Mumbai Court March 1983 Judgments
Govind T. Jagtiani Vs. SirajuddIn S. Kazi Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-1983
Reported in: 1983(2)BomCR155; (1983)85BOMLR203; [1984]56CompCas329(Bom); [1984]150ITR12a(Bom); 1983MhLJ529
1. This application is filed under s. 482 of the Cr. PC, for quashing an order dated May 19, 1982, passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 14th Court, Giraum, Bombay, issuing process against the petitioner-accused on a complaint dated May 14, 1982, filed by respondent No. 1-complainant on behalf of the Indian Oil Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation').2. The complaint filed by respondent No.1 in the Metropolitan Magistrate's Court states that the petitioner was working as an officer on special duty in the Aviation Department of the Western Region of the Corporation. He had been employed by the Corporation since May, 1962, under a letter of appointment issued by the Corporation. His services were covered by the rules and regulations of the Corporation, which were then in force and as amended from time to time.3. A lease dated April 4, 1962 was executed between the Corporation and one Smt. Sheila B. Tolani in respect of flat No. 401 situate at Prabhu Kunj. Pedd...
Tag this Judgment!Hamilton Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Board of Trustees of the Port of B ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-1983
Reported in: AIR1983Bom248; 1984(1)BomCR316
ORDER1. The Plaintiff in this suit seek Decree against the Defendants fro sum of Rs. 55,950/- or such other sum as this Court may deem fit, together with interest on the said sum at the rate of 18 per cent per annum form the date of filing of the suit till judgment and thereafter at the rate of 6 per cent per annum till payment. The plaintiff also pray for costs of the suit.2. In their plaint, the plaintiff have stated that they were a company registered under the Companies Act. The defendants were a statutory body incorporated under the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 as amended, by the Major Port Trusts (amendment) Act, 1974. The Plaintiffs imported from Japan rubber plasticizers under their import Licence No. PL 2683652 of 23-11-1973 though their local agent Messrs. R. State. Kandalkar and Colonial. The goods, were shipped to the Plaintiff by steamer S. S. 'State of Bihar:'. The C. I. F. value of the good was Rs. 52,182.29p. The said steamer S. S. 'State of Bihar' arrived in Bombay on 1...
Tag this Judgment!Ranchoddas and anr. Vs. Gupta Brass Stores and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1983
Reported in: AIR1983Bom455; 1983MhLJ933
ORDER1. The point that falls for determination in the present petition is whether provisions of S. 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 ('the Act of 1963' for short) apply to the application for review by the interested party under Clause 21(2-a) of the C. P. & Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 ('the HRC Order' for short).2. It is unnecessary to burden the judgment with the facts. Admitted position is that if the period spent in obtaining certified copy of the impugned order is excluded the application is within time and not otherwise. The Appellate Authority rejected the application for review as time barred on a view that unlike Clause 21 (1) and (1-a) relating to appeal neither filing of the certified copy of the judgment complained of is mandatory nor time taken in obtaining the copy is specifically excluded in case of review under Clause 21 (2-a).3. It is apparent that the impact of the Act of 1963 on the HRC order has not been considered by the Appellate Authority...
Tag this Judgment!Sevantilal M. Sheth Vs. First Wealth-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-1983
Reported in: (1984)8ITD632(Mum.)
1. The assessee is an individual. The assessments to wealth-tax were made in this case for the years under appeal. Subsequently, the Commissioner, looking into the file of the assessee, found the order of the WTO erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. Giving an opportunity to the assessee to be heard, he gave certain directions to the WTO with regard to the applicability of Section 4(1A) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957('the Act').2. The circumstances under which the Commissioner interfered with the assessment are, the individual assessee threw 17,500 equity shares of the Great Eastern Shipping Co., individually held by him into the common hotchpotch of his joint family by a declaration made on 26-10-1970. The then existing members of the HUF included the assessee, his wife and minor children. According to the Commissioner, the question was whether apart from the individual's own shares, the shares of his wife, minor son and unmarried minor daughter were not to be included in his indivi...
Tag this Judgment!Amirali Sadak Thamby Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-1983
Reported in: 1983(2)BomCR55
Jahagirdar, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeks to invoke also the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cri.P.C. for challenging an order passed by the Government of Maharashtra detaining the detenu under Section 3 of the conservation of Foreign Exchange and prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the COFEPOSA Act.' Article 227 is inapplicable : Section 482 of the Cri.P.C. which mentions the inherent powers of the Court cannot also be invoked for the purpose of challenging a detention Order. We must, therefore, proceed to hear this petition as one under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The facts as disclosed in the petition as well as in the return filed by the respondents in reply to the rule issued by this Court disclose that on 19th March, 1982 the detenu's flat situated on the third floor of a building known as Mistry Park, Warden Road, Bombay 400 026, was raided by the Customs Officers and a sum of Rs. 50,000/...
Tag this Judgment!Gandhi Company Vs. Krishna Glass Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-1983
Reported in: (1983)85BOMLR179; 1983MhLJ1036
S.K. Desai, J.1. The suit to-day has been placed on board for determination of the preliminary issues.2. The suit is filed by Gandhi Company, described as a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act and carrying on business at 90/92, Kazi Syed Street, Bombay-400 003 BR, In para one of the plaint it is, inter alia, stated that the plaintiffs are a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act. It is stated further that they, inter alia, carry on business of supply of silica, sand, dolomite limestone and other minerals.3. In para. 7 of the plaint it is stated that there was a talk between one Rasikbhai Gandhi, described as a partner of the plaintiffs, and one Shri Dhirubhai Boda, who was connected with the defendants company. It is Rasiklal Narottamdas Gandhi who has signed the plaint on behalf of the plaintiffs firm and also verified the same. In the verification clause the contents of para. 7 of the plaint have been declared as true to the knowledge of...
Tag this Judgment!The Bombay Municipal Corporation Vs. the Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC1532DTri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal transferred to the Tribunal under Section 35-P of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 preferred by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay against the Order No. 997/B-l-l 19/81 dated 7.9.81 passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, rejecting their appeal to him under old Section 35 as time-barred. In the appeal the appellants pray that the appeal has been wrongly rejected as time-barred and request that the order of the Appellate Collector of Central Excise be set aside and their appeal be remanded to him for decision on merits, particularly when in an identical case vide Order No. 1639/80 dated 23.9.80 the same appellate authority has held that no duty is leviable on asphalt mix. In support of the contention, the learned Advocate Shri Dalai has argued that a request was made to the Appellate Collector of Central I Excise for extending the period of presentation of the appeal, which was filed late by about 20 days and the Appellate Coll...
Tag this Judgment!ScIndia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC1268DTri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal transferred to the Tribunal under Section 131-B of the Customs Act. The appellants have argued that there has been no short landing of the two packages as reported in the Bombay Port Trust Out-turn report dated 20-12-73 for S.S. Jalamoti IGM. No. 1172 of 20-12-73 on the grounds that the consignees have not claimed reparations from the steamer agent and according to the information with them, they have also not claimed the refund of duty on the alleged short landing of two packages from the Customs department. In other words, the appellants challenge the authenticity of the out-turn report dated 20-12-73. They, further, submit that the penalty levied on them is on the basis of average duty payable on. 2 packages in the consignment consisting of 56 packages, and that it is quite possible that the short landed packages would involve less duty than that worked out by the Customs on average basis. During the course of the hearing of the appeal, the learned Advocate has...
Tag this Judgment!Precision Engineering and Vs. the Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC1270DTri(Mum.)bai
1. This Is un appeal under Section 129-A of the Customs Act against the Order No. S/10-145/82 H. dt. 31.7.82 of the Addl. Collector of Customs, Bombay, levying fines of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 35,000/- on the two consignments covered by the order in lieu of the confiscation of the goods imported under the aforesaid bills of entry. The learned Advocate for the appellant has stated that the goods imported under the two bills of entry were second hand machines valued at Rs. 1,32,843.75 and second hand spares of machines and tools worth Rs. 74,104.82. Dealing with the import of second hand machines first the Advocate has submitted that the appellants imported the secondhand machines in terms of para 8 of the AM-82 Policy which permits import of second hand capital goods under O.G.L. in Appendix 2 under certain conditions. All the conditions had been satisfied in connection with the import of machines except condition (III) under para 8 which stipulates that the machines should have been manu...
Tag this Judgment!Govindprashad Damodhardas Vs. Collector of Central Excise and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC411DTri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal under Section 81 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 to the Tribunal against the Order No. XVII (G'C) 7-192/Adj/82 dated 30-10-82 of the Addl. Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Pune, rejecting the request of the appellants for renewal of licence of a gold dealer for the year 1982. The appellant has submitted that the Addl. Collector's order is misconceived and not in conformity with the provisions of Rule 3(ee) of the Gold Control (Licensing of Dealers) Rules 1969. As per this rule and the explanation thereunder, a licensed dealer should either be a wholesale dealer in standard gold bars, articles or ornaments or that his turnover with persons other than licensed dealers should not be too low. Under the explanation the low turnover has been defined as 50 gms. per month unless there are sufficient reasons to the contrary. In the case of the appellant the Addl. Collector of Central Excise had not appreciated the fact that he was a licensed dealer in gold and hi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »