Mumbai Court November 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.
indo French Time Industries Ltd. and anr. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-10-1983
Reported in: 1989(20)LC55(Bombay)
Pendse, J.1. The petitioners filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on April 3, 1979 seeking various reliefs. The petitioners sought the declaration that amendment to Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and in particular the words 'buyer is not a related person' in Clause (a) of Sub-section (I) of Section 4 are ultra vires of the constitution and for an injunction restraining the respondents from applying the provisions of the said amended Section to the first petitioner. The petitioners also challenge the various actions taken by the officers of the Central Excise and their orders, copies of which are annexed as Exhibits 'F' and 'H' to 'K' and 'M' to the petitioners-The petitioners also challenge the show-cause notice issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise on March 20, 1979.2. It is not necessary to set out the claim of the petitioners because after some arguments at the bar, Shri Kana, learned Counsel appearing in support of the pe...
Unique Associates Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Union of India ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-08-1983
Reported in: [1985]152ITR114(Bom); [1984]16TAXMAN127(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. Respondents Nos 4 and 5 were owners of property known as Cleave House situate at 96, Wodehouse Road, Colaba, Bombay. The property originally consisted of a ground floor and two upper storeys and was constructed on a plot of land known as Plot no. 33 of the Reclamation Estates and admeasuring 818 square metres. Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 executed an agreement of sale of this property in favour of respondent No. 6 on September 15, 1964, and the consideration for the sale of the property was fixed at Rs. 1,35,000. Respondent No. 6 constructed two more storeys, each storey having two flats. On May 28, 1970, respondent No. 6 entered into an agreement of sale of the property in favour of respondents Nos. 7 to 9 for a consideration of Rs. 3,25,000. Respondents Nos. 7to 9 in their turn executed an agreement of sale in favour of respondent No. 10 on November 19, 1971, for a consideration of Rs. 3,55,000. The property held by respondents Nos. 4 and 5 was tenanted, and respondent No. 1...
Basantibai Fakirchand Khetan and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-08-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Bom366; 1984MhLJ534
Pendse, J.1. This petition and 13 other petitioner filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution raised the question of constitutional validity of s, 44 of the maharashtra Housing and area Development Act, 1976, being maharahstra Act No. XXVII of 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), which provides the basis for determination of amount of Acquisition of land all municipal areas. The petitioners in all these petitions are owners of land either agricultural of non-agricultural, situated within the municipal areas. It is not necessary to refer to the fact of each of the petition and it would suffice if the facts in the main petition are Stated to appreciate the question urged by the rival sides.2. The land involved in this writ petition bears Survey No., 28 and admeasures 398.60 Hectares and is situated at village Bhushi in Maval Taluka of Pune District. Mohanlal Fakirchand was the owner of this land having purchased ti under the sale ded dated Jan. 18 1966 leaving behind petition 1 - his...
Anthony D'Souza Vs. Radhabai Brij Ratan Mohatta (Mrs.) and Ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-08-1983
Reported in: 1984(1)BomCR157
S.J. Deshpande, J.1. This case illustrates how the complaint himself is responsible for prosecuting his own complaint in a dilatory manner causing sufficient delay in the progress of the trial. It also smacks of abuse of process, in that, many adjournment applications have been given and Judicial charity has been abused for the appeared ends of justice.2. One Anthony D'Souza is the original complainant, who filed a complaint bearing no. 15/S of 1982 in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 14th Court, Girgaon, Bombay, charging the four accused for the commission of offence of wrongful restraint under section 341, criminal intimidation under section 506(2) and abuses under section 504 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 114. A similar complaint by another person is also field before the learned Magistrate bearing No. 14/S of 1982. These complaints were filed on or about 30th March, 1982. 3. The complainant alleges that the four accused are the owners of Madhurima sweet Meat a sho...
Patel Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-07-1983
Reported in: (1984)(16)ELT497Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants - M/s Patel Impex Pvt. Ltd., Bombay, hereinafter referred to as Patel irnpex-imported a consignment of 307.193 M. Tonnes of Palm Kernel Oil (Unprocessed) at Kandla Port on 29.10.1980. M/s J.M.Baxi & Co., Custom House Agent, filed a Bill of Entry No. 523 dated 12-1-1980 for clearance of the goods. The licence for clearance of the goods was mentioned as P/K/L/M/2816076/C/XX/71/X/79 dated 27-3-1979 and Telegraphic Release Advice No. S/32-Bom-KandIa-3/80C dated 5-11-1980 issued by the Asstt. Collector of Customs, Bombay. The licence was held in the name of M/s United Breweries Ltd., Bangalore. The goods were assessed provisionally under Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the goods were released on payment of duty of Rs. 5,45,153.40 on 13-11-1980. For reasons set out in the show cause notice dated 14-4-1981 issued under Section 130 of the Customs Act, the Collector of Customs, Ahmedabad appeared to be of the view that the release of the goods against the aforesai...
Chhaganlal and Sons Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-07-1983
Reported in: (1984)(16)ELT502Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal to this Tribunal and is directed against the order dated 30-11-1982 of the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay upholding the order (Original) dated 17-2-1982 passed by the Deputy Collector of Customs, Bombay confiscating 13 post parcels of surgical threads imported by the appellants for having contravened Section 11 l(d) of the Customs Act, 1962.2. The facts giving rise to the dispute, in brief, are that the appellants produced for Customs clearance of the aforesaid goods an import licence No. 2897702 dated 12-2-1980. The said licence which was a R.E.P. licence for the export of leather goods bore an endorsement in the following terms : - "This licence will also be valid for import of OGL items under para 185 of Import Policy, 1981-82 subject to the conditions laid down and shall be non-transferable." The said para 185 provides that, on the import replenishment licences issued in their own names or transferred to them by others, Export Houses will be entitled t...
Khandelwal Ferro Alloys Ltd. Vs. R.M. Chakravorthy, Income-tax Officer ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-07-1983
Reported in: (1984)39CTR(Bom)130; [1985]152ITR20(Bom); [1984]16TAXMAN135(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. The petitioner is a public limited company and manufactures and deals in ferro manganese which falls under the category of 'ferro alloy' under the First Schedule to the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951.2. The Central Government in exercise of the power under s. 280ZE of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), read with s. 280ZB of the Act framed the 'Tax Credit Certificate (Corporation Tax) Scheme, 1966.' Paragraph 3 of the Scheme provides that any company which claims that it is eligible for the grant of the certificate in respect of any relevant year may apply to the ITO, and paragraph 5 provides that the ITO, after making such enquiry as he deems fit, can determine the Where the ITO rejects the application, an appeal is provided to the Commissioner of Income-tax under paragraph 5 of the Scheme. As required under paragraph 3 of the Scheme, the petitioner filed two applications for the assessment years 1967-68 and 1970-71 for grant of T...
Venubai Annantrao Vs. Prabhabai Govindrao Jamkar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-07-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Bom314
ORDER1. This Civil Revision Application by the original plaintiff is directed against the judgment and order recorded by the learned Extra Assistant Judge, Nanded in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal lNo. 17 of 1982 decided of 26 the April 1983.2. The petitioner-plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No. 223 of 1981 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nanded, against the respondents-defendants for declaration of ownership and possession of field Survey No. 34 admeasuring 14 acres 27 gunthas situated at village Assadullabad, District Nanded and for perpetual injunction. In the said suit, the plaintiff had filed an application for temporary injunction under O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2, Civil P. C. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'), restraining the defendants from obstructing her possession over the said field. That application was contested by the defendants and after hearing both parties and on considering the material on record, the learned Second Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division Na...
Dnyaneshwar Sitram Soholkar Vs. Surekha Dnyaneshwar Soholkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-07-1983
Reported in: [1985]57CompCas443(Bom); 1984MhLJ17
Chnadurkar, Ag. C.J.1. The appellant, who is the husband of the respondent has filed this appeal challenging the judgement of the learned single Judge holding that this court on the original side has no jurisdiction to entertain a petition for decree of nullity of marriage under Section 18 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. It is not necessary to refer to the details of thee grounds on which a decree of nullity is sought by the appellant and it is sufficient to mention that according to the petitioner, the respondent having refused to allow him to consummate the marriage and having refused to come the marriage and having refused to come back to him even after repeated requests, an inference that the respondent was impotent at the time of marriage and was potent still impotent was evidence on the factsof the case and, theerefore, the facts of the case and, therefore, the appellant filed the petition praying that he was entitled to a declaration tha...
M.M. Gandhy Vs. Ninth Wealth-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-01-1983
Reported in: (1984)7ITD450(Mum.)
1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 17-2-1983 of the AAC, relating to the assessment year 1975-76.2. The assessee is an individual. He filed a return of wealth showing total wealth at Rs. 1,48,624 and deducting the liabilities of Rs. 1,43,327, the net wealth at Rs. 5,397. As the net taxable wealth was far below the minimum liable to wealth-tax, there could be no demand of wealth-tax on the basis of the return filed by the assessee. The aforesaid return was filed on 28-6-1975.3. It appears that the WTO passed no assessment order on the said return. Yet, he sent a demand notice dated 20-3-1980 demanding wealth-tax of Rs. 1,471 from the assessee. The assessee wrote a letter dated 18-4-1980 to the WTO pointing out that there was no demand as per the return filed by him and that there was no assessment order accompanying the notice of demand for Rs. 1,471. It was requested that the liabilities shown in the wealth-tax return appeared to have been ignored wh...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›