Mumbai Court February 1983 Judgments
Unique Pharmaceutical Labs Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC784DTri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal transferred to the Tribunal under Section 131B of the Customs Act. The appellants' plead ignorance of the Public Notice No. 46 dated 1-12-80 amending para 198 (4) of the Appendix 9 of the A.M. 1981 Policy. They plead that they opened the letter of credit on 9-12-80 in terms of the earlier OGL for imports of Ampicillin Sodium under Appendix 10, Sr. No. (1) of A.M. 1981 Policy. The appellants later came to know of the change in the policy and in this behalf they have relied on the letter dated 26-10-81 from All India Importers Association addressed to the appellants and letter dated 14-10-81 from M/s. Chemexcil, Bombay to the appellants. The appellants, therefore, seek to show that the change in the import policy though effective from 1-12-80, was not known to them. In view of these circumstances, they requested for waiving the redemption fine. The departmental representative has pointed out that the original order of the Asstt.Collector covers 4 consignments under ...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat Electronics Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC791DTri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal under Section 129-A of the Customs Act, from M/s Gujarat Electronics, Ankleshwar. The learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the import of cabinet parts for video cassettes has been wrongly held as unauthorised and contravening the provisions of the Import Trade Control Order and therefore the Dy. Collector's order No. S/10-26/8ID dated 15.4.81 is not correct. He has submitted a sample of the goods imported and pointed out that the cassette cabinet is not made entirely of plastic and the import of the cabinet should be allowed under OGL Appendix 10, Sr. No. 1 of the A-M 81 policy. The order of the Dy. Collector holding the cabinet as a plastic entruded, moulded component falling under Sr. No. 444 of Appendix 5 was incorrect. This would be further confirmed from the fact that in the next policy for the period AM-1982, Appendix 5, Sr. No. 580(36) covers Video Cassettes without tape and parts thereof. This specific restriction under the subsequent poli...
Tag this Judgment!State of Maharashtra Vs. Khodya Alias Khodidas Sonabhai Chavan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-1983
Reported in: 1983(2)BomCR100
1 to 34. xx xx xx xx35. The logical deductions emerging out of the aforesaid discussion vis-a-vis the provisions contained in Sections 167(2), 209, 309 and 437 as also having reference to the various ratios of the judicial pronouncement which are elaborately discussed hereinabove, can be catalogued as :-Non-filing of the charge-sheet within the stipulated period of 60 days or 90 days, as the case may be, accrues a right in favour of the accused for being entitled to be released on bail under section 167(2) of the Code provided the accused is prepared and furnishes bail.36. The said entitlement is irrespective of any other consideration.37. The merits of the matter recedes in the background to which the learned Magistrate need not address himself, but has to restrict only to the two termini, the arrest of the accused, filing of the charge-sheet and the span of period involved in between.38. This right of being entitled to bail is absolute only in that limited field, but the field and ex...
Tag this Judgment!Sanmukh D. Makhija and anr., Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-1983
Reported in: 1983(2)BomCR431; (1983)85BOMLR411
P.S. Shah, J.1. This is a group of 11 petitions filed by the liquor vendors under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the increase in the licence fees by the Government with effect from July 1, 1981. The petitioners have been granted these licences under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 read with the relevant Rules. 2. The facts which are relevant for our purpose in all these petitions are more or less similar. Writ Petition No. 214 of 1982 was argued as a representative petition. 3. In Writ Petition No. 214 of 1982 the petitioner is a holder of C.L. III Licence which has been issued to him under the provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') read with Rule (1) of the Maharashtra Country Liquor Rules, 1973. Licence has been issued in his favour for retail sale of country liquor on the terms and conditions mentioned in the licence. This licence has been held by the petitioner for the last several years and is renewed from time to time a...
Tag this Judgment!Chhotalal Hariram and anr. Vs. Nagindas Jagjiwan Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-1983
Reported in: 1983(2)BomCR480
D.M. Rege, J.1. This writ petition is by the plaintiffs against the judgment and order of the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes dated 1-4-1982, allowing the defendant's appeal against the judgment and order of the learned trial Judge dated 11-3-1981, rejecting the defendant's Misc. Notice bearing No. 806 of 1978, dated 8-8-1978 in the plaintiff's suit for eviction being R.A.E. Suit No. 8762 of 1975 for setting aside the ex parte decree passed by the trial Court in that suit dated 14th June, 1978.2. The point raised lies in a very narrow compass. On 6th May, 1975, the petitioners herein, i.e. the plaintiffs in the suit, sent a notice by Registered Post A.D. to the defendant-respondent under section 12 of the Rent Act, demanding arrears of rent for the period between 1-5-1974 to 30-4-1975. A copy of the said notice was also affixed on the premises. However, the notice sent under Registered Post was returned by the post office with a remark 'not claimed'. The defendant neither ...
Tag this Judgment!Baroundeb Harisadan Mukerjee Vs. House Allotment Officer
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-1983
Reported in: (1983)85BOMLR163
Mohta, J.1. Harisadan Mukerjee was a government servant, He was occupying as tenant a block in a chawl situated in Gaddigudam locality within the corporation limits of city of Nagpur. The property was owned by the trust known as Hasnte Burhaniyah Fidyah Trust. He died some time in the year 1958 leaving behind Baroundeb (petitioner No. 1) and Raman (petitioner No. 2) as the sons and three daughters, as legal heirs. Baroundeb is aged 48 years and is in the employment with Steel Authority of India Limited as deputy manager presently posted at Durgapur, Raman is aged 38 years and is in the employment of Geological Survey of India, presently posted at Jaipur. All these brothers and sisters are married and live separately at different places. Baroundeb left Nagpur and joined service some time in the year 1968 and Raman some time in the year 1974-75. One Sudhansu Banerjee, the brother-in-law of the petitioners, occupied the premises for some years and presently it is locked and unused and onl...
Tag this Judgment!Kashyap Zip Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC457DTri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal under Section 129-A of the Customs Act filed by M/s. Kashyap Zip Industries Pvt. Ltd. against the order No.' S/10-55/82/'E' dated 21-8-82 of the Addl. Collector of Customs, Bombay.The appellants have argued that their import of 738 cartons of Polyester Filament Yarn was wrongly penalised by the Addl. Collector by denying them the benefit of import without the licence under Appendix 10, Sr. No. 1. As per para 6 of Appendix 10, the importers had registered their contract for import of the yarn with the Textile Commissioner. However, the benefit of the O.G.L. was denied to the importers by the Addl. Collector merely on the ground that the yarn was used in the manufacture of tapes and sewing threads and these were final manufacturer products and therefore, the yarn in question could not be treated as a raw material or as component or consumable for the manufacture of zip fasteners. The importers were a small scale manufacturer and they would exceed the limit of invest...
Tag this Judgment!Cotton Textiles Export Promotion Vs. First Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1983
Reported in: (1983)4ITD642(Mum.)
1. The first appeal is by the assessee and the second by the department.2. The assessee is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act representing manufacturers and exporters of cotton cloth and yarn.Clause 3 of the Memorandum of Association details the objects 'for which the Company is established and which shall extend to every country in the world'. Sub-clause (1) of Clause 3 which is as under: (1) to promote, support, protect, maintain and increase the export of cloth and yarn as defined in the Cotton Textiles Fund Ordinance (Ordinance XXXIV of 1944) viz., cloth and yarn of any description manufactured either wholly from cotton or partly from cotton and partly from any other substance and containing not less than 10 per cent of cotton by weight as also the export of any articles made out of cloth and yarn, either wholly or partially, from textile fibres, whether natural or artificial, including articles such as tents and tent material, cotton apparel, cotton tape, imitati...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. George Motors (P.) Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1983
Reported in: (1983)4ITD602(Mum.)
1. This appeal has been filed by the department against the order dated 29-4-1981 of the Commissioner (Appeals). The assessee is a private limited company, deriving income from business in automobile repairs and services. In addition to the above the assessee was also engaged in the purchase and sale of mini-cars manufactured by Sunrise Industries Ltd., Bangalore. The assessment year involved in this appeal is 1979-80. The year ended 31-12-1978 was the relevant previous year.2. The only ground taken in this appeal is that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding that the repairing of motor car was 'processing of goods' within the meaning of the definition of 'industrial company' appearing in Section 2(7)(c) of the Finance Act, 1979 ('the Act.'). It may be stated in this connection thai: a lower rate of tax is applicable to industrial companies if they come under the aforesaid definition. The aforesaid definition is as below: 'Industrial company' means a company which is mainly enga...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdish Vs. Bhanumati
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-1983
Reported in: AIR1983Bom297; 1983MhLJ754
ORDER1. The marriage between the applicant and non-applicant was solemnised at Nagpur according to Hindu rites in February 1960. After the marriage, the applicant and non-applicant were staying together at Jharsuguda in district Sambalpur of Orissa State. The non-applicant wife, after some time returned to Nagpur to reside with her father. She filed a petition for judicial separation in June, Senior Division, Nagpur. It was registered as H M. P. No. 96 of 1970. However, she withdrew the same on 21-9-1970 by filing a pursis to that effect.2. Subsequently, the husband present applicant, presented a petition for dissolution of marriage in the year 1975, at the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Sambalpur in Orissa State. It was registered as Title Suit No. 27 of 1975. Summons of the said suit was duly served upon the non-applicant wife, but the failed to appear and contest the same. On 30-3-77, the Subordinate Judge at Sambalpur passed an exempted parte decree of divorce as prayed for by the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »