Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1974]97ITR334(Bom)
Tulzapurkar, J.1. In this reference as many as 10 questions have been referred to this court for its opinion, some at the instance of the assessee and some at the instance of the department and the basic or primary facts out of which these several questions arise may be stated thus : There is a public limited company called the Amalgamated Electricity Co. Ltd., which carries on the business of supplying electrical energy, originally to Bulsar, Bhiwandi and Belgaum. On 1st April, l951, it took over two other electric supply companies known as Ajmer Electric Supply Co. Ltd. and Jalgaon Electric Supply Co. Ltd. under separate amalgamation agreements sanctioned by this court by two orders dated 20th July, 1951. Copies of the orders sanctioning the amalgamation together with agreements of amalgamation in the case of each have been annexed as annexure 'A' to the statement of the case. The Amalgamated Electricity Co. Ltd. also purchased the undertakings with all the assets minus certain asset...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2003(2)BomCR207; 2002(84)ECC46; 2002(142)ELT319(Bom)
V.C. Daga, J.1. This petition is directed against the circular issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs (Board for short) dated 7-4-1998 and consequent show cause notice dated 10-8-1998 alleging therein that the Petitioner No. 1 M/s. Century Rayon has wilfully suppressed the fact of manufacture of 'Cinder' with an intention to evade payment of excise duty (duty for short) and evaded duty to the tune of Rs. 12,39,350/- and why the same be not recovered from them with penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (Rules for short) framed under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (Act for short).FACTS IN BRIEF:The 1st petitioners herein are the Division of Century Textile Industries Ltd., a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, engaged, inter alia, in the manufacture of excisable goods, having its factory, inter alia, at Shahad, Taluka - Kalyan, Dist. Thane. The 2nd petitioner is the Vice President (Finance) of the first Petitioner/Company.3. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2002)(147)ELT490Tri(Mum.)bai
2. This is an appeal filed by the department against the decision of the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs (Appeals), Ahmedabad made in Order-in-Appeal No.581/97 made in filed No. (24-KDL) CUS/COMMR/(A)/AHD dated 8.10.1997 whereunder he had held that the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Custom, Kandla made in Order-in-Original No. KDL A.C./04/96 APPB. G.R.I dated 29.11.1996 confirming the duty short levied amounting to Rs.22,57,65,172/- demanded under show cause notice dated 30.10.1996 was wrong and allowed the appeal of the respondents.3. Respondents had been regularly importing heptene/nonene at Kandla.They were using these chemicals for manufacture of oxo chemicals at their factory. There was a dispute with regard to the classification as to whether heptene/nonene could be classified as "AIF/Motor Spirit" or "otherwise". According to the opinion of the Chief Chemist, C.R.C.L., New Delhi, if end use and flash point criteria are taken into consideration, then he...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
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 : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1988Bom284; 1988(2)BomCR29
ORDER1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution impugns the competence of respondents 2 to 5 to occupy offices in the first respondent Council and exercise powers and privileges vested in the office-bearers of the said Council.2. Respondent 1 is the Medical Council of India (Council) and its composition, functions and powers have been codified into the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (Act 102 of 1956). Respondents 2 to 5 were elected to the Council by the Senate/Syndicate of the Universities of Patna, Bihar, Mithila and Magadh. The Patna University is governed by an enactment known as the Patna University Act of 1976 (Bihar Act 24 of 1976). The other three Universities viz. Bihar, Mithila and Magadh Universities are governed by the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 (Bihar Act 23 of 1976). Respondents 2 to 5 came to the Council vide Section 3(1)(b) of the Indian Medical Council Act, which section reads as follows: --'3(1)(b). The Central Government shall cause to be consti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2003(2)ALLMR72; II(2003)BC375; 2003(3)BomCR593; [2005]124CompCas849(Bom)
R.M. Lodha, J.1. Shiva Suitings Limited - the first Petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act. The Company was incorporated in the year 1985. The Company at the relevant time was engaged in the activity of processing of manmade fabrics and cotton fabrics with the aid of power. The first Petitioners factory is situate at MIDC Industrial Area, Dombivli (East), District Thane, Maharashtra. It is Petitioners case that the production was commenced in January 1987. They had paid up capital of Rs.154.78 lakhs. On 31st March 1993 for the year 1992-93 the value of plant and machinery of the first Petitioner Company was Rs.3.74 crores and the paid up capital was Rs.154.78 lakhs. The accounts of the first Petitioner Company for the year ended 31st March 1993 were finalised on 30th September 1993. At that time the net worth of first Petitioner Company eroded and they had accumulated losses exceeding the entire net worth. Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2005(3)MhLj659
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This petition though filed under Articles 226 and 277 of the Constitution of India, prays for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated 25.4.1996 passed by the learned Member of the Industrial court at Pune in Complaint (ULP) No. 416 of 1996 and it further prays for a declaration that the petitioner was the workman of the respondent-company and for a further declaration that he was a permanent employee entitled for a consequential benefits of wages and other allowances. If regards be had to the reliefs prayed for and the law laid down in Lokmat Newspapers Private Limited b. Shankarprasad, : (1999)IILLJ600SC , it is clear that the petition is one under Article 227 of the Constitution. Brief facts leading to this petition could be stated as under:Complaint (ULP) No. 416 of 1992 came to be filed by the petitioner before the Industrial Court at Pune under Item Nos. 5,6,9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 (the Act for short) praying for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2007(1)ALLMR621; 2007(1)BomCR1; [2007(112)FLR1011]; (2007)IILLJ655Bom; 2007(1)MhLj754
S.A. Bobde, J.1. A Division Bench while hearing Letters Patent Appeal No. 134 of 1995 has referred the following questions for answer by a larger Bench:Whether Model Standing Order 4-C as contained in the schedule I to the Bombay Industrial Employment (Standing Order) Rules 1959 ipso facto applies to a temporary workman in an Industrial Establishment without its incorporation into a pre-existing certified standing order. 2. The Division Bench was hearing the Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the appellant against the judgement of the learned single Judge who held that Model Standing Order 4C did not automatically apply to the industrial establishment of the respondent No. 1 without amendment of its certified standing orders. Therefore, the appellant-workman is not entitled to the status of a permanent employee on completion of 240 days uninterrupted service. The Industrial Tribunal whose judgement was in question had held that the workman is entitled to such status of permanency becau...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2002BomCR(Cri)228; (2001)3BOMLR797; 2001(3)MhLj897
Dr. Pratibha Upasani, J.1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the Appellant State of Maharashtra under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the (Cr.P.C.), being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 23rd December, 1985 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No. 1, Kolhapur in Criminal Case No. 157 of 1981. By the impugned Judgment, the Trial Court acquitted the Respondents/original accused Mohiddin Gaibi Chougule for offence punishable under Section 7(i) read with Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and Rules thereunder, as amended.2. The case of the prosecution is as follows :The Food Inspector Mr. B. K. Karyappa went alongwith Mahadeo Anna Alase (the panch witness), and paid visit to the milk dairy of the Respondent/accused known as M/s. Shetkari Seva Dugdhalaya situated at CTS No. 1586 in 'C' ward at Kolhapur. He paid his visit on 9th March, 1981 at about 3...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2008(2)ALLMR658; 2008(4)MhLj167
R.C. Chavan, J.1. Fifty years ago while disposing of Special Civil Application No. 330 of 1957 raising similar questions between the predecessors of the present parties, concerning the same property, a Division Bench of this Court observed in para 2 of the judgment in Lala Jugalkishore (Landholder) v. Bombay Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur and Ors. reported at 1958 NLJ 355 that 'This case has a very chequered history'. History repeats and so we repeat those words.2. The appellant was a tenant in respect of certain agricultural lands belonging to the respondent-landlord in the Agricultural Year 1951-52. The extent of those lands was said to be about 84 acres. The appellant was entitled to be a protected lessee in respect of 50 acres of those lands in terms of the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act, 1951. For the sake of ready reference, those sections may be usefully reproduced as under:3. (1) Every lease of land by a landholder entitling the less...
Tag this Judgment!