Mumbai Court June 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.
Anand Issardas Motiani and ors. Vs. Virji Raisi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-1983
Reported in: [1991]70CompCas231b(Bom)
Masodkar, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order made by the learned single Judge of this Court in the proceedings which were initially filed by writ petition bearing Writ Petition No. 1835 of 1981 and which came to be renumbered as Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 9 of 1982. The proceedings taken before the learned single Judge of this Court, initially invoking the constitutional jurisdiction and, thereafter, the powers of the Court under Section 24, C. P. C., 1908, relate to a suit filed by the respondent in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay bearing R. A. B. & R. Suit No. 627/2240 of 1980. By the impugned order, the said suit has ben transferred from the court of Mr. S. B. Desai to any other Judge of the Court of Small Causes. The appellants are the defendants in that suit.2. It appears and it is not in dispute that before the learned single Judge of this Court, the whole proceedings of the said suit were put in question so as to show that the plaintiff-su...
Bhausaheb Sakharam Mhasruk Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-1983
Reported in: 1983(2)BomCR729
Sharad Manohar, J.1. The revision is filed by the original accused, a driver of a bus of State Transport Corporation, against concurrent orders of conviction and sentences by the two courts below, convicting him for the offence of rash and negligent driving, resulting in the death of an old woman on the street waiting for the bus, the offence under section 304-A as also under section 279 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Since it was a concurrent finding of guilt recorded by both the courts below, I was hesitant initially in disturbing the same, but when Mr. Agarwal, the learned Advocate for the petitioner satisfied me that certain part of the prosecution evidence was of the positive effect that no conviction could have been brought home against the accused, and that the same was overlooked by the courts below, I went through the entire evidence as also through the judgments of both the courts below, and after examining the said evidence carefully, I am satisfied that the grievance of Mr. Ag...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. New Shorrock Mills
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC1886DTri(Mum.)bai
1. The Assistant Collector (Technical) of the office of the Collector of Central Excise Baroda has filed this appeal under Section 35B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, against the order No.V-2(19)1172/82 dated 22-6-1982 of the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Bombay. The Collector of Central Excise of Baroda has authorised the Assistant Collector concerned to file this appeal. The respondent in the appeal M/s. New Shorrock Mills, Nadiad have filed a cross objection in this case also. Therefore, both the appeals and cross-objections are being considered and decided simultaneously.2. The main point taken up in the appeal by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise is that Notification No. 7/78 dated 17-1-1978 which added Explanation III to Notification No. 226/77, dated 15-7-1977 should have the effect from the date of the issue and not retrospectively. The effect of the Notification No. 7/78, dated 17-1-1978 was that it permitted the department to calculate the average...
Kolhapur Steel Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-1983
Reported in: (1983)(14)ELT1947Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal under Section 35-B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, filed by the Kolhapur Steel Ltd., against the Order No.V(26)15-112/ADJ/81/354 dated 22-9-82 of the Collector of Central Excise, Pune, ordering levy of duty amounting to Rs. 78,685.00/- (Basic) and Rs. 47.122.25/- (Special) on 1939.100 M.T. of scrap, runners and risers alleged to have been cleared clandestine during the period 9-4-79 to 4-6-81 and levying penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on the appellants under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for being involved in the aforesaid offence. Consultant, Shri N.D. Khosla, who appeared for the appellants has explained how the skull scrap, runners and risers etc. arise out of the manufacture of steel ingots in the factory of the appellants. He has stated that the scrap thus produced is utilised again and again in the manufacture of steel ingots and this practice had been going on for the past several years. The main contention advanced by the appellants is tha...
The Comdt. Embarkation H. Q. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC(1997)DTri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal transferred to the Tribunal under Section 131-B of the Customs Act filed by Embarkation Hq. Bombay, requesting for refund of duty amounting to Rs. 15,367.20 paid on one case containing motor vehicle parts covered by Bill of entry C 6214 dated 27/28.2.78.' The reason for claiming the refund is that the case in question was not traced and hence it could not be cleared under the aforesaid Bill of entry. The appellants have now submitted a certificate under Section 43 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 from Deputy Manager, Indira Dock, Bombay certifying that one case said to contain motor vehicle parts manifested at Item No. G-53 ex. s.s. State of Meghalay by IGM. No. 2614 of 23.2.78 was physically forwarded on 17.3.78 but was missing. The appellants, therefore, request for refund of duty paid on this case. - 2. The Senior departmental representative has opposed the submissions of the appellants. He has pointed out that the earlier claim of the appellants was for refu...
Pandurang Ganeshlalji Lohiya Bharajkar and ors. Vs. Prabhakar S/O. Sha ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1983
Reported in: 1984(1)BomCR46; 1983MhLJ1002
M.P. Kanade, J.1. A short question involved in this writ petition is as to the interpretation of section 15(3)(a)(iii) of the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954. Section 15(3)(a)(iii) of the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, reads as under :---'16. Eviction of tenants.---(3)(a) A landlord may, subject to the provisions of Clause (d) apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the house--- ..........(iii) in case it is any other non-residential house, if the landlord is net occupying for purpose of a business which he is carrying on, a non-residential house in the city, town or village concerned which is his own or to the possession of which he is entitled.'2. It is concurrently held by the courts below that the landlord has proved his bona fide requirement for use and occupation of a non-residential house at Ambajogai, District Beed.3. Shri S.N. Loya, the learned Counsel appearing in su...
Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. N.B. Maunkar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1983
Reported in: 1983(2)BomCR739
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. This petition on behalf of the employer challenges the order of the Industrial Tribunal directing reinstatement of the respondents with full back wages. The petitioners have a registered office at Hyderabad in Andhra Pradesh and manufacture electronic equipment there. In Bombay the petitions maintain a branch for selling and servicing T.V. sets and other electronic equipment.2. In or about 1979 the petitioners entered into a project for the fabrication of MCF antennae systems in collaboration with the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre. This was a temporary project for which the petitioners required the services of some workmen. The qualifications of the workmen were decided upon on the advice of the B.A.R.C. On 16th March, 1979 a memo was made by the Senior Personnel Officer of the petitioners stating that their Managing Director had approved the appointment of 12 technicians/fitters/mechanics for 12 months and 5 electricians/motor winders for months on daily wages basi...
Krishna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC2094DTri(Mum.)bai
1. The Krishna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., hereinafter referred as the appellant, filed a revision application" under Section 36 of the Central Excises & Salt Act, shortly referred as the Act, against the Order No. V(1)2-8/75/6011 dated 6.3.76 passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Bombay. The related Order of Adjudication was made on 14.3.1975 (bearing No. 782/75) by the Superintendent of Central Excise, A.G. Karad. The revision application has been transferred to the Tribunal by virtue of the provision of Section 35-P of the Act, to be disposed of as appeal. In compliance to hearing notice, Shri B.D. Deshmukh, Advocate, appeared for the appellant and for the Revenue we had the assistance of Shri Hem Prakash: Junior Departmental Representative.2. The only contention in the appeal is that the average production of the appellant for the period October-November 1974 be ordered to be worked out on the basis of the production of all the preceding five sugar years i.e....
Usha Sales Ltd. Vs. Malcolm Gomes and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Bom60; 1983(2)BomCR612
1-6. x x x x7. The question that is to be decided is whether under O. 14, R. 2 of the Civil P. C. it is obligatory upon a Court to decide the issues relating to the jurisdiction the issues relating to the jurisdiction of the Court or bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force as preliminary issues before the settlement of other issues or trial of the entire case as a whole. The argument has arisen because of the change in the terminology of R. 2 of O. 14 of the Code. According to Mr. Tijoriwalla the amendment not made any difference where the issues relate to the jurisdiction of the Court or to the legal bar to a suit. According to Mr. Tijoriwalla if such issues are raised the Court is obliged to hear and decide those issues despite what he calls the apparently discretionary language of sub-r. (2) of O. 14, R. 2. Before I proceed to examine the contention of Mr. Tijoriwalla it would be appropriate to notice what the position of law was before the amendment of O. 14,...
Additional Collector of Central Vs. Nandlal Milkiram Bhatia
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC(1973)DTri(Mum.)bai
1. The Additional Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Nagpur has filed an appeal against Order No. S/49-94/81 GC (Nagpur) dated the 10th day of November, 1982 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay.2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 7-4-1981, Preventive Officers, Amravati Division, during the course of checking of the accounts and stock of the respondent found that he was in possession of primary gold weighing 592.200 gms. He had a gold smith's licence. As per provisions of Section 42(ii) a goldsmith can have 300 gms. and thus the respondent had 292.200 gms. gold in excess as per the version of the appellant. A show cause notice dated 22-7-81 was issued to the respondent to show cause why penal action should not be taken on him under Section 74 of the Act and why the seized gold should not be confiscated under Section 71 of the Act. Respondent had filed a reply.The officers bad asked only for GS 13 register. Respondent had also obtained a Gold Dealer's Li...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »