Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-13-2005
Reported in : [2006]130CompCas295(Bom); [2006(106)FLR551]
N.A. Britto, J.1. This is a complainant's appeal against the acquittal of the accused.2. Shri V.S. Khatre who was the manager of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation filed a complaint under Section 85(a) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 ('the Act' for short), against accused No. 1 which, according to him was an establishment under the Act having been allotted Code No. 32-28-67 and against accused No. 2 who was director and occupier of the said establishment named M/s. Cortalim Shipyard and Engineers P. Ltd.3. The complaint was filed for the failure to pay the contributions for the wage periods of October, 1992, to May, 1993, which were payable in terms of regulations 31, 39, and 40 of the Employees' State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950.4. The complaint was filed after the sanction was accorded by the Regional Director of the said Corporation.5. Although the sanction was obtained to prosecute the principal employer, i.e., A2 and the said establishment M/s. Cortal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-23-2005
Reported in : (2006)286ITR193(Mum.)
1. This appeal by the revenue is against the order of the CIT (A)-XVII.Mumbai dated 17.03.1999 relating to Assessment Year 1996-97. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 90,00,000/- made by the AO on account of capital gain regarding transfer of goodwill. In the alternative and without prejudice to the above, even if the amount of Rs. 90,00,000/- was received to compensate the assessee for foregoing the right to certain business activity, the IIT (A) should have held that the amount was taxable under the head "profits and gains of business.3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act VII of 1913 and is engaged in the business inter alia for the manufacture and sale of plant, machinery and equipment for the dairy, vegetable, oil food and beverage, brewery, sugar, pharmaceutical, chemical, fertilizer, petrochemical. power, ship building a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-22-2005
1. This appeal by the assessee is agaiinst the order of Commissioner (Appeals)-XXXIII, Mumbai, dated 19-1-2005 relating to assessment year 2001-02. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal against the action of the authorities below in denying exemption under Sections 11 to 13 of the Income Tax Act. (i) The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the order of the ADIT(E) denying exemption under Section 11 of the Act to the appellant without adjudicating ground Nos. 1 and 2 of the grounds and without considering all the submissions made by the appellant's representatives at the time of hearing. (ii) The assessing officer erred in refusing to consider that the income of the appellant trust is not taxable in accordance with Sections 11 to 13 of the Act. In doing so, the assessing officer had not considered rule of consistency which is applicable in tax proceedings. It has been judicially held that if facts and circumstances for earlier years are similar, same view shoul...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-22-2005
Reported in : 2006CriLJ1515; 2006(2)MhLj422
V.K. Tahilramani, J.1. Heard the learned advocate for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for respondents. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent matter is heard finally.2. By his judgment and order dated 30-4-2002 the learned Sessions Judge convicted the petitioner under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. The said judgment and order was challenged by the petitioner in an appeal which is pending before this Court. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner preferred application for parole on the ground that his wife was required to be operated. The said application came to be rejected. Against the said order of rejection, the petitioner preferred writ petition before this Court. The said writ petition came to be rejected as the petitioner had remedy of preferring appeal against the order of rejection of parole. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the State Government which came to be rejected. Being aggrieved by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-21-2005
Reported in : II(2007)BC141; 2006(2)MhLj258
A.H. Joshi, J.1. Heard.2. Rule.3. Shri B. R. Sontakke Patil, learned advocate for respondent waives service.4. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties.5. The petitioner moved application in the trial Court praying for correction in the cheque number 176087 as cheque No. 176037. The application was opposed and has been rejected. The learned trial Judge observed as follows :7. ...It is one of the defence of the accused that, cheque placed on record is not the cheque issued by the accused and therefore if the application is allowed and amendment intended to be carried out, is allowed, there is every likelihood of the rights of the accused will be prejudice....(portion extracted from para 7 of order below Exh.63 in S.C.C. No. 586/99)Learned trial Judge rejected the application holding that from plain reading of the xerox copy of the cheque which is placed on record, there is no room for confusion in reading all the digits. This order is challenged in this petition. Learned...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-16-2005
Reported in : 2006(2)ARBLR93(Bom); 2006(2)BomCR596; (2006)108BOMLR67
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgement and order of a learned Single Judge dated 18thJanuary 1996 in Arbitration Petition No.184 of 1992. The Arbitration Petitioninvoked Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 to challenge an award dated 6th August1992 made by the second respondent, who was appointed as Sole Arbitrator in disputes anddifferences arising out of a contract awarded by the Appellants in favour of firstrespondent herein. 2. By the order under appeal, the learned single Judge dismissed the petition filed bythe Appellant to challenge the aforesaid award. Aggrieved by refusal to interfere in theaward by the learned Single Judge, the Appellate Jurisdiction of this Court underArbitration Act as well as Clause 15 of Letters Patent has been invoked by the AppellantMunicipal Corporation of Greater Bombay. 3. The facts about which there is no dispute, may be now set out. First Respondent isa registered Contractor with the Appellant herein. The appella...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-08-2005
Reported in : 2006(2)ALLMR439; 2006(1)BomCR524; 2006(195)ELT257(Bom); 2006(2)MhLj46
Gokhale H.L., J. 1. Heard Mr. Madon, Senior Advocate in support of this petition. Mr. Pakale appears for the respondents.2. The first petitioner herein is a company established under the Companies Act and carries on the business of printing and publishing newspapers including one known as Indian Express. The other two petitioners are its subsidiary companies. Some time in the year 1981-1983 the petitioners imported printing machineries of photo composing equipments with accessories and spare parts from M/s. Linotype Associates Pvt. Ltd., United Kingdom. In 1987, two show cause notices were issued to the petitioners by the Customs department, one was dated 19-20th October, 1987 and second was dated 11th December, 1987 alleging that there was under-invoicing in the price at which the machinery was imported in India. The petitioners sent their reply to the notices on 29th January, 1988 seeking time to file further reply and seek inspection of certain documents. In this reply, they mention...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-06-2005
Reported in : I(2006)ACC731; 2006ACJ1559; AIR2006Bom53; 2006(1)ALLMR379; 2006(1)BomCR14; 2006(1)MhLj818
Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. These are five appeals filed by the respective claimants/appellants against the judgment and order dated 29th June, 1989 passed by the Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division) Thane (Railway Accident Tribunal) in Railway Accident Claim Nos. 14 of 1988, 15 of 1988, 12 of 1988 and 13 of 1988 and order dated 27th July, 1989 in Railway Accident Claim No. 16 of 1988 whereby their respective applications for compensation under Section 82(A) of the Indian railways Act, 1890 (for short 'Railway Act of 1890') were rejected. As all the appeals are arising out of a common accident and as the issues are same and as contended by all the parties, by this common judgment these appeals are disposed off.2. On 4th July, 1988 a train Minar Express 101 Dn. met with an accident between Byculla and Chinchpokli Railway Station of Central Railway, Bombay, in which the claimants/appellants sustained various injuries on various parts of the body as mentioned and referred in their respective appl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-05-2005
Reported in : 2006(2)ALLMR652; 2006(3)BomCR693; 2006(2)MhLj709
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. In all these Writ Petitions challenge is to the order passed by the respondent No. 3 Divisional Joint Registrar in proceedings under Section 78(1) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that all these petitions are identical. Initially when the petitioners were heard on 25-10-2005, challenge in this all these petitions was to order dated 24-10-2005, and by the said order the respondent No. 3 did not permit the petitioners to adduce evidence of Chairman of the District Central Co-operative Bank, Chandrapur and also one Mr. Lanjewar, Officer of the Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank. On 25-10-2005 this Court found that matter of petitioner in Writ Petition No. 5616/2005, was slightly different inasmuch as she has in her reply filed in response to the show cause notice before the Divisional Joint Registrar not only denied user of the vehicle for the priva...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-02-2005
Reported in : (2006)100ITD215(Mum.)
1. This appeal is directed against CIT(A)'s order dt. 4th March, 1999, in the matter of assessment under Section 143(3) r/w Section 250 of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for the asst. yr.1992-93 : On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to tax the bank at the rate applicable to domestic companies @ 40 per cent and surcharge shall not be payable by it. The CIT(A) ought to have held that tax rate payable (applicable) to bank would be as per provisions of the Finance Act for foreign companies. Vide letter dt. 6th June, 2005, the present AO, i.e., Jt. Director of International Taxation, Range-B(1), Mumbai, has filed the revised grounds of appeal which are as follows : On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to tax the foreign bank at a rate applicable to domestic companies, i.e., 45 per cent, and surcharge shall not be payable ...
Tag this Judgment!