Mumbai Court April 1983 Judgments
Everest Biscuits Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-26-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC876DTri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed before the Tribunal under Section 35B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The appellant Company has come up with this appeal, feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Pune on 23rd September, 1982. The Order emanated from the proceedings initiated as a sequel to seizure of large quantities of biscuits, allegedly removed from the Company's premises without payment of excise duty and other related contravention of provisions of law and procedure. After consideration of the evidence before him, the learned Collector passed an order, ordering confiscation of the seized Biscuits and imposition of security in the amount of Rs. 30,000 besides levy of duty of Rs. 2,37,760.50 and penalty of Rs. 25,000. This appeal was filed in the Registry of the Tribunal on 30-12-82, and has been taken today, for hearing.2. It is noticed that the appeal was filed without compliance of the requirements of Section 35F of the Central Excises and S...
Tag this Judgment!Prabhakar Atmaram Kale Vs. Bharat and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-26-1983
Reported in: AIR1983Bom488; 1983MhLJ426
Waikar, J.1. This is a reference made by the District and Sessions Judge, Akola under Order XLVI, Rule 7 of the Civil P. C. on an application made to him by the original defendant in the small causes suit for ejectment which was decreed against him.2. The dispute was in respect of one room admeasuring 13' x 12', which according to the plaintiffs (who are brothers), was let out to the defendant on a monthly rent of Rs. 3/-. The plaintiffs obtained necessary permission of the House Rent Controller and by a quite notice dated 21-9-1979 and filed the suit for ejectment, arrears of rent and damages.3. It appears that the suit for ejectment was filed even before the appeal filed by the defendant (Tenant) to the Resident Deputy Collector, Akola against the order of the Rent Controller was decided.4. The contention of the defendant in the Small Cause Suit was that the permission granted by the House Rent Controller had not become final as the appeal against the same before the Resident Deputy ...
Tag this Judgment!All India Reporter Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-22-1983
Reported in: AIR1983Bom201; 1983LabIC789; (1983)IILLJ387Bom
Jamdar, J.1. The petitioner All India Reporter Ltd, which is a Public Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act. 1956, is a leading law publisher institution India. It publishes commentaries on various statutes, Manuals, Digests and the following law Reports:(1) All India Reporter, (2) Criminal Law Journal, (3) Labour and Industrial Cases, (4) Taxation Law Reports. (5) Allahabad Law Journal, (6) Judge. P. Law Tribune.2. The law reports published by the petitioner company are Admiralty verbatim reproduction of the judgments delivered by various High Courts and also the Supreme Court of India. The judgments are point-noted and the head-notes are prepared showing the important questions of law adjudicated upon by the concerned judgments. The law reports are published periodically institution 12 parts every year, except the Allahabad Law Journal, which is published institution 24 parts, and at the end of the year common Index of the whole volume is prepared and supplied to each ...
Tag this Judgment!Mandakini Shivaji Jondhale (Smt.) Vs. Shivaji Dattaraya Jondhale and a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-22-1983
Reported in: 1983(2)BomCR217
M.P. Kanade, J.1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kopargaon, dated October 23, 1981 dismissing her application filed by her under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, on the ground that she had not pleaded in the said petition that she is unable to maintain herself, which has been confirmed by the Extra Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, by his order dated September 23, 1982. It is true that the application filed by the petitioner did not disclose that she is unable to maintain herself. Shri S.D. Kulkarni, learned Counsel appearing in support of this petition, submitted that an application was made before the learned Extra Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, for an amendment of the petitioner's application requesting the Court to remand the matter to the learned Judicial Magistrate for fresh trial. The said application is dismissed without assignin...
Tag this Judgment!Bagalkot Udyog Limited Vs. Minal Surendra Patel (Smt.) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-22-1983
Reported in: 1983(2)BomCR593
V.S. Kotwal, J.1. Affluence, education and culture may be cherished desires of many, though there may be only a handful of persons who are bestowed with this fortune. The plaintiff who no doubt falls in that category has to face quite a bitter criticism on that count as this fortune is sought to be looked upon as her sin. The further characteristic of this proceeding is that an individual is pitted against a Company when the premises are occupied by the employees of the Company though, originally under a leave and licence agreement as also though the furnishing of quarters is not a term of employment. The other side of this coin is apparent that the plaintiff who owns the premises has to rest content by being away from the premises and invite sympathies from her relations for securing at least temporary accommodation. 2. Quite an affluent family consisting of the parents, three daughters and a son resided in a family house 'Anand Bhavan' located in Babulnath area of this metropolitan c...
Tag this Judgment!Vasant Bapurao Sakare Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-22-1983
Reported in: 1983(2)BomCR623
B.D. Deshpande, J.1. The petitioner's property was acquired by the State under the Land Acquisition Act and compensation was offered to him by respondent No. 2, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Kalamnuri. The petitioner was not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded to him and so he sought for a reference to the Civil Court. While seeking for a relief from the Civil Court, a petitioner is required to pay necessary Court-fee in accordance with law. Instead of paying the necessary Court-fee, the petitioner submitted an application for time to pay the Court-fee. This petition was submitted on 6-5-1981. It appears that the matter was kept pending till 12-11-1982, and on the last mentioned date, the learned Special Land Acquisition Officer passed an order below the application for time to pay Court-fee that the application is rejected and thereafter he held that the Court-fee was not paid and as such the request for reference was no within limitation and so he rejected the ...
Tag this Judgment!Vamanbhai Bhagwandas Vs. Ninth Wealth-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-1983
Reported in: (1983)4ITD682(Mum.)
1. This group of ten appeals, though relate to the two assessees are heard together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience, because they raise a common point for decision arising out of the common order dated 25-6-1981 of the AAC relating to all the present ten appeals.2. The first common ground taken in these appeals is that the AAC erred in making an ex parte order holding that nobody attended on behalf of the appellants even though the representative of the appellants attended before him on the date fixed for hearing, namely, 25-6-1981.The next common ground in these appeals is that the AAC erred in holding that the only contention raised in the grounds of appeals before him was whether the interests of the appellants in the properties should be valued by an actuary or by an architect when, in fact, several other issues were also raised before him, which have not been adjudicated by him. The last common ground taken in these appeals is that having regard t...
Tag this Judgment!Sitaram Balwant Patil and ors. Vs. Madhukar Gopal Kulkarni and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-1983
Reported in: 1983(2)BomCR577
Sujata Manohar, J.1. The appellants ware the original defendants in Regular Civil Suit No. 59 of 1961 which was filed by the respondents-original plaintiffs, for recovery of arrears of agricultural rent for three years from 1st April, 1957 till 31st March, 1960. The appellants were the tenants of the respondents prior to 1st April, 1957. It is the case of the appellants that by virtue of the provisions of section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 they are deemed to have purchased the lands which are the subject matter of the present litigation from the respondents on and from 1st April, 1957 and have thus ceased to be tenants of the respondents from the said date. As such, they are not liable to pay any rent for the period from 1st April, 1957 till 31st March, 1960 to the respondents as claimed by them.2. Regular Civil Suit No. 59 of 1961 which was filed by the respondents against the appellants was dismissed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division Islampur. The res...
Tag this Judgment!Chemical Process Equipments Private Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India ( ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-1983
Reported in: 1989(20)LC192(Bombay)
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. These two writ petitions can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment.2. The petitioners manufacture plastic articles reinforced with glass fibres. These articles were being classified by the excise authorities under Tariff Item 68 (the residuary item) and the petitioners paid excise duty between 1st March 1975 and 31st December 1978 upon this basis. On 7th March 1978 the petitioners filed a classification list for the articles classifying them under Item 15A. On 8th September 1978 a trade notice was issued by the Central Excise Collectorate, Bombay, clarifying that articles of glass fibre reinforced plastic would appropriately be liable to excise duty under Item 15A(2). On 30th December 1978 the excise authorities informed the petitioners that their classification list of 7th March 1978 was approved. In the light of the said trade notice the petitioners, articles were classified as articles of plastic under Item 15A(2). The letter stated that by virtue of a...
Tag this Judgment!Alkem Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-1983
Reported in: 1989(20)LC219(Bombay)
Bharucha, J.1. The petitioners manufacture preserved foods and patent medicines. Their product 'Alprovit Liquid' was classified under Tariff Item IB of the 1st Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. It appears that the petitioners paid duty under item IB for the period between 17th June 1978 and 5th August 1980. On 7th March 1981 they asked for drawing of samples for the purposes of re-classification of the goods and claiming total exemption under notification No. 17/70 dated 1st March 1970. Samples were accordingly drawn and on 15th February 1982 the excise authorities agreed that the product was entitled to exemption under the notification. On 18th March 1982 the petitioners applied for refund of the excise duty paid between the period 17th June 1978 and 5th August 1980. By his order dated 31st July 1982 the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, rejected the claim as being time barred under Section 11B of the Act, He relied upon Sub-section (5) thereof which states that '...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »