Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2000)241ITR43(Mum.)
1. The appeal of the assessee, for asst. yr. 1992-93, had come up for hearing before 'A' Bench, Mumbai and on the recommendation of the Bench, the President constituted a Special Bench for deciding the appeal. The issue involved is : "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the first Appellate Authority was justified in upholding the order of the AO disallowing deduction under s. 80-O of the IT Act, 1961, with reference to gross convertible foreign exchange received by the assessee by way of fees for technical and consultancy services rendered by it to the parties abroad ?" 2. The relevant facts, in this case, are that the appellant is an AOP and consists of nine public sector companies as its members. The appellant provides technical and consultancy services to various parties abroad. For asst. yr. 1992-93, for which the previous year ended on 31st March, 1992, the assessee had claimed deduction under s.80-O of the IT Act, 1961 of Rs. 3,38,38,386 being 50 per cent o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
A.H. Joshi, J.1. Admit.The Respondents, in appeal who are not appearing, need not be served afresh. Contesting respondents, are appearing. The Appeals are called out by consent of Advocates for the parties who are contesting / appearing. Heard at length for final disposal.2. Status of the contesting parties in Letters Patent Appeal No. 197 of 2009 in Writ Petition No. 5993 of 2005 is as follows:[i] Present respondent Nos. 25 and 26 were the writ petitioners. They are hereinafter referred to as Writ Petitioners.[ii] Present appellant was respondent No. 7. He is hereinafter referred to as Appellant.[iii] Appellant in Letters Patent Appeal No. 239 of 2009 was respondent No. 24 in Writ Petition No. 5993 of 2005.3. Parties are referred to in this Judgment according to their status in the writ petition No. 5993 of 2005 for convenience.Respondent No. 2 0 in the Writ Petition, namely Vaibhav Liquors Pvt. Ltd. is a Private Limited Company, who came into the picture in the working of respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1970Bom312; (1969)71BOMLR569; ILR1969Bom1024; 1969MhLJ798
1. This second appeal raises novel and difficult points with regard to the relations between a modern educated husband and his wife in Hindu Society.2. The appellant in this appeal is the husband Dr. Narayan Ganesh Dastane. The respondent is his wife Mrs. Sucheta Narayan Dastaoe. They were married according to Vedic rites on May 13, 1956 in Poona. A daughter Shobha was born on March 11, 1957, a second daughter Vibhavari was born on March 20, 1959, and before the third daughter. Prabha was delivered, the husband and wife unfortunately fell out as it is undisputed that they have been living separately from each other since March 1961.3. On February 19, 1962, the appellant filed the petition from which the present second appeal arises. In that petition the appellant prayed in the first instance for a declaration annulling the marriage under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground that the consent of the husband for the marriage was obtained by fraud. According to the husb...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR2004Bom38a; [2003]117CompCas651(Bom); [2004]50SCL440(Bom)
H.L. Gokhale, J.1. Heard Mr. Andhyarujina for the Appellants and Mr. Sibal for Respondents Nos. 2 to 5.2. We have gone through the impugned order. Mr. Andhyarujina submits that it is erroneous on facts as well as on law. Mr. Sibal, learned counsel appearing for Respondents Nos. 2 to 5, submits that the impugned order is primarily on facts and correct one. We are, however, of the view that there are important questions of law which are as well involved in this matter.3. Mr. Sibal has raised a question with respect to maintainability of this Appeal.4. This Appeal under Section 483 of the Companies Act seeks to challenge the order dated 2nd September 2003 passed by a learned Single Judge under Section 10-F of the Companies Act in an appeal arising out of the order passed by the Company Law Board and petition initiated by the Appellants under Section 397 and 398 of the Companies Act.5. Mr. Sibal and Mr. Dwarkadas, learned counsel appearing for the respective Respondents, submit that Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) This Appeal arises from a judgment of a learned Single Judge dated 4 October 2012 by which a motion seeking a direction under Order 39 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 striking off the defence of the Appellant to a Petition for enforcing a foreign award was allowed. The learned Single Judge has directed that the defence filed by the Appellant to the Petition instituted by the Respondent under Section 47 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 be struck off. 2. The facts before the Court lie in a narrow compass. On 25 October 2007 a contract of affreightment was entered into between the Appellant and the Respondent for shipment of a certain consignment of Bauxite from the west coast of India to China. One of the ports of dispatch was Okha which, the Court is informed, falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Court of Jamkhambhalia in the District of Jamnagar. The Respondent lodged a claim against the Appellant ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. By these petitions, the issues raised for the decision of this Court are as follows: 1. Whether this Court, in its writ and/or supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, should entertain a proceeding under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (For short, M.C.S. Act), challenging the recovery certificate u/s 101, directly by avoiding or not resorting to the statutory remedy u/s 154 and section 154 (2A) of The M.C.S.Act ? 2. Whether the remedy u/s 154 r/w section 154 (2A) of the M.C.S.Act could be termed to be a statutory remedy available and not merely an alternate remedy ? 3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has argued vehemently and at length that in the peculiarity of the facts of his case and relying upon reported judgments, the petitioner's case is fit enough to be entertained directly by this Court under its writ or supervisory jurisdiction without direc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. By this petition filed under Sections 46 and 47 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the said Arbitration Act), the petitioner seeks a declaration that the arbitral award dated 8th June 2011 is enforceable as a decree of this Court and seeks payment of cost. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under: 2. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the laws of Italy and has its registered office at Italy. The respondent is a public limited company incorporated under the provisions of Indian Companies Act, 1956 and has its registered office at Mumbai. 3. Some time in the year 2005, according to the petitioner, the petitioner and the respondent were introduced to one another by Mr.Enzo Fiorentino who was the agent of the respondent in Italy. It is the case of the petitioner that in the month of December 2005, a meeting took place between the representatives of the petitioner and the respondent in Naples, Italy at which it wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Judgment: 1. On 16.7.2015, I had passed the following order: 1. Shri Shahane, learned Advocate submits that he was appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 34 in Writ Petition No. 2965 of 1998 and for the petitioners in Writ Petition No.2403 of 1998. Shri K.B.Borde, learned Advocate now appears for the said respondents / petitioners respectively.. He, therefore, prays for discharge. Shri Borde confirms his appearance. As such, the appearance of Shri Shahane is discharged. 2. Both these petitions have been admitted. 3. Shri Patil, learned Advocate along with Shri Navandar has commenced his submissions. During the course of his submissions, he has indicated that the dispute as regards distribution of monetary dues is concerned, the Apex Court by its order dated 21.3.1988 and subsequent orders delivered in Writ Petition No.575 of 1986 with Special Leave Petition No.4712 of 1986 has observed and directed as under:- In the writ petition there were two prayers: One was for a direction...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. This is a suit in trade mark infringement and passing off in relation to I shall use as neutral a description as I am able window films for sun protection. Garware ( Garware ) claims that the Defendants ( 3M Co and 3M India , respectively; collectively, 3M ) use of the expression SUNCONTROL or SUN CONTROL in their mark in relation to polyester or plastic films used for this purpose infringes its device marks SUN CONTROL, SUN CONTROL CLASSIC, SUNCONTROL, and GARWARE SUNCONTROL, all registered in Class 17, and SUN CONTROL CLASSIC, registered in Class 16. 2. Garware manufactures and sells a range of polyester and plastic films, including reflective, non-reflective, safety, privacy, specialty and decorative films. It manufactures dyed polyester films using a process for which it has a patent in 15 countries. Its first plant was established in Aurangabad in 1976. Garware has won many awards and received recognition for excellence in innovation. In 1982, Garware adopted the marks SUN CONT...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
A.S. Oka, J. 1. As per the administrative order dated 17th November 2015 passed by the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice, this group of Petitions has been specifically assigned to this specially constituted Bench. OVERVIEW 2. The challenge in this group of Petitions is to various provisions of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976 (for short Animal Preservation Act ) as amended by the Maharashtra Animal Preservation(Amendment)Act,1995 (for short the Amendment Act ). The Amendment Act received the assent of the Hon'ble President of India on 4th March 2015. By the Amendment Act, in addition to existing prohibition on the slaughter of cows, a complete prohibition was imposed on slaughter of bulls and bullocks in the State. A ban was imposed on possessing the flesh of cow, bull or bullock slaughtered within and outside the State. Moreover, by introducing Section 9B, at the trial of certain offences, a negative burden was put on the accused. 3. Before we deal with the facts of each P...
Tag this Judgment!