Mumbai Court September 1982 Judgments
State of Maharashtra Vs. Amirali Abdulbhai Anosaya and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1982
Reported in: 1983(1)BomCR463; 1989(20)LC270(Bombay); 1989(39)ELT243(Bom); [1981]130ITR479A(Bom)
Joshi, J.1. The two respondents were convicted by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhiwandi under Section 135(b)(i) of the Customs Act and under Sections 3 and 4 punishable under Section 5 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947 and each of them was consolidated sentenced to suffer R.I. for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- (i/d of payment of fine to suffer R.I. for 6 months). They preferred an appeal to appeal to the Sessions Court, Thane i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 1976. The Additional Sessions Judge, Thane by his judgment dated 14.7.1976 allowed the appeal and set aside their convictions and sentences and acquitted them. Aggrieved by this decision of the Sessions Court the State of Maharashtra has preferred this appeal. Respondent No. 2 is reported to have died during the pendency of this appeal.2. On prior information Mr. Patankar Inspector from flying squad of Customs kept a watch near Avela village on Ahmedabad-Bombay road along with certain other officers of t...
Tag this Judgment!Balasaheb Desai Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs. Union of India and O ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1982
Reported in: 1982(10)ELT866(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, a co-operative sugar factory is challenging the legality of the order dated July 29, 1978 passed by the Government of India in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, confirming the order passed by the Superintendent of Central Excise and by the Appellate Collector, Customs and Central Excise, Bombay.2. The petitioners are carrying on business of manufacturing sugar falling under Tariff Item 1(1) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioners secured licence to establish factory on September 19, 1970 and commenced production at their factory situated at Daulatnagar in Patan Taluka of Satara District in the year 1973. The Government of India, Ministry of Finance, published Notification No. 257/76-Central Excise, on September 30, 1976 in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (8) of the Central Excise Rules, 194...
Tag this Judgment!Gopibai Ghanshamdas Advani and ors. Vs. Food Corporation of India and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Bom137; 1983(1)BomCR216; (1982)84BOMLR558; 1983MhLJ53
Gadgil, J.1. These two appeals arise from an order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ahmednagar in Miscellaneous Application No. 29 of 1979 whereunder an amount of Rs. 34,400 has been directed to be paid to the appellants by opponents Nos. 1 and 2 with future interest at a certain rate. The original appellants (hereinafter referred to a 'the claimants') have filed First Appeal No. 82 of 1982 claiming additional amount of Rs. 80,000. They have also claimed that the amount of compensation should be made recoverable from the New India Insurance Company. Bombay, original opponent No. 3. The other Appeal No. 110 of the 1982 is filed by the Food Corporation of India, Bombay and its driver Shri P. High. More (original opponent No. 2) challenging the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ahmednagar.2. Before the hearing of these appeals began, Mr. Rajani, the learned Advocate appearing for the application in First Appeal No. 82 of 1982 made a statement that the appellants documents not intend...
Tag this Judgment!Usha Manohar Waradkar Vs. Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1982
Reported in: 1983(1)BomCR225
V.V. Joshi, J.1. The petitioner who is the wife of the detenu Manohar Dulaji Waradkar has challenged the detention of her husband under order dated 17 April, 1982 issued by the respondent No. 1 under section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980. The detention order along with another order regarding the place of detention, and the grounds of detention, all of the date 17th April, 1982, was served on the detenu on the same date.2. The impugned order of detention, which has been issued by the respondent No. 1 with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, is based on three grounds. (i) The first ground relates to an incident dated 19-11-1980 when the detenu along with his associates armed with swords went to Chawl No. 4, Janata Housing Society, Patel Chowk, Ghatkopar for making enquiries about Shri Pandurang Narayan Digraskar and at that time one Smt. Suhasini Shankar Patkar, aunt of the said Pandurang residing in room No...
Tag this Judgment!Balkrishna Bhagwan Salunke Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1982
Reported in: 1983(1)BomCR259
S.J. Deshpande, J.1. The petitioner along with another accused who was accused No. 2 before the Magistrate, was tried on charge of theft under section 379 read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code in Criminal Cases Nos. 1612-13-14/P of 1979. He was sentenced under section 379 read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code for imprisonment of 3 years and to pay a fine or Rs. 500/-, in default, to suffer further R.I. for six months in Case No. 1614/P of 1981. In case No. 1613/P of 1981 the petitioner was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs. 500 in default R.I. for 6 months, under section 411. He was acquitted in case No. 1612/P of 1981. Criminal Revision Application No. 363/81 arises out of these criminal cases. These sentences were confirmed in appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, on 5th March, 1981. The petitioner has filed Criminal Revision Application No. 363 of 1981 against the order of the Appellate Judge. The petitioner is now represented...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Janata Works Pvt. Ltd. (In Liquidation)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1982
Reported in: (1982)84BOMLR587
Rele, J.1. The Official Liquidator has submitted his report for directions whether he should take out a Judge's Summons against M/s. Janata Industries for setting aside execution of the eviction decree passed by the Court of Small Causes at Bombay.2. The company had five galas viz. galas Nos. 16 to 20 in premises at 162, Tulsi .Pipe Road, Lower Parel, Bombay. The Official Liquidator took possession of 4 galas, viz. gala Nos. 16 to 19. He could not take possession of Gala No. 20 as the occupant of that gala raised dispute.3. Prior to the winding-up of the company, the landlord of the said building M/s. Janata Industries filed a R.A.E. Suit No. 1527/5464 of 1978 against the company in ejectment. On the winding-up of the company, the suit was continued by the landlords after obtaining leave of this Court under Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956.4. In or about July, 1979, there was a fire in the vicinity of the said galas and gala Nos. 16 and 17 were damaged in that fire. The suit, how...
Tag this Judgment!Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd. Vs. Allahiri, Income-tax Officer, Compani ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1982
Reported in: [1983]141ITR239(Bom)
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. The petitioners, Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd., are publishers of newspapers and periodicals. Their previous year for the purposes of the I.T. Act, 1961, was the period of 12 months ending on the preceding December 31. On February 15, 1976, the petitioners wrote to the Commissioner of Income-tax, with copes to the IAC and their ITO, asking for approval to their request contained in the said letter to change the previous year to July/June and to prepare accounts for the period of 18 months from January 1, 1976. The letter stated that the Government's annual newsprint policy covered the period April to March and was usually announced in May. It, therefore, became unrealistic for the petitioners to work on the budget and review the performance for business decisions and action for almost five months in their accounting year. By changing the accounting year to July/June, this difficulty would be overcome and it would facilitate decision making.2. On February 28, 1976, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Deccan Sales Corporation and Another Vs. R. Parthasarthy and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1982
Reported in: 1982(10)ELT885(Bom)
1. In this miscellaneous petition a short but interesting question regarding the application of Rule 56-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, arises. The said Rule has undergone slight changes and hence we will have to consider the rule as it stood when the petitioners applied for a refund of the amount of Rs. 77,587/- which they did in 1970. In order, however, to understand the nature of the petitioners' claim and in order to consider whether the same is required to be upheld or repelled, I may sate a few facts.2. Petitioner No. 1 is a company inter alia carrying on business as manufacturers and dealers in fertilizer mixtures. Petitioner No. 2 is its shareholder and Managing Director. I shall refer to Petitioner No. 1 hereinafter as 'the Company' for the sake of brevity.3. The Company manufactures granulated compound fertilizers and for the purposes of manufacture uses as raw material certain base fertilizers. These base fertilizers are manufactured by other persons and certain excise ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohamedkhalil S/O Haji Abdul Vahid Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1982
Reported in: 1982(1)BomCR908
S.J. Deshpande, J.1. This revision application arises out of an order of conviction and sentence under sections 78(a) and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 recorded by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and the petitioner-accused was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-.2. The aforesaid conviction and sentence was maintained by the Appellate Judge in appeal filed by the petitioner-accused before him. That appellate order is dated March 25, 1980. In the result, the petitioners' conviction is maintained, he stands sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- on each count, in default simple imprisonment for three months. The petitioner-original accused seeks to challenge this appellate order by way of revision in this Court.3. A few facts may be stated briefly as follows :---Respondent No. 2 Prabhudas Mohanlal Thakkar who is Officer of Duke's Co. Pvt. Ltd. filed a complaint before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 23rd Court, Esplanade, Bombay, that the petitioner company runs a fact...
Tag this Judgment!Vardhman Spg. and Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1982
Reported in: 1983LC45D(Bombay)
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. The facts briefly stated are of the first petition. The petitioners imported viscose staple fibre, pursuant to a valid licence, on board the S.S. 'Georgios Paravalos' and the S.S. 'Vishwa Amitabh'. The former entered Indian territorial waters on 29th November 1978 and the latter on 30th November 1978. At this date viscose staple fibre was exempted from the whole of the customs duty leviable thereon. Around November 1978 there was congestion in the Bombay port. The two vessels, therefore, left Indian territorial waters and sailed elsewhere. They re-entered Indian territorial waters prior to 31st December 1978. The viscose staple fibre thereon was cleared without payment of customs duty. Thereafter, by show cause notices, both dated 12th June 1979, the petitioners were asked to explain why duty should not be assessed upon the viscose staple fibre on the basis that the vessels had re-entered Indian territorial waters on 1st January 1979 and 11th January 1979 at which d...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »