Mumbai Court October 1981 Judgments
Ceat Tyres of India Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-1981
Reported in: 1983(12)ELT343(Bom)
1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging the legality of an order dated January 9, 1976 passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India dismissing two revisional applications on the ground that the applications were filed beyond period of limitation.2. Only few facts are required to be stated to appreciate the grievance of the petitioners. The petitioners are a Company registered under the Companies Act and are one of the leading manufacturers of automotive tyres and tubes in India. The petitioners import vinyl pyridine Latex (V.P. Latex) as it is one of the essential ingredients in the course of manufacture of automotive tyres. The petitioners imported from time to time V.P. Latex and the Customs authorities levied duty under Item 82(3) of the Import Customs Tariff. The petitioners claimed that the item imported was liable to be assessed under Item 39 of the Tariff and, therefore, paid the duty as demanded by th...
Tag this Judgment!Mogul Line Limited Vs. Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay and Ano ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-1981
Reported in: 1982(10)ELT397(Bom)
1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging the legality of the order dated August 24, 1977 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs (Preventive) Bombay confiscating the vessel s.s. 'Mohamadi' under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and giving an option to redeem the same on the payment of fine of Rs. 50,000/-.2. The petitioners M/s. Mogul Line Limited are a fully owned Government of India Corporation and are owners of vessel 'Mohamadi'. The vessel arrived from the Gulf countries on June 15, 1977 and after it was berthed in the Bombay Port, the Customs authorities rummaged the same and found contraband i.e., wrist watches of foreign origin valued at Rs. 39,000/- C.I.F. and Rs. 78,200/- market value. The authorities noticed that 290 pieces of wrist watches were concealed in a printed cotton cloth bag containing 5 paper adhesive taped packets. The watches were concealed behind ...
Tag this Judgment!Kirloskar Cummins Limited Vs. Union of India and Three Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-1981
Reported in: 1982(10)ELT29(Bom)
1. The petitioners are a Company incorporated under the Companies Act and are running a factory at Pune where diesel engines are manufactured. The petitioners import diverse diesel engine components from United States for the purpose of their business and the components of such diesel engines attract Customs Duty as per the provisions of the Indian Customs Act read with the provisions of the Indian Tariff Act, 1934. Under the provisions of the Indian Tariff Act, the Customs duty on an ad valorem basis was levied on the components.2. On November 25, 1967, in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962, the Central Government issued Notification No. 114, inter alia, providing that where the goods are imported in India packed in any materials, the materials in which the goods are so packed would be exempt from the whole of the duty of customs including countervailing duty, provided that the goods were packed in materials normally used in t...
Tag this Judgment!Khemchand Koyalaji Gorme Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-1981
Reported in: 1982(2)BomCR68; (1982)ILLJ398Bom
Deshpande, J.1. This writ petition is filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the simpliciter order of termination of his services by the State Government, i.e., respondent No. 1 and it arises out of the following facts.2. The petitioner admittedly belongs to a community recognised as Scheduled Caste by the State Government. In 1964, the petitioner passed his M.A. examination with Political Science as his subject in higher second class. In November, 1965, he was selected by the Marathwada University as a research fellow. Sometime in July, 1969, he was appointed as a part time lecturer in an institution known as Azad College at Aurangabad. On 25-5-70, an advertisement appeared in the local newspaper that there was a vacancy of a lecturer in Political Science in the Government College of Arts & Science at Aurangabad. This advertisement was given by way of filling the post by local arrangement. The petitioner applied for such post and he appeared for selection before...
Tag this Judgment!Shankar Anant Bandal Vs. Suman Shankar Bandal (Smt.) and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-1981
Reported in: 1983(1)BomCR601
N.K. Parekh, J.1. The petitioner is this matter in the original opponent in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 39 of 1978 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jamkhed. He has filed this petition to quash the said proceedings and the orders passed therein.2. The petitioners case is that he was married to one Suman Shankar Bandal (who for brevity's sake is hereinafter referred to as the applicant) in or about 1971. That two months later, she left the matrimonial home. That she thereafter filed a criminal application being Criminal Application No. 18 of 1974 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jamkhed. In this application, she claimed maintenance. That she also filed another case being Case No. 124 of 1974, inter alia, contending that the opponent petitioner has married some other lady and had committed bigamy. That the petitioner himself had filed a petition under the Hindu Marriage Act being Petition No. 22 of 1974 against the applicant...
Tag this Judgment!Amarchand J. Agarwal Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-1981
Reported in: (1982)26CTR(Bom)286; [1983]142ITR402(Bom); [1982]8TAXMAN283(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. An interesting question as to the time when the competent Authority can exercise power under s. 269C of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), falls for consideration in this petition filed under art. 226 of the Constitution of India.2. The facts are not in dispute and are required to be stated briefly to appreciate the contention of the petitioner. The respondent No. 4 and his wife were owners of property situate at Santa Cruz and beating survey No. 46, plot No. 2 and City Survey No. H/106 of Bandra. Taluka Andheri. The property admeasures approximately 1,340 square yards. On October 27, 1970, respondent No. 4 and his wife entered into an agreement of sale in favor of a partnership firm belonging to respondents Nos. 5, 6 and 7. The petitioner is one of the partners of the firm along with respondents Nos. 5 to 7. The original owners executed conveyance dated November 7, 1972, in favor of the firm for a consideration of Rs. 1,41,000. At the time of the a...
Tag this Judgment!Savalram Dinaji Waghire Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-1981
Reported in: 1982(1)BomCR446; (1982)84BOMLR116; 1982MhLJ299
Sharad Manohar, J.1. The question involved in this petition relates to the interpretation of the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Urban Ceiling Act').2. The facts of the case are very few. The petitioner is the owner of two relevant pieces of land bearing Survey No. 109/4A admeasuring about 12800 sq. metres and Survey No. 110/4A admeasuring about 9000 sq. metres, both the lands being situate at Pimpri-Waghere, Pune-18. They are referred to hereinafter as the lands in question.3. On 20-12-1972, Pimpri-Chinchwad, Municipal Council which is the Planning Authority within the meaning of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Town Planning Act') passed a Resolution No. 272 earmarking the said two lands for the residential zone shown in the development plan being prepared by the Municipal Council. Thereafter there appears to have been certain modification in respect of the zonal ear...
Tag this Judgment!Sadashiv Ishwara Powar Vs. Mrs. Sushilabai Narayan Bhandurga
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-1981
Reported in: (1982)84BOMLR267; 1982MhLJ159
S.J. Deshpande, J.1. This is an appeal directed against the appellate decree passed by the learned Assistant Judge of Sangli in proceedings arising out of an order, dated December 9, 1971, by which the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Miraj granted the application of the defendant-respondent herein for passing a final decree in pursuance of the preliminary decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 149 of 1969.2. The facts which are necessary to be stated in order to appreciate the controversy in this appeal are as follows:The appellant Sadashiv Ishwara Powar and the respondent Sushilabai are related as real brother and sister, The dispute relates to the mortgage of a house situated at Miraj, which originally belonged to the appellant. The appellant had mortgaged this house with possession for Rs. 6,000. The appellant had filed a suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 149 of 1969 to redeem the said mortgage and it appears that a preliminary decree for redemption was passed in that suit or...
Tag this Judgment!Zilla Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit Vs. National Insurance Company L ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1981
Reported in: [1984]55CompCas317(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. This is a suit to recover on policies of insurance consequent upon loss by fire.2. Anjad is a small town about 80 miles from Indore in Madhya Pradesh. The principal business of the town is in cotton. The second plaintiff is a co-operative marketing society in Anjad. The second plaintiff made payments for raw cotton purchased by its member merchants at 'mandi' (auction). The merchants were expected within a period of 7 days to repay the second plaintiff wholly, or to make payment of 30% of the amount due and pledge goods with the second plaintiff as security for the balance. The goods as pledged often were bales of ginned and pressed cotton. The ginning and pressing having been done by the Maganlal Natural Jain Ginning and Pressing premises. The pledges to the second plaintiff that the pledged bales were being held for the second plaintiff.3. The second plaintiff, on the same day or very soon thereafter, pledged the same bales with the first plaintiff, a co-operative bank...
Tag this Judgment!Bilasrai Juharmal, (Huf) Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1981
Reported in: (1982)9CTR(Bom)179; [1983]141ITR915(Bom)
Rege, J.1. This reference is by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay Bench B, under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, at the instance of the assessee, referring the following question to us for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the litigation expenses of Rs. 25,599 or any part thereof as claimed by the assessee were rightly disallowed by the Tribunal ?. In this case we are concerned with the assessee year 1958-59. The assessee is an HUF of Bilasrai Juharmal. In the return for the said assessment year the assessee had claimed, amongst others, a sum of Rs. 44,346 as deduction towards legal expenses under the tens s. 10(2)(xv). He, (karta), however, gave particulars only of Rs. 43,581. Out of the said amount of Rs. 43,581 the assessee did not press his claim for Rs. 4,688. The balance of the amount consisted of the following three sums : (a) Rs. 11,214-legal expenses in connection with a suit filed by the assessee against one Barjoria ; (b) Rs. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »