Mumbai Court September 1982 Judgments
ScIndia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. Vs. ScIndia Employees Union and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1982
Reported in: (1983)IILLJ476Bom; 1983MhLJ1058
Chandurkar, J.1. This judgment will dispose of two appeals, namely, Appeal 184 of 1982 filed by the Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd., and Appeal 335 of 1982 filed by the Scindia Employees' Union and others. Both these appeals arise out of a decision given by the learned Single Judge in Miscellaneous Petition 1302 of 1978, in which the learned Judge has taken the view that the settlement dated 5th December, 1974 provides for bonus which is profit-based and in view of the provisions of Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Bonus Act'), the claim for bonus under the agreement could not be validly made by employees of the Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company'). The learned Judge has further held that the bonus under the said agreement of 5th December, 1974 in respect of employees who were drawing salary in excess of Rs. 1600/- is not affected and that in computing the salary of such employees, all the four allowances drawn by the...
Tag this Judgment!Devpal Dhir Vs. B.V. Kumar and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1982
Reported in: 1989(19)ECC214; 1987(32)ELT459(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. This is an appeal preferred against the judgment dated September 20, 1982 delivered by Mr. Justice Bharucha dismissing Writ Petition filed by the appellant seeking a writ of mandamus for quashing and setting aside the order dated February 26, 1979 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay, declining to grant refund to the appellant. Few facts which are not in dispute and which gave rise to the filing of the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are as follows :2. The appellant imported three consignments of Australian Greecy Wool by s. s. `Staraat Lagos'. The vessel entered Indian territorial waters on June 10, 1977 and the appellant presented bills of entry to the Customs authorities on June 13, 1977. The import general manifest was filed by the Agent of ship owners on June 16, 1977. The Customs duty payable upon the imported goods was at the rate of 45% ad valorem on the date when the ship entered the territorial waters. The rate was increased...
Tag this Judgment!JaIn Shudh Vanaspati Ltd. and Others Vs. S.R. Patankar and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1982
Reported in: 1983(13)ELT923(Bom)
1. The Petitioners, holders of a valid import licence, imported palm oil in bulk, 1996.6115 mts from Malaysia and 2902-3001 mts from Penang. Both the consignments were shipped to Bombay on M.V. 'Dolphin II'. The vessel arrived within Indian territorial waters on 27th February 1979. At this time a notification was in force whereunder the Central Government had exempted, inter alia palm oil falling within Chapter XV of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, when imported into India, from the whole of the duty of customs leviable thereon. On 28th February 1979 the import general manifest of the vessel was registered, numbered and displayed on the notice board of the Collector of Customs, Bombay. On that day the Petitioners' clearing agents filed with the Customs authorities 6 bills of entry relating to the said goods. The Bombay port trust authorities had on 23rd February 1979 informed the vessel's shipping agents that, in order to secure a berth for the purposes of discharge...
Tag this Judgment!Devpal Dhir Vs. B.V. Kumar, Collector of Customs (Appeals) and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1982
Reported in: 1983(12)ELT796(Bom)
1. The petitioner imported into India three consignments for Australian Greecy Wool by S. S. 'Staraar Lagos'. The vessel entered Indian territorial waters on 10th June, 1977. On 13th June, 1977 three bills of entry were presented on behalf of the Petitioner showing customs duty upon the said goods payable at 45%. On 15th June 1977, it is the case of the Petitioner, the assessment of duty was completed and duty was assessed at 45%. On 16th June 1977 the vessel's import general manifest was lodged with the Customs authorities. The duty upon the said goods was increased with effect from mind night of 17th/18th June 1977 to 75%. On 20th June 1977 the ship was granted entry inward. On 23rd June 1977 the Customs authorities, it is the case of the Petitioner, revised the assessment and raised the duty payable to 75%. Between 25th June 1977 to 6th July 1977 the Petitioner paid the amounts of duty assessed at 75%. On 6th December 1977 the Petitioner made three applications for refund of duty pa...
Tag this Judgment!Krishan Oil Cake Industries Vs. S.R. Patankar, Assistant Collector of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1982
Reported in: 1983(14)ELT2153(Bom); [1981]127ITR591(Bom)
1. The facts stated relate to the first mentioned petition in the title. On 1st July 1977 a notification was issued under Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962, whereby the Govt. of India exempted palmoleine falling within Chapter 15 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, when imported into India, from the whole of the duty of customs leviable thereon specified in the First Schedule. The Petitioners, holding a valid import licence in respect of palmoleine, were shipped 362.932 M. Ts. thereof by the S.S. 'Accord'. On 18th January 1979 the vessel arrived within Indian territorial waters and its import manifest was registered and numbered. On 29th January 1979 entry inwards was granted to the vessel. On 1st March 1979 a notification was issued under Section 25 of the Customs Act whereunder the Central Government exempted, inter alia, palmoleine from so much of that portion of the duty of customs leviable thereon specified in the First Schedule of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Khuwaja Syed Ahmed Vs. the Maharashtra Housing and Area Developme ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Bom73; 1982(2)BomCR619; 1983MhLJ120
1. This Appeal from Order has got to be allowed just for the asking. The simple facts are that there was a building at Grant Road which was in a dilapidated condition. It was acquired by the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (hereafter referred to as the 'Authority') under S. 41 of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 (hereafter the 'Act'). The occupants of the old building were entitled, as a matter of a right, to have the allotment of a suitable flat in the building to be newly constructed in the place of the old dilapidated building. As a matter of fact; under S. 94 of the Act, an alternative accommodation is required to be given to the occupants even when the building is to be demolished and while the new building is under construction. But it is really speaking, not necessary to go into all those facts and provisions at this stage. It is enough here to state that admittedly, without the Authority's active effort, the building itself decided to co...
Tag this Judgment!Omkar Shrawan, Through Its Partner Ramesh Omkar Matturvaishya Vs. Stat ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1982
Reported in: 1983(1)BomCR1
Sharad Manohar, J.1. This revision application was originally filed against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pachora against the present petitioner, who was accused No. 1 in the proceedings before the learned Magistrate, and other accused of an offence under section 139 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act for having attempted to evade the payment of octroi duty. The amount of fine imposed was Rs. 2,659.70 ps. being equivalent to 10 times of the amount of octroi duty attempted to be evaded. Accused Nos. 2 to 4 are only the partners of the firm-accused No. 1. By some strange logic, the learned Magistrate passed a separate order of conviction and sentence against each of the partners of the firm, namely, accused Nos. 2 to 4 in addition to the firm-accused No. 1 and sentenced them similarly to pay the fine of Rs. 2,659.70 ps. each.2. In the revision application, the learned Sessions Judge rightly rectified the mistake committed by the learne...
Tag this Judgment!Dharamsas Mangilal JaIn Vs. Shrikumar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Bom114; 1983MhLJ160
1. This is the landlords' petitioner, whose suit was decree by the Third Additional Small Causes Court, holding that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were not in need of the suit premises and the landlord was entitled to possession because the tenant, since the coming into operation of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, was unlawfully sublet the tenanted. premises, being House No. 319, situated in Kirkee, the Cantonment Area of Poona Town. That decree was, however, set aside in appeal by the District Court, Pune, holding that the sub-letting was in the year 1968 and the provisions of the Act were applied to the area in year 1969. Thus the sub-letting was not unlawful.2. That order vacating the decree by the appeal Court is challenged in the present petition.3. The fact not in dispute and as found are that the suit premises were tenanted to defendants Nos. 1 and 2 as monthly tenants. The plaintiff served the notice of termination of that tenancy on Dec. 20, 1971, inter ...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Maharashtra Vs. B.B. Kothavade
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-1982
Reported in: 1983(1)BomCR469
1. The State has preferred this appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class of Malegaon on 9th of April 1979 in Criminal Case No. 618 of 1973. By the said order the learned trial Magistrate acquitted the respondent, hereinafter referred to as 'the accused', of the offence punishable under Section 16(i)(a) read with Section 7(i) and Section 2(i)(c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. According to the prosecution the accused made a statutory sale of 450 grammes of what has been called Shahajira to the Food Inspector of Malegaon. The sample which was sent to the Public Analyser was found to contain nearly 75 per cent of extraneous matter. That at least is the report of the Public Analyst. On this basis the prosecution was launched against the accused. In support of its case the prosecution examined the Food Inspector and one of the panchas who was, according to the prosecution, a witness to the purchase of the sample and the subsequ...
Tag this Judgment!Suryabhan S/O Totaram Patil Vs. Ekbal Ahmed S/O Mahamed Ismail and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-1982
Reported in: 1982(2)BomCR635
D.B. Deshpande, J.1. The tenant who feels aggrieved by the order of the District Judge, Aurangabad, allowing the landlords' application for the ejectment of the tenant and directing him to vacate the tenanted premises within one month from the date of his order dated 13th June, 1980 his filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and it arises out of the following facts.2. The respondents 1 to 3 before me are the landlords and the petitioner is the tenant and in this judgment they will be accordingly referred to as the landlords and the tenant. The landlords started ejectment proceeding against the tenant for evicting him on two grounds (1) that the landlords want to start their business in the suit promise and that their need in this respect is bona fide and genuine and (2) the tenant has secured an alternative accommodation just opposite to the suit premises.3. The property in question in Municipal House No. 3-8-69 is situated at Shahaganj in Aurangabad. A por...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »