The facts of the case are that as a result of search warrants and subsequent authorisations dt. 19th August, 1986 in the name of 4 individuals-(1) Purshottamdas F. Jhunjhunwala, (2) K...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1998)61TTJ(Mumbai)223
ORDERSMT. NIRMAL YADAV, J.M. :The above captioned two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the order of the Asstt. CIT (Investigation), Circle-1(1) Kalyan passed under s. 158BC of the IT Act (hereinafter referred to as Act) relating to the block period commencing from 1st April, 1985, to 8th February, 1996. (IT (S&S;) A. No. 50/Bom/97 has been filed against the computation sheet dt. 28th February, 1997, while IT (S&S;)/Bom/97 is against the speaking order of the even date. Since both the appeals relate to the same block period, for the sake of convenience, these are disposed by this common order.2. The brief facts as culled out from the record are that the assessee is engaged in the business of construction and sale of residential/shopping projects in the name and style of Vikas Builders. The assessee filed his regular returns of income and assessment was made upto asst. yr. 1995-96. On 8th February, 1996, a search and seizure action under s. 132 of the Act was conducted ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
1. The above captioned two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the order of the Asstt. CIT (Investigation), Circle-1(1) Kalyan passed under s. 158BC of the IT Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') relating to the block period commencing from 1st April, 1985, to 8th February, 1996. (IT (S&S) A. No. 50/Bom/97 has been filed against the computation sheet dt. 28th February, 1997, while IT (S&S)/Bom/97 is against the speaking order of the even date. Since both the appeals relate to the same block period, for the sake of convenience, these are disposed by this common order.2. The brief facts as culled out from the record are that the assessee is engaged in the business of construction and sale of residential/shopping projects in the name and style of Vikas Builders.The assessee filed his regular returns of income and assessment was made upto asst. yr. 1995-96. On 8th February, 1996, a search and seizure action under s. 132 of the Act was conducted at the residential ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1998(3)BomCR503
ORDERDr. Pratibha Upasani, J.1. The plaintiff, Mr. Venkatesh Iyer has filed his suit against Bombay Hospital Trust through its Medical Director and Superintendent (defendant Nos. 1 and 2) and Dr. Arvind Kulkarni, erstwhile Head of Department of the Radiation Therapy of Bombay Hospital, claiming a sum of Rs. 47,00,000/- as damages for allegedly treating the plaintiff with negligence. The break up of the claim for special and general damages as given in the particulars of the claim at Annexure II to the plaint and in the prayers is as follows :Rs. 2 lakhs for medical expenses and Rs. 10 lakhs for future surgery. (These are the claims under the head of Special Damages). Rs. 15 lakhs for loss of future earnings and Rs. 20 lakhs for loss of amenities, mental and physical shock and torture, totalling to Rs. 47 lakhs. Interest is claimed on this amount at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till payment or realisation.2. The case of the plaintiff as revealed from the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1998(3)BomCR415; 2000BomCR(Cri)14
ORDERS.N. Variava, J.1. By all these petitions the petitioners pray that the proceedings before the Metropolitan Magistrate Courts, under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, be quashed. In some of these petitions a prayer is also made that undertakings given by the concerned petitioners to those courts, to pay amounts, be also quashed and/or set aside. 2. Most of these petitions have been filed by Directors of two companies viz. Orkay Industries Limited and Atash Industries (India) Limited. In most of these petitions the concerned company is also a party. In some, it is a co-petitioner. In some, it is a respondent. In all these petitions common questions of law are raised. The main question raised before this Court is whether by virtue of section 536(2) read with section 441(2) of the Companies Act providing that all transfers made, after the commencement of winding up, will be void, any offence can be deemed to have been committed under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrum...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1998(4)BomCR803
ORDERA.B. Palkar, J.1. This writ petition, filed by M/s. Hindustan Distilleries, seeks an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents, directing them to issue license, known as CL-l, to the petitioner, in pursuance of its application, which the Government of Maharashtra had earlier decided to sanction and in turn, to set aside the order dated 28-5-1997 passed by the Honourable Minister, State Excise, bearing Order No. SUT/1096/21-EXC-3.Facts are not very much in dispute and therefore, the brief resume will suffice to appreciate the controversy.2. Petitioner was holding a license for manufacture of Indian make Foreign Liquor, which is known as PLL license under the provisions of Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 (for brevity, hereinafter, 'the Act of 1949') and the Maharashtra Distilleries of Spirit and Manufacture of Potable Liquor Rules, 1966, whereas for country liquor the relevant rules are Maharashtra Country Liquor Rules 1973 (for brevity, hereinafter, 'the Rules of 1973')....
Tag this Judgment!