Mumbai Court March 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.
Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs. Shashikan ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-1983
Reported in: 1983(2)BomCR260
C.S. Dharmadhikari, J.1. The respondent Shri Shashikant Anikhindi, who carried on business in the name and style of M/s. Crown and King Company at Adhyaru Industrial Estate, Sun Mills Compound, Lower Parel, Bombay, filed and application under section 75 of the Employees State Insurance Act, before the Employees Insurance Court. It appears from the record that on 14th of March, 1978 neither the applicant nor his Advocate remained present in Court, therefore, the Employees Insurance Court dismissed his application. The applicant Shashikant Anikhindi then filed an application for setting aside the order of dismissal and for restoration of his application on 28th April, 1978 which was beyond the period of limitation as prescribed by Rule 26 of the Bombay Employees' Insurance Court Rules, 1959. This application was dismissed by the industrial Court vide order dated 29th of June, 1978. Being aggrieved by the said order the applicant Shashikant filed a First Appeal before this Court bearing F...
Hindustan Petroleum Corpon. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC413DTri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal transferred to the Tribunal under Section 35-P(2) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. The appellants have taken two main contentions in the appeal against the levy of differential duty demanded in the order of the Assistant Collector dated 16-11-78. The first contention is that the demand is time-barred under Rule 10 and the Asstt. Collector's reliance on Rule 160 to levy the duty is incorrect. In this behalf, they have relied on the Government of India's order No. 195/10/1177/76-CX.V dated 5-3-77 to show that the time-barred amount cannot be enforced. The Second contention is that they have always been given an allowance of 0.5% of the total quantity in bond as loss and the back door method adopted by the department to claim duty on this quantity of allowance from 1-3-73 to 31-12-75 is not justified. On merits also they have relied on the Government of India's order No. 195/5/280-294/79-CX. 5 dated 20-3-81 to show that the Government of India have also c...
Ramesh Kumar Swarup Chand Sancheti and anr. Vs. Rameshwar Vallabhram B ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-1983
Reported in: AIR1983Bom378; 1983(2)BomCR283; (1983)85BOMLR211; 1983MhLJ467
Dharmadhikari, J.1. The present petitioner-plaintiffs filed ejectment suit in the year 1967 and the decree came to be passed in the said suit on 30-10-1968. In appeal to District Court the said decree was reversed and therefore the original plaintiffs filed writ petition before this court bearing Special Civil Application. 1991 if 1975, which came to be decided on 21-2-1981. The High Court reversed the order passed by the appellate court and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. It then appears that thereafter a Special leave petition bearing No. 6041 of 1980 was filed before the Supreme Court which came to be rejected on 29-10-1980. During the pendency of the special leave petition before the Supreme Court a Darkhast for execution of the decree was filed by the plaintiffs-decree holders on 10-7-1980. The Supreme Court while rejecting the said special leave petition on 29-10-1980 granted time to respondents to deliver possession of the premises by 29-4-1981. In t...
Kalpana Shripati Rao (Smt.) Vs. Shripati V. Rao
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-1983
Reported in: 1983(85)ARBLR458(Bom); 1983(2)BomCR375
R.D. Tulupe, J.1. This is an appeal by the wife against the judgment and order passed by the Judge, City Civil Court, Bombay in M.J. Petition No. 107 of 1979 for judicial separation under section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which was dismissed.2. A marriage was celebrated on 28th February, 1966 and there were two children, one born on 28th October, 1966 and the other on 20th September, 1968. The petitioner-wife's complaint against her husband-respondent was that her husband was suspicious of her, used to pick up quarrels on and off on minor trifle matters. Besides, he used to dominate her saying that he would not allow her to even have relations with any female outsiders. He used to look at her activities with suspicion. She then refers to an incident of the year 1971, when one Jadhav had come to her house and stopped there because it was raining. He was allowed to sit there. After sometime the husband-respondent came to the house, scolded her, and asked Jadhav to get out, abused her...
Nagrik Sahakari Rugnalaya Karmachari Union Vs. the Nagrik Sahakari Rug ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-1983
Reported in: (1983)85BOMLR272
Mohta, J.1. The first respondent-Nagpur Sahakari Rugnalaya Maryadit, Nagpur, a duly registered Co-operative Society runs a hospital on North Ambazari Road, Nagpur. I am informed that it is a regular indoor hospital with sixty beds having nearly one hundred employees. Petitioner-Nagrik Sahakari Rugnalaya Karmachari Union is a registered Union of the employees of the first respondent. On February 27, 1980, the Union applied in the prescribed form to the Industrial Court, Nagpur - the second respondent, for its recognition under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 ('Act of 1972', for short) read with Rule 4 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Rules, 1971. As required by the relevant rule the Union made a statement in para. 9 of the application mentioning:The applicant union has not instigated, aided or assisted the commencement or continuation of a strike among th...
Rajan Prabhakar Borde Vs. Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Aut ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1983
Reported in: AIR1983Bom493; 1983MhLJ790
1. This group of appeals have come to this Court on very peculiar facts.2. In all these cases, the plaintiffs came to the City Civil Court with an averment that they were occupants of a portion of the building which was proposed to be taken over for demolition by the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority, (hereinafter referred as the Authority). Being occupants, their claim is that they are entitled to a notice under S. 77(b) 'before vacated'. The scheme of the Act, it appears, provides that such persons who have received notices under Section 77(b) are provided alternate accommodation and after the proposed work is completed, they are given accommodation in the reconstructed or rebuilt building.3. The averment of the plaintiffs in all these cases is that they are occupants and occupants in their own right and, therefore, entitled to notice under S. 77(b). They approached the Authority and its concerned officers as they are about to be vacated without any alternate accommo...
Pistonji Kekobund Bharucha Vs. Aloo
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Bom75; 1983(2)BomCR312
1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order passed by the District Judge and Judge of the Parsi Matrimonial court, Pune in Matrimonial Suit No. 10 of 1966. This is the husband's appeal against whom the suit was filed by the wife-respondent for a decree for divorce and/or for judicial separation under Sec. 34 of the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act. 1936 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Parsi Marriage Act').2. The complaint of the plaintiff-wife was that the defendant was neglecting his wife and also their children. That he was good for nothing. That he even sold the property and spent a large amount for his luxury and vices. The defendant used to borrow and would not pay his debts which had to be paid by her and she had to work in order to support the family. Nevertheless the husband started to extract moneys from her and even also from her mother by threats and other means. There used to be quarrels and threats to wife and children and act of cruelty. The applicant wife got hers...
Jalaram Trading Co. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC713DTri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal which was originally by way of revision petition before the Central Government, and has since been received by transfer under the provisions of Section 131B of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act"). It is directed against an order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay on 3.9.1981.The appeal was dismissed on the ground that it had been filed beyond the statutory period of limitation, contemplated by Section 128 of the Act. The Collector (Appeals) apparently thus did not go into the facts having held that the appeal merited rejection as being barred by time.2. On the appeal being taken up for hearing today, Shri Nitin Kantawala, Advocate appeared for the appellants whereas Shri M.Chatterhee, JDR was present for the Revenue. The arguments were confined only to the point as to whether rejection of the appeal by the Collector on the ground of limitation was justified or not.3. Shri Kantawala conceded that Section 128 of the Act, ...
Vinayakrao S/O Wamanrao Doiphode Vs. Kishanrao Ganpatrao Tarodekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-1983
Reported in: 1983(1)BomCR622
D.B. Deshpande, J.1. This is landlord's writ petition challenging the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated 20th April, 1981, allowing the revision application filed by the tenant and it arises out of the following facts :---2. The facts giving rise to this litigation are as follows. The petitioner before this Court is the landowner of Serial No. 65 situate at village Sangavi and respondent No. 1 is admittedly the tenant of the petitioner. The land rent was agreed at Rs. 200/- which is five times the land revenue. In all, the landowner petitioner started five proceedings against the tenant respondent. On 27-7-1970, he started proceedings against the tenant for recovery of rent for six years from 1963-64 upto 1969-70. On 18-5-1973, he started another proceedings against the tenant for recovery for rent for two years for 1970-71 and 1971-72. On the same day i.e. on 18-5-1973 the landlord filed another application against the tenant under section 19 read with section 32 of the H...
Garware Nylons Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1983
Reported in: (1993)(66)ELT484Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is the second appeal of M/s. Garware Nylons Ltd., to the Tribunal against the order of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Division II, Pune No. V (18) 30-49/78 dated 25-10-1980 as confirmed by the order of the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Bombay No. V-2(18) 2986/80 dated 29-9-1982. The appellants argue that their factory at Pune manufactures the crimped yarn in an integrated process. Since this process is one and the same, they contend that the Central Excise duty is chargeable on the yarn after crimping and not first on the flat yarn and then on the crimped yarn as held by the lower authorities. In support of their contention the appellants state that crimping does not tantamount to a process of manufacture in terms of Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and therefore their request for levying duty at one stage after the yarn is crimped should be allowed. In support of their arguments, the appellants point out that in the market textured y...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »