Mumbai Court August 1979 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Gangadhar Vishnu Puranik, Etc. Vs. Anandji Jethabai and Co., Etc.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Bom115
1. The insolvent, Gangadhar Vishnu Puranik, was originally the Karta of a joint family consisting of himself, his wife and sons. Some time in March 1965 and February 1966, the joint family of the insolvent had created mortgages in favour of Dattatraya Ganesh Shembekar and others, hereinafter known as the Shembekar Trust, in respect of Survey Nos. 59/1 and 59/6 in village Asudgaon, Taluks Panvel, to secure a total sum of Rs. 3 lacs together with interest. Admittedly, these mortgages of the joint family property were created in respect of joint family debts.2. In April 1970, a suit for the partition of the joint family properties was filed in this Court by one of the sons of Gangadhar Vishnu Puranik, being Suit No. 339 of 1970. In that suit, by an order dated the 14th of September 1970, the Court Receiver was appointed Receiver of the joint family properties by the consent of the parties. After the appointment of the Court Receiver, on or about the 13th of September 1971, an order was pa...
Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector of Central Excise and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-1979
Reported in: 1989(24)LC530(Bombay)
M.L. Pendse, J.1. The petitioners carry business of manufacturing soap, in their mills at Hay Bunder Sewree Bombay Soap is an excisable commodity falling under item 15 of the First Schedule of the Central Excises & Salt Act 1944 Section 4 of the said Act provides that the value of an article chargeable with duty a' a rate depending on its value shall be determined for the purpose of assessment of excise duty. At all relevant times the petitioners submitted their price lists in respect of soap manufactured by them and Excise Authorities approved the said price lists showing the ex-factory price. Delivery charges from the factory gate to the point of destination were shown separately in the invoices at a uniform rate of Rs. 2.50 per box from August, 1973 to March 31, 1974 and at a rate of Rs. 3.50 per box from April 1, 1974 to June 30, 1974. The Excise Authorities approved the ex-factory price lists submitted by the petitioners and excise duty was levied accordingly. The petitioners clea...
Sau. Nakabai Vs. Mahadu Sakharam Adsule and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Bom208; 1980MhLJ105
Deshpande, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal, against a judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in Second Appeal, on a certificate by him, raises a question of some importance, namely whether tenancy rights of a statutory tenant in the agricultural lands belonging to the Public Trust, covered by Section 88B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') are heritable or not.2. The appellant--the original plaintiff and defendants Nos. 2 to 4 are sisters. Defendant No. 1 is the son of the defendant No. 2. Plaintiff's mother Bhagirathibai died on 31st May 1958. The plaintiff filed this suit for possession of her share, as an heir, in the properties left by her mother including the agricultural lands detailed at Serial Nos. B, C and D in part (1) of the plaint. The lands belong to a Public Trust and the deceased Bhagirathibai was the tenant thereof. The lands are held to have been covered by Section 88B of the Act. The plaintiff's suit was decree...
Corporation of the City of Nagpur Vs. Ramdas Mahadeorao Gulhane and an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-1979
Reported in: 1980CriLJ597
Waikar, J.1. The only point for consideration, in this Criminal Appeal is, whether the sanction for prosecution granted by the Additional Deputy Municipal Commissioner of the City of Municipal Corporation Nagpur under Section 60 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act of 1948, (for short hereinafter called 'the Bombay Shops Act') is a valid sanction or not, within the meaning of Section 60 of the said Act,2. This appeal is preferred by the Corporation of the City of Nagpur, being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge Nagpur, setting aside the conviction and sentence of respondent No. 1 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class (Corporation), who had convicted him under Section 7 (2-A) and Sections 51 and 325 read with Section 52 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act.3. The conviction and sentence were set aside by the learned Sessions Judge, holding that the sanction granted to the prosecution under Section 60 of the Bombay Shops Act, by the Additional...
Mumbai Mazdoor Sabha Vs. Bennet Coleman and Co. Limited and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-1979
Reported in: (1980)ILLJ112Bom
1. By this petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging the correctness of the order dated July 20, 1979 passed by the Industrial Court, Bombay, refusing to grant interim relief restraining the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from enforcing the lock-out. 2. The petitioners are a trade union registered under the Indian Trade Unions Act. The respondent No. 2 is a limited company registered under the Companies Act and employs about 2,800 employees including journalists and non-journalists in their establishment at Bombay. The petitioners claimed that about 1,500 employees are the members of their union. The respondent No. 2 is the General Manager of respondent No. 1 - company while respondent No. 3 is another trade union having certain membership in the concern of respondent No. 1. About 575 employees working with respondent No. 1 are the members of respondent No. 3 - union. There is a rivalry between the petitioners' union and respondent No. 3 - uni...
industrial Cables India Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-1979
Reported in: 1991(79)LC324(Bombay)
M.L. Pendse, J.1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are seeking a writ of mandamus against the respondents claiming refund of a sum of Rs. 3,72,863.04 with interest thereon from the date of the petition till payment.2. A few facts which have given rise to this litigation are as follows:-The petitioners are a Company registered under the Companies Act and carry on business as manufacturers of power cables and A.C.S.R. Conductors at Rajpura, Punjab. The petitioners, during the year 1962 to 1965 imported E.C. Grade Electrolytic Aluminium Rods other than extruded, through the Port of Bombay. The petitioners filed Bills of Entry for consumption and the Customs authorities levied and charged additional duty known as countervailing duty in respect of the goods imported by the petitioners. The total amount of countervailing duty in respect of the goods camp, to Rs. 3,72,863.04.3. The petitioners claimed that the High Court of Gujarat by its ...
Vishwanath Maharudra Matkari Vs. Jan Mohammed and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-1979
Reported in: AIR1982Bom30; ILR1981Bom1222
1. A very interesting and rather important question of law arises in this Second Appeal. The question relates to the right of an auction-purchaser in a Court sale, who has purchased property but has found to the surprise that the judgment. Debtor had no saleable interest in the property that he (auction-purchaser) purchased. The question is, whether he can proceed against the decree-holder and or judgment debtor for the recovery of the moneys paid by him for the purchase of the property in auction Normally speaking it would have been enough for me to refer to the Division Bench the judgment of this Court in Santimmappuv. Balbhim Co-operative Credit Society, : AIR1950Bom313 , and allow the appeal. However. I find that certain aspect of the question which did not fall for consideration of the Division Bench remained undecided in the said decision presumably on account of the peculiar pleasing in tha case I find that without a decision being given on that aspect, the question falling for ...
Sanghvi Non-ferrous Metal Industries Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-1979
Reported in: 1979(4)ELT543(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. The petitioners are a registered firm having their factory at Poona and the petitioners carry on business as manufacturers of semi and finished products of non-ferrous metals including Aluminium Canisters. The petitioners manufacture the aluminium canisters in a manner which would enable sensitive and delicate drugs to be stored or conveyed in a sterile condition. The aluminium canisters are made out of aluminium sheets. The canisters are of a designed shape, description and specifications which make them suitable for storage in sterile condition and for departmental transport or conveyance within a plant.2. The respondents Nos. 5 and 6 - Hindustan Anti-Biotic Limited, and Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Limited - are Government plants manufacturing life saving and sensitive drugs on a large scale. The respondent No. 7 - Geoffrey Manners and company Limited - is a private Company manufacturing life saving drugs.3. Between February 19, 1972 and April 16, 1973 all the canis...
Tulsidas Kilachand Vs. D.R. Chawla and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-1979
Reported in: [1980]122ITR458(Bom); [1979]4TAXMAN248(Bom)
Pendse J.1. The petitioner, Shri Tulsidas Kilachand, was assessed for wealth-tax since 1957 as 'individual' resident of India. The petitioner filed his wealth-tax return for the assessment years 1966-67 and 1967-68, and the property assessed for wealth-tax, inter alia, included immovable properties in which the petitioner was holding 1/4th undivided share along with his three brothers. The three properties are situated at Napean Sea Road, Patan, and Kandivli. The petitioner filed his wealth-tax return for the assessment year 1968-69 on January 17, 1969. The 1/4th share of the immovable properties was valued at Rs. 1,55,000 and in support of this valuation an authorised valuation report dated January 25, 1969, was filed. The petitioner filed his wealth-tax return for the assessment year 1969-70 on November 16, 1969, and the properties were valued at Rs. 1,52,250. It is required to be stated the valuation of properties for the assessment years 1966-67 and 1967-68 were less than what was ...
Garware Synthetic Bristles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-1979
Reported in: 1990(46)ELT34(Bom)
1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution the Petitioner are challenging the validity and legality of order dated August 12, 1974 passed by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Division IV, Bombay holding that three Demand Notices issued by the Superintendent for the monofilament yarn cleared during the period from March 16, 1972 to December 31, 1973 were proper and valid. 2. The facts which give rise to this litigation are as follows :- The petitioners are manufactures of nylon bristles or tufts used for the manufacture of tooth-brushes, shaving-brushes and other industrial brushes as also nylon fishing line. The relevant items fall under Tariff Item No. 18 which reads as follows :- 'Rayon and Synthetic Fibres and Yarn Explanation - 'Rayon and synthetic fibres and yarn' shall be deemed to include manmade fibres and yarn made out of manmade fibres.' 3. The petitioners claim that they had enquired from the Assistant Collector of Central Excise whether the items...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »