Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-16-1987
Reported in : (1987)89BOMLR356; 1987MhLJ503
S.P. Kurdukar, J.1. This Letters Patent appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated October 13, 1986 passed by the learned Single Judge (Shah, J.) in suit No. 1844 of 1984 filed on the Original Side of this Court. The learned Single Judge after recording his findings on all the three preliminary issues held that the suit is liable to be dismissed for want of statutory under notice Section 164 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Co-operative Societies Act'). But, however in regard to his finding relating to the jurisdiction (issue No. 3) the learned single Judge felt that his view in that behalf is in conflict with view taken by another single Judge in Pravin R. Gaglani v. Beharilal Beniprasad : AIR1978Bom255 . He therefore referred the said issue for decision to a larger Bench and directed the office to place and papers of this suit before the learned Chief Justice for appropriate orders under Rule 28 of the High Court Origin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-06-1987
Reported in : (1987)22ITD87(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal relating to the assessment year 1980-81 preferred by M/s Siemens Aktiengesellschaft, West Germany, hereinafter referred to as "the assessee".2. We will set out in broad terms the background in which the appeal has come to be heard by this Special Bench.3. The assessment made is in the status of a non-resident. The accounting period is from 1-10-1978 to 30-9-1979. The assessee had entered into various agreements with parties in India and in the present appeal the terms of 11 such agreements came up for consideration involving payments which could be grouped together under 14 items. Different nomenclature has been assigned to different items of payments. The descriptive break-up is as under :-- The details of the 14 different items giving reference to the grounds of appeal before the Tribunal, as also to the articles/clauses in the relevant agreements, and indicating wherever such agreements had been the subject of consideration in the assessment order for the year ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-08-1987
Reported in : 1987(3)BomCR521
A.D. Tated, J.1. The petitioner-defendant No. 2, who was a partner of the dissolved partnership firm Bharatkumar and Company, filed this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the judgment and decree in Civil Appeal No. 323 of 1983 decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Pune, on 16th January, 1985 whereby he dismissed the appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated 20th September, 1982 in Civil Suit No. 2996 of 1978 passed by the learned Vth Additional Judge, Small Cause Court, Pune, whereby he ad decreed the respondent No. 1-plaintiff's suit for eviction and arrears of rent.2. The facts giving rise to this petition are that the suit premises situate at 92, Raviwar Peth, Pune, were let out by the respondent No. 1-plaintiff to the petitioner-defendant No. 2 for carrying on business of his partnership firm Bharatkumar and Company on monthly rent of Rs. 90/-. The defendant No. 2 and his brothers respondents Nos. 2 to 4-defendants Nos. 3 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-17-1987
Reported in : AIR1988Bom134; 1988(1)BomCR134
1. This petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution impugns the notification dated 22nd November, 1985, whereby the use of Anabolic Steroid with other drugs has been completely prohibited in purported exercise of the power conferred upon the Central Government by Section 26-A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (Act No.. 23 of 1940), hereinafter referred to as 'the Drug Act'.2. Petitioners are a pharmaceutical company engaged in the manufacture of a variety of drugs and pharmaceutical products. One of the products manufactured by them is a drug known as 'Trinergic'. The product is brought out in two forms, viz. capsules and injections. Trinergic is a combination of Anabolic Steroid known as Methandienone and Vitamins B1, B6 and B12. M/s. Ciba Geigy of Basle, Switzerland took a decision to withdraw their Anabolic Steroid, a preparation of Methandienone being marketed under the brand name 'Dianabol' from the world market. Their Indian subsidiary informed the Director General of Health S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-09-1987
Reported in : (1988)25ITD479(Mum.)
1. This appeal by the assessee has raised several issues which are considered seriatim below. (i) Swastik Household & Industrial Products, (ii) Sarabhai Research Centre and (iii) Operation Research Group. A company, M/s. Karamchand Premchand Pvt. Ltd., transferred and assigned as a going concern on 30-6-1973 its various industrial undertakings and businesses to its wholly-owned subsidiary. While doing so, with effect from 30-6-1973, that company had transferred and assigned its industrial undertaking of Swastik Oil Mill division as a going concern to the assessee-company. With effect from the close of business of the assessee as on 28-2-1977, the assessee-company which had in the meanwhile set up two divisions, Swastik Research Centre and Operation Research Group, in 1974, transferred the industrial undertakings and businesses of Swastik Household & Industrial Products Division, business of Operation Research Group and the Sarabhai Research Centre to its subsidiary company, M/...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-09-1987
Reported in : 1988(1)BomCR655
P.S. Shah, J.1. The Petitioner who is a National of Thailand has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging his detention by virtue of an order dated January 28, 1987, issued under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, (hereinafter called 'the Act') passed by Shri D.N. Capoor, Officer on Special Duty, who was specially empowered by the Government of Maharashtra. The order of detention shows that the Detaning Authority directed the detention of the petitioner with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods. It appears that the petitioners who was arrested in connection with the offence which forms the grounds of detention on August 22, 1986, and on the date of which the order of detention was served on him. viz. January 28, 1987, he was still in jail in connection with the said offence. He was granted bail by the Magistrate, but he did not avail of the same. Along with the order of de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-11-1987
Reported in : (1987)89BOMLR383; (1987)65CTR(Bom)314; [1988]171ITR80(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. The Judgment and the order of Jahagirdar J. (See : [1987]165ITR668(Bom) ) dismissing the appellant's writ petition is the subject matter of this appeal.2. The appellants applied to the Central Board of Direct Taxes for approval under section 80-O of the Income-tax Act, 1961, of the agreements dated April 5, 1980, and August 14, 1980, entered into between them and Toyo Engineering India Ltd. (now called 'Toyo India'). After giving the appellants a hearing, the Board rejected the appellants application by its letter dated March 27, 1981. The Board held that the agreements could not be approved under section 80-O because they were not made with the Government of a foreign state or a foreign enterprise and because the payments thereunder were payments from the Government of a foreign state or a foreign enterprise.3. The order of the Board was impugned in the writ petition filed by the appellants. The learned single judge upheld the contention of the appellants that, under th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-09-1987
Reported in : AIR1988Bom45; 1988(2)BomCR59
Pendse, J.1. The State Trading Corporation of India Limited the respondent, original plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation') is constituted for the purpose of effecting and encouraging exports of goods of Indian origin to foreign countries. The appellant No. 1-original defendant No. 1 is a Private Limited Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and carries on business of exporting textile goods, while appellant No. 2-originai defendant No. 2 is a Director of defendant No. 1. The Corporation instituted suit on the Original Side of this Court on July 15, 1970 for recovery of Rs. 23.88,998.91 with interest on Rs. 18.18,451.39 paise at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till judgment and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum till payment or realisation. The claim made by the Corporation in the plaint was that by letter dated June 4, June 6 and June 26, 1967 defendant No. 1 represented to the plaintiff-Corporation that defendant No. 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-03-1987
Reported in : [1988]173ITR529(Bom)
Khatri, J.1. This suit in substance is for a declaration that the two trust deeds dated March 14, 1959, are valid and operative and that the two properties which are the subject-matter thereof are not liable to attachment for recovery of arrears of income-tax from the late H. H. Maharaja Fatehsinh Gaikwar of Baroda (hereinafter referred to as 'the settlor'). A number of consequential reliefs are claimed. The main prayer is for setting aside the two attachments dated 25th and 27th July, 1970, ordered by the 1st defendant and his order dated August 10, 1971, whereby he has upheld the validity of the two attachments. It is not necessary to detail other consequential reliefs, inasmuch as both sides are agreed that if the aforesaid impugned order is upheld, the suit will have to be dismissed in its entirety otherwise; it will have to be decreed in full.2. Almost all the material facts are admitted. The settlor is the father of the present plaintiff, H. H. Maharaja Fatehsinh Gaikwar. By the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-12-1987
Reported in : 1987(2)BomCR691; 1990(27)ECC203; 1988(38)ELT401(Bom)
Dr. Couto, J.1. The facts and the issues that gave rise to these writ petitions are intimately connected and hence, this common judgment.2. Petitioners, a Private Limited Company with registered office at Mormugao Harbour, challenge in these two writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the validity of the directives given by the second respondent by his letters dated 26th March and 10th April, 1987, as well as the orders dated 26th, 31st March and 9th April, all of 1987. They further seek a Mandamus directing the second respondent to withdraw the said directives and orders, to assess the wreck of the 'S. S. Maratha Transhipper' to duty on the assumption that the vessel is not exigible to duty and to forbear from levying any customs duty as well as additional or auxiliary duty, in respect of the import of the said vessel, giving them the benefit of the Exemption Notification No. 262 of 1958 or of the Notification No. 133 of 1987.3. In October, 1969, the 'S. S. Marat...
Tag this Judgment!