Mumbai Court October 1983 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.
Cadar Constructions Vs. Tara Tiles
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Bom258; 1984(2)BomCR530; 1984MhLJ603
Jahagirdar, J.1. This Letters Patent appeal seeks to challenge an order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court on 23rd December 1932 holding that the suit originally filed by the respondents hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff'. Was within time. By the said judgment the learned single Judge held that the suit was governed by the provisions contained in what can be called the Portuguese Civil Code and not by the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act. Hereinafter referred to as 'the Limitation Act'. The facts leading to the aforesaid judgment of the learned single Judge as well as this Letters Patent appeal may be briefly stated.2. The plaintiff filed a suit. Being Civil Case No. 17 of 1971. in the court of the Civil Judge. Senior Division Panaji. For recovery of a sum of over Rs. 10.000 on the ground that the said amount was due to him on taking accounts. The amount was due to him for the goods which had been supplied by him to the defendant. The suit was filed on 14th o...
Ballapur Industries Limited Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-1983
Reported in: 1985(4)ECC270; 1987(27)ELT414(Bom)
Jamdar, J.1. These two appeals arise out of the decree dated 30th November, 1977 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division). Chandrapur, in Special Civil Suit No. 3 of 1975. First Appeal No. 11 of 1978 is filed by the original plaintiff, the Ballarpur Industries Limited, formerly known as 'The Ballarpur Paper and Straw Board Mills Ltd.' (hereinafter referred to as the 'plaintiff Company) and First Appeal No. 61 of 1978 is filed by the original defendant, the Union of India, in the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue and Insurance.2. The plaintiff Company is engaged in the manufacture of various kinds of paper including various kind of board paper. The Company commenced production of paper for the first time in 1953 with one paper making machine called Machine No. 1. One more machine called Machine No. 2 was installed in the year 1963 and the total production of these machines was 18,000 tons of paper per annum. Two more machines styled as Machine Nos. 3 and 4 were installed on ...
Samir U. Parikh Vs. Sikander Zahiruddin
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-1983
Reported in: (1983)85BOMLR591; [1984(48)FLR331]; (1984)IILLJ90Bom
1. This appeal under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') raises an important question of law, namely, whether the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation has jurisdiction or power to assess the percentage of loss of earning capacity more than what is indicated against the particular injury in Part II of Schedule I of the Act.2. The admitted facts are that the applicant workman was in the employment of the appellant. At about 5.30 p.m. on the 1st September, 1976 while he was on duty loading iron sheets in a motor lorry, a bundle of iron sheets weighing about 2 1/2 tons fell on his right leg. As a result, his right foot was injured and had to be amputated completely below the ankle. The stump left after the amputation had an unhealthy skin-flap which did not adhere to the bone. The stump was also not ideal for artificial limb fitting. It gave a biting pain and the workman was unable to put his weight on it since it was also 3 1/2' off the ground. H...
Prakash R. Borkar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-1983
Reported in: 1984(1)BomCR95
R.A. Jahagirdar, J.1. This petition raised a question of the interpretation of Fundamental Rule 15 governing the service conditions of the Central Government employees. The Circumstances leading to this petition may be now stated. The petitioner had applied for the post of a Lower Division Clerk in the Directorate of Transport in the Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu, hereinafter referred to as 'the Union Territory'. By a letter dated 14th of November, 1975, the Government offered him the said post which carried a pay of Rs. 260 to begin with, in the scale of Rs. 260 rising to Rs. 400. In this offer of appointment it has been specifically mentioned that the temporary post of lower division clerk is in the Directorate of Transport. It has however, been also mentioned that the appointment carries with it the liability to serve in any part of the Union Territory and other conditions of service will be governed by the relevant rules and orders in force from time to time. The petitioner...
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Western Rolling Mills Ltd. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-1983
Reported in: 1990(26)LC585(Bombay)
Kania, J.1. The only contention raised by Mr. Lokur before us is that the claim for refund was in respect of a period more than three years prior to the date of the filing of the Writ Petition and hence no refund should have been granted in the Writ Petition as was done by the impugned judgment of Bharucha J. dated 13th October, 1982. It was contended by him that the petition ought to have been dismissed on the ground of gross delay on the part of the Petitioners. The relevant period to which the claim relates is from 23.3.1971 to 26.2.1973. An application for refund was made by the Respondents (Original Petitioners) on 4th October, 1974. That claim was rejected on 31st January 1975. Thereafter, Respondents went in appeal and later in revision and the revision application was decided by the Customs Authorities against the Respondents on 29th November 1978. This petition was filed on 29th March 1979. It is curious that although this was the only point urged in the appeal, this point was...
Samir U. Parikh Vs. Sikandar Zahiruddin
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-1983
Reported in: II(1984)ACC325; 1984MhLJ38
P.B. Sawant, J.1. This appeal under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') raises an important question of law. namely, whether the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation has jurisdiction or power to assess the percentage of loss of earning capacity more than what is indicated against the particular injury in Part II of Schedule I of the Act.2. The admitted facts are that the applicant workman was in the. employment of the appellant. At about 5.30 p.m. on the 1st September, 1976 while he was on duty, loading iron sheets in a motor lorry, a bundle of iron sheets weighing about 21/2 tons fell on his right leg. As a result, his right foot was injured and had to be amputated completely below the ankle. The stump left after the amputation had an unhealthy skin-flap which did not adhere to the bone. The stump was also not ideal for artificial limb-fitting. It gave a biting pain and the workman was unable to put his weight on it since it was also 31/2' of...
Finolex Pipes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-1983
Reported in: 1990(47)ELT316(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 9, 1982 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay, and only few facts are required to be stated to appreciate the grievance of the petitioners.2. The petitioners are importers of PVC Resin from a Company, known as Golden Bell Trading Company Limited, South Korea as well as other suppliers. The PVC Resin attracted Customs Duty under Heading 39.01/39.06 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The duty was payable on an ad valorem basis and is determined on the basis of the value of the goods at the time when the goods are imported in India. The value, therefore, includes not only the original purchase price of the goods, but also the cost of packing, the cost of transportation, insurance, etc. On November 25, 1967, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 25 of the Customs Act, the Central Government issued Notification No. 114 prov...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Poonamchand M. Shah (by L/Rs)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-1983
Reported in: (1984)39CTR(Bom)123
Desai, J.1. This motion is taken out for condoning the delay in filing the Petition for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court. The proposed appeal is from the decision of this High Court in ITR No. 444 of 1978 which decision was given on 7-10-1981.2. The prescribed period of limitation for filing such a petition is sixth days. It is the case of the applicant that there is a delay of 54 days which is sought to be condoned. As against the prescribed period of limitation, the period of delay sought to be condoned is comparatively large.3. However, even larger delay would be required to be condoned if sufficient cause is made out to explain every day's delay. In the instant case, the delay appears to have resulted from a combination of several factors such as forgetfulness on the part of the staff of the Central Government Advocate, archaic practices followed between the Central Government Advocate and the IT Department in particular regarding amounts which the Central Government Advocate c...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Niranjan Battery Corporation
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1983
Reported in: (1984)(16)ELT292Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal filed by the Collector, Central Excise, Bombay-I, arises out of and is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No.A-2011/Bl-383/82 dated 7-12-82, by which the Collector (Appeal;) set aside the Order-in-Original No. V (31) 18-1/79 dated 13-9-77 passed by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, rejecting the refund claim of Rs. 2870/- made by the respondents herein.2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are not in disputed The respondents, M/s. Niranjan Battery Corporation lodged a claim for Rs. 2870/- of duty paid falling under T.I. No. 31 during the period from April 1978 to July 1978 under compounded levy on battery parts. This claim was stated to have been lodged on 22-3-79. The Asstt.Collector rejected the claim on the ground that it was barred under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, which will be hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'. Feeling aggrieved the appellant preferred an appeal before the Collector (Appeals) Central Excise, Bombay. Th...
Nav Digvijaya Co-operative Housing Society Limited Vs. Sadhana Builder ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Bom114; 1984(1)BomCR241; (1983)86BOMLR59; 1983MhLJ1054
ORDER1. The defendants have filed a caveat S. 148A. Civil P.C. in an application for execution made by the plaintiffs under O. 21. R. 54 and O. 21. R. 54 and O. 21. R. 43. Civil P.C. Under S. sub-sec. (1) provides as follows:-'148A. (1) Where an application is expected to be made. Or has been made in a suit or proceeding instituted. Or about to be instituted. In a Court any person claiming a right to appear before the Court on the hearing of such application may lodge a caveat in respect thereof' Under S. 148A(1) therefore. Any person who claims a right to appear before the Court on the hearing of an application can file a caveat under that section in anticipation of such application being made. The result of filing such a caveat is that once such a caveat is filed a notice of any application such a suit or proceeding must be given to the caveator. The filing of a caveat prevents separate orders being made in proceedings where the caveator has ordinaries as right to be heard. The provi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »