Mumbai Court January 1980 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.
Usha Paper Products Private Ltd. and anr. Vs. Kalyan Municipal Council ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Bom47; 1980MhLJ438
Chandurkar, J.1. Respondent No. 1, Kalyan Municipal Council (hereinafter referred to as the 'Municipal Council'), had by resolution dated 30th July, 1969 imposed a consolidated property tax as contemplated by Section 105, Sub-sections (1) (a) and (2) of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), at the rate of 20% to be effective from 1st Oct., 1969. Under the provisions of the Act the said imposition should have been made before 30th June, 1969 and power having been given to the State Government to extend that date, the Municipal Council had asked for such extension which was accordingly granted by the State Government. The period of assessment in question in this petition is 1970-71 to 1972-73. The Municipal Council issued a notice under Section 123 (1) of the Act alleging that in the property in question which belonged to the petitioner, some additional constructions were made and therefore, the assessment had to be revised, and the revised asse...
Stretch Fibres (India) Ltd. and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-1980
Reported in: 1985(21)ELT400(Bom)
1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the action of the respondents withholding the exemption from payment of excise duty in respect of certain goods imported by the petitioners-company pursuant to the import policy for April 1973/March 1979.2. The petitioners are exporters of nylon fabrics, an item falling under Entry K. 11(ii) of the Import Trade Control Policy, Vol. II, for April 1977 - March 1978 (Section II - pages 71-72). They are also registered exporters of the said item under the scheme for registration of contracts in pursuance of paragraph 44 of the Import Policy of 1977-1978 and paragraph 146 of the Import Policy of 1978-1979.3. It is provided in paragraph 44 of the Policy of 1977-1978 that, in respect of exports made in the execution of registered contracts, the exporters will be eligible for the same levels of support in respect of import replenishment and other benefits under the Import Policy for Registered Exporters, as were permissibl...
Anant Purushottam Athavle Vs. Damodar Dattatraya Bedekar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Bom257; 1980MhLJ737
Chandurkab, J.1. This petition which arises out of one of the usual suits between landlord and tenant for possession on the ground of arrears of rent has come before this Division Bench on a reference made by a learned single Judge. We have found extreme difficulty in ascertaining as to why this petition has been referred to a Division Bench and unfortunately neither of the two Counsel appearing for the parties in this petition is able to enlighten us as to the point which, according to the learned single Judge, was required to be decided authoritatively by a Division Bench. It will not be out of place toobserve that when a matter comes before a Division Bench on a reference by a single Judge, it will help the Division Bench to concentrate its attention on any particular aspect of the case if it knows as to what weighed with the learned single Judge in referring the matter if a short referring order is made. However, we have proceeded to hear the parties and we proceed to dispose of th...
Anant Purushottam Athavle Vs. Damodar Dattatraya Bedekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-1980
Reported in: (1980)82BOMLR414
Chandurkar, J.1. This petition which arises out of one of the usual suits between landlord and tenant for possession on the ground of arrears of rent has come before this Division Bench on a reference made by a learned single Judge. We have found extreme difficulty in ascertaining as to why this petition has been referred to a Division Bench and unfortunately neither of the two counsel appearing for the parties in this petition is able to enlighten us as to the point which, according to the learned single Judge, was required to be decided authoritatively by a Division Bench. It will not be out of place to observe that when a matter comes before a Division Bench on a reference by a single Judge, it will help the Division Bench to concentrate its attention on any particular aspect of the case if it knows as to what weighed with the learned single Judge in referring the matter if a short referring order is made. However, we have proceeded to hear the parties and we proceed to dispose of t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›