Mumbai Court February 1983 Judgments
Coats of India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC1483DTri(Mum.)bai
1. M/s Coats of India Ltd. have filed this appeal under Section 35-B(1)(a) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 against the decision of the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-II as conveyed to the appellants in his letter No. V-14(30) 13/81 dated 19-9-1982. This letter has been signed by the Asstt. Collector (Technical) for Collector and since M/s. Coats of India Ltd. required a decision of the Collector for approaching the Tribunal in appeal as aforesaid, they requested the Collector accordingly and the Collector has thereafter issued to them the letter No. V-14 (30) 15/81 dated 6-1-1983. In Para 5 of this letter dated 6-1-1983 the Collector has informed M/s. Coats of India Ltd. to approach the Tribunal in case they feel aggrieved by this decision. M/s. Coats of India Ltd. have tendered this letter in original and have requested the Tribunal to admit the same as fresh evidence.2. The main cause of grievance is that the Collector had denied the appellants the benefit of Rule 56-...
Tag this Judgment!Shiram Swami Shikshan Sanstha, Nagpur Vs. Education Officer, Zilla Par ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-1983
Reported in: (1983)85BOMLR288; [1982]138ITR703(Bom); (1984)ILLJ432Bom; 1984MhLJ31
Dhabe, J.1. The short question that arises for consideration in this petition is whether the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur, has jurisdiction to decide whether the alleged resignation given by an Assistant Teacher in the school is a resignation according to law of is a forced resignation. The respondent No. 2 is an Assistant Teacher in the school run by Shriram Swami Shikshan Sanstha, which had filed the instant petition. The respondent No. 2 made a complaint on 22nd September, 1982 to the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur, i.e. the respondent No. 1, that her resignation was forcibly obtained from her by the President of the petitioner-society, who incidentally happens to be the father-in-law of the respondent No. 2. On 23rd November, 1982, the Head Master of the school in question was called by the Additional Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur, to make an enquiry into the question of the alleged forced resignation of the respondent No. 2. He, thereafter by hi...
Tag this Judgment!G. Swaminathan Vs. Shivram Co-operative Housing Society and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-1983
Reported in: 1983(2)BomCR548
Sujata Manohar, J.1. The petitioner is a former Chairman of the 1st respondent. Co-operative Housing Society. The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the judgment and award of the Maharashtra Co-operative Appellate Court, Bombay, dated 31st December 1981 in Appeal No. 517 of 1980. The petitioner had filed an Arbitration Suit No. ABN/760 of 1972 before the Co-operative Court at Bombay to recover from the 1st respondent Society and others a sum of Rs. 20,000/- together with interest as stated therein. The said arbitration suit of the petitioner was decided by the Co-operative Court in favour of the petitioner and the 1st respondent Society was directed to pay the said amount to the petitioner. In appeal, however, the judgment and award of the Co-operative Court was set aside and the claim of the petitioner was dismissed with costs. The present writ petition challenges the decision of the Co-operative Appellate Court.2. The 1st respondent Co-operative Housing Society own...
Tag this Judgment!Hansa Babulal Dave Vs. University of Poona
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-1983
Reported in: (1983)85BOMLR192; 1983MhLJ626
Khatri, J.1. By these two writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India six students of G.T. Patil College, Nandurbar, challenge the decisions of the Poona University, respondent herein, whereby their performance at the fourth semester examination held in April 1981 from the Nandurbar centre was cancelled and they were further debarred from appearing at any examination till June 1982. A prayer is also made to direct the University to declare their results of the fourth semester examination as well as of the sixth semester at which examination they had appeared in April 1982 under an interim injunction which was issued in their favour by the Nandurbar civil Court.2. The petitioner in writ petition No. 3469 of 1982 is one Miss Hansa Babulal Dave, a student of commerce. In the other petition viz. writ petition No. 3669 of 1982 there are five petitioners, namely, Balkrishna Patkar, Navin Patel, Shyamsing Raghuwanshi, Miss Archana Puranik and Chandulal Choudhary, all of whom...
Tag this Judgment!State of Maharashtra Vs. Sher Ali Mohamed Sadique and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-1983
Reported in: 1983(1)BomCR625
V.S. Kotwal, J.1. The proceedings depicts not only transgression of limits by the learned Magistrate of his jurisdiction but more disturbing features is that the impugned order does not contain even a grain of reasoning so as to infer application of mind and one is really constrained to observe that an obviously serious matter has been dealt with in rather a casual manner. An incident occurred at about 8 p.m. on a public street near over head bridge in Santacruz area of this city, which according to prosecution was quite ghastly. It is alleged that one Salauddin was proceeding by the road completely unaware of the tragedy that was to occur when all of a sudden about 5-6 persons, who were present in the vicinity directed their attention towards him as a target. Most of them were armed with words and were brandishing those weapons so that members of the public who were present at the spot would dare not go to the rescue of the victim. After having secured this position, it was Sher Ali M...
Tag this Judgment!Rajesh Tarachand Sajdeh Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC427DTri(Mum.)bai
1. This is a second appeal under Section 129-A(1)(c) of the Customs Act filed before the Tribunal. As a preliminary point, the departmental representative has pointed out that it is not correct on the part of the Tribunal to hear the present appeal on merits as no order has been passed by the Tribunal under Section 129-E ibid waiving the requirement of depositing the amount of penalty before the appeal is heard and decided on merits. He further pointed out that to his knowledge no application has been made by the appellant for stay of the penalty under Section 129-E of the Customs Act, and therefore the appeal is liable to be dismissed for non-compliance with provisions of Section 129-E. This fact is confirmed by Advocate Shri M.G. Karmali who added that he was about to make this request before the departmental representative pointed out the omission. Shri Karmali made a verbal request to grant the stay pending the hearing and decision of appeal.Considering the fact that the case had ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Maharashtra Vs. Arvind Ambalal Patel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-1983
Reported in: 1983(1)BomCR466; 1989(20)LC510(Bombay); 1989(40)ELT322(Bom)
1. The State through Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Kalyan Division II, Kalyan, has filed this Criminal Appeal for enhancement of the sentence passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Wada by his order dated 23-1-1980 in Case No. 46/78.2. The respondent herein, who will be referred to as the accused, was charged with offence under Sections 9(b), (bb), (bbb) and (c) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (Act No. 1 of 1944). The prosecution case was that on 31-5-1975, the Inspector of the Central Excise visited the Warehouse belonging to the accused and found :-(i) 2,174 - Bags of 'Bidi Patti' (Tobacco Leaves) weighing 69,105.700 Kgs. missing from the warehouse. The prosecution alleged that these goods were removed by the accused from the warehouse unauthorisedly and were disposed off by him; (ii) 756 Bags of inferior quality of Tobacco weighing 17,295.44 Kgs. were stocked in the warehouse, which did not tally with the warehouse accounts and thereby the Accused c...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Suryaben Vinodbhai Shah Vs. Shri B.K. Jhala
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-1983
Reported in: (1983)85BOMLR364
Sharad Manohar, J.1. This is a revision application filed by the original plaintiff against that part of the order of the trial Court by which it refrained from passing any order to the effect that the possession of the flat for which receiver was appointed at her instance should be given to her as the receiver's agent. As will be presently pointed out, this prayer of the petitioner/plaintiff has practically no answer either in law or equity except perhaps in the technical contention of the pleadings and hence the revision application has got to be allowed.2. The facts as are relevant for the purpose of this petition may be stated as follows:(a) The plaintiffs' contention in the plaint which does not appear to be seriously disputed is that there is a colony called 'Mayur Corporation Colony' at village Kothrud in the city of Pune, In the said colony, there are various residential plots. Plot No. 7 out of the same belonged at all the material times, to one Mrs. Madhuri Madhav Sheode, who...
Tag this Judgment!Godrej Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-19-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC425DTri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal transferred to the Tribunal under Section 131-B of the Customs Act. The appellants have argued that their imports of DL-Methionine were fully covered under OGL C.V. dated 15-12-76 as all the conditions therein had been fulfilled. The Deputy Collector and thereafter the Appellate Collector had wrongly held that only the manufacturer of drugs could take advantage of the OGL. There was no warrant in such interpretation of the OGL. The appellants representative has further argued that there was no dispute regarding the other conditions of the OGL that the goods imported were drugs, that the importer was an actual user, that he was registered with the D.G.T.D. or the State Drug Control authorities, and has a licence under the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940, and required the goods in his own industry. The necessary documents to show compliance with these requirements were produced to the Customs authorities, at the time of import and photo-copies have been filed along ...
Tag this Judgment!inspecting Assistant Vs. Mercantile Bank Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-1983
Reported in: (1984)7ITD198(Mum.)
1. & 2. [These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues].3. Ground Nos. 4 to 9 deal with the disallowance to be made under Section 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). Each ground deals with a distinct aspect of the disallowance.3.1 The first objection of the department is the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the expenditure incurred by the company on the repairs and maintenance of the flats used by the officers should not be considered for the purpose of processing the disallowance under Section 40A(5). This point had also come up before the Tribunal in the prior assessment years. The Tribunal had decided the issue in favour of the assessee-company. However, Shri Krishnan, for the department, submitted that this decision of the Tribunal in the prior years requires review. According to him, this point is now covered by the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. Forbes, Ewart & Figgis (P.) Ltd. [1982] 138 ITR 1 (FB). Shri ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »