Mumbai Court July 1981 Judgments
Dr. P.K. Antia Vs. Dr. Shridhar Sadashiv Katdare and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-1981
Reported in: 1982(1)BomCR654; (1982)84BOMLR181; 1982CriLJ1463; 1982MhLJ7
ORDER1. Respondent No. 1 Dr. S. S. Katdare, filed an application, purporting to be an application under the provisions of Section 145 of the Cr.P.C., against the present applicant. Dr. P. K. Antia, on December 17, 1980 and it was registered as Application No. 4/N/81 of 1980 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan 23rd Magistrate's Court, Bombay. I am told that after this application was filed by Dr. Katdare, a show cause notice was issued to Dr. Antia, who appeared in court and filed a reply on February 9, 1981. The learned trial Magistrate proceeded to pass a preliminary order under the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. on February 25, 1981, having to material other than the averments in the application of Dr. Katdare and the reply filed by Dr. Antia. It is this preliminary order, annexed to the petition as Ex.'C' that is being challenged in this petition by the original respondent, Dr. P. K. Antia.2. Before enumerating the challenge to the impugned ...
Tag this Judgment!Dadasaheb Bapusaheb Naik and Etc. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-1981
Reported in: 1982CriLJ856
1. The above referred three appellants in three different appeals as original accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 respectively and acquitted accused Madhukar Vithal Patekar were tried in Special Case No. 2 of 1977 in the Court of the Special Judge, Ahmednagar, for offences punishable under (1) Section 120-B I.P.C. and (2) Section 420 read with Section 120-B I.P.C. In addition to the above charges, which were framed against all the accused, original accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 who were officers from various departments working under the Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar and the Panchayat Samiti Parner, were further charged for offences punishable under Section 477-A read with Section 120-B I.P.C. and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d), Prevention of Corruption Act and further read with Section 120-B, I.P.C. Alternatively, a charge for substantive offences punishable under Sections 420 and 477-A read with Section 109 and/or S. 34, I.P.C. was also framed against all the four accused. The learned Special Jud...
Tag this Judgment!NavIn Chimanlal Sutaria Vs. Union of India Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-1981
Reported in: 1981(8)ELT913(Bom)
Lentin, J.1. The petitioner carries on business in the name and style of National Chemical Corporation and manufactures various chemicals including laboratory chemicals. For the manufacture of the chemicals different types of raw materials are required, one of them being N-Propyl Alcohol, which is an imported item. On 9th October, 1973, the petitioner imported six drums containing 960 kgs. of N-Propyl Alcohol. In the Bill of Entry, the petitioner classified it under Item 28 oF the Indian Tariff Act, 1934. This classification was approved by the Customs Authorities and the goods were cleared on 13th November, 1973 by the petitioner after payment of duty at 60% ad valorem under Item 28.2. On 22nd December, 1973, a notice of demand was addressed to the petitioner by the Assistant Collector of Customs for Rs. 67,961.50 said to be short-levy of duty on the ground that the proper classification was under Item 22(4)(a). On 24th December, 1973, the petitioner sent a reply to that notice of dem...
Tag this Judgment!Mansukh Gopinath Jadhav Vs. W.M. Bapat and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-1981
Reported in: [1981(43)FLR243]; (1982)ILLJ144Bom
Pendse, J.1. The petitioner is an employee of respondent No. 2, the Sanjivani (Takal) Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited and the petition is filed in a representative capacity on behalf of all the employees of respondent No. 2 to challenge the validity of the Award dated January 28, 1981 passed by the Industrial Court, Poona, in a reference under S. 73-A of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').2. Respondent No. 2 is running a Sugar Factory at Shingnapur, District Ahmednagar and the provisions of the Act are made applicable to the sugar industry. The respondent No. 3 is a registered trade union under he Trade Union Act. 1926 as well as the representative and approved union under the provisions of the Act for the sugar industry in the local area of Kopargaon Taluka. The conditions of service of the employees working in the sugar factory in Kopargaon Taluka were settled by various trade unions with the employers and these settlements were to expir...
Tag this Judgment!P. Vs. K.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Bom400; 1982(1)BomCR454
1. The appellant (original petitioner), the husband, and the respondent the original respondent were married an 20th June 1976, The appellant and the respondent were both Hindus and were about 36 and 27 years of age respectively at the time of marriage. Due to certain unfortunate circumstances, the husband was driven to file a petition for nullity within a short time which he did on or about 30th Nov. 1976.2. The petition proceeds to made the following allegations. The marriage has not been consummated owing to the impotency of the respondent refused to have sexual intercourse saying that for one year she would not have sexual intercourse with the appellant. The respondent appeared to be very much upset at the approach of the appellant to consummate the marriage and was averse to any sexual act. It was decided by the petitioner and his eiders to take the respondent on a pilgrimage so that there might be a change in her mentality and outlook by the blessings of God. Even during pilgrima...
Tag this Judgment!Morarji Gokuldas Spinning Weaving Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of In ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-14-1981
Reported in: 1990LC66(Bombay); 1981(8)ELT429(Bom)
1. The Petitioner No. 1 is a joint stock company existing under and governed by the provisions of Companies Act 1 of 1956 and has its registered office at Dr. Ambedkar Road, Parel, Bombay - 400012. Petitioner No. 2 is a shareholder and principal officer of the 1st Petitioner.2. It is an undisputed fact that the 1st Petitioner holds a Central Excise licence duly issued to them under the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') and the Central Excise Rules. 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Rules') for the purposes of manufacturing, inter alia, blended yarn. It is also not disputed that the 1st Petitioner manufactures the said blended yarn, at its factory and textile mill situated at Parel, Bombay - 400012. The aforesaid mill of the 1st Petitioner is a composite mill, i.e. engaged in spinning of yarn and weaving fabrics.3. Some time in the year 1962, various textile mills in India started manufacturing blended yarn on exper...
Tag this Judgment!P.V. Gopalkrishnan Vs. Kanaksha Gopalkrishnan (Mrs.)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-14-1981
Reported in: 1982(1)BomCR454a
A.N. Mody, J.1. The appellant (original petitioner) the husband, and the respondent (the original respondent) were married on 20th June, 1976. The appellant and the respondent were both Hindus and were about 36 and 27 years of age respectively at the time of marriage. Due to certain unfortunate circumstances, the husband was driven to file a petition for nullity within a short time which he did on or about 30th November, 1976.2. The petition proceeds to make the following allegations. The marriage had not been consummated owing to the impotency of the respondent. On the very first night the respondent refused to have sexual intercourse saying that for one year she would not have sexual intercourse with the appellant. The respondent appeared to be very much upset at the approach of the appellant to consummate the marriage and was averse to any sexual act. It was decided by the petitioner and his elders to take the respondent on a pilgrimage so that there might be a change in her mentali...
Tag this Judgment!Rex Cinema Co-owners Vs. Sixth Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-1981
Reported in: (1983)3ITD633(Mum.)
1. The Special Bench was constituted to consider the following important question which arises from the cross objection of the assessee: Whether the provisions of Section 144B which are introduced in the I.T. Act, 1961 with effect from 1-1-1976 are applicable to all pending assessment proceedings or whether they are applicable only to the proceedings for assessment years 1976-77 and onwards? The assessment year involved is 1974-75. The assessee, a firm, had filed their first return on 5-8-1974. In the course of the assessment proceedings, the ITO, after hearing the assessee, made out a draft assessment order and referred the same to the IAC under Section 144B on 29-3-1977. The assessee filed his objections on 12-4-1977. The IAC, after hearing the assessee, gave his directions which were received by the ITO on 23-9-1977. The assessment was completed later. The assessee's case is that the provisions of Section 144B, under which the ITO made the reference to the IAC, are not applicable s...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Plastics Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-1981
Reported in: 1981(8)ELT509(Bom)
1. The only point that I am called upon to decide is whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of excise duty paid to the Excise authorities for the period 1st October, 1973 to 11th May, 1974, aggregating to Rs. 7,09,419.69.2. The petitioner is a public limited company carrying on business of manufacturing, inter alia, a certain moulding powder technically known as phenol formaldehyde synthetic resin. Prior to 10th May, 1975, the petitioner submitted to the excise department its price lists for the excisable goods manufactured by it under the Self-Removal Procedure. These price lists included post-manufacturing costs and/or profits attributable to post-manufacturing operations and the petitioner paid excise duty on the value of the products thus computed. In December 1972, the Supreme Court delivered its judgment in A. K. Roy v. Voltas Ltd., which was reported in : 1973ECR60(SC) , holding that on a true construction of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, the assessable value o...
Tag this Judgment!Abdur Rahim Undre (Dr.) Vs. Padma Abdur Rahim Undre (Smt.)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-1981
Reported in: 1983(1)BomCR395; (1982)84BOMLR33
A.N. Mody, J.1. The suit, the decision in which has led to this appeal, was bitterly fought between the parties and lengthy evidence was recorded in the matter. The suit and the appeal raise interesting and important questions of law. Even before me Mr. Bhatt for the appellant-husband argued the appeal at great length on facts and also made detailed submissions on the questions of law involved. Mrs. Nanavati started her arguments with submissions on questions of law. On hearing her, I found that the appeal is capable of being disposed of on one question of law only since her submission on that question appeared to have great substance. So I stopped her from going into the facts. Mr. Karim for the appellant very ably tried to dislodge her contention but without success.2. The plaintiff-appellant is the husband of the defendant-respondent. On 6-5-1966, the plaintiff then a Muslim and the defendant then a Hindu got married in England by getting the marriage registered under the civil law ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »