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.
Gangadhar Yeshwantrao Bansode Vs. Chancellor, Marathwada University an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-14-1983
Reported in: 1983(2)BomCR452
S.J. Deshpande, J.1. The petitioner seeks to challenge the letter written by the Secretary to the Chancellor, the Marathwada University dated 30th September, 1982 at Exhibit 'G' and a further letter dated 8th October, 1982 issued by the Registrar of the Marathwada University. By these letters, the petitioner was informed that his membership of the Senate and the Executive Council of the Marathwada University has ceased.2. There is no dispute about the facts in this petition. The petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in the Department of Chemistry of Devgiri College, Aurangabad in the year 1975. He is a confirmed teacher on the regular teaching staff of the said College. A Certificate at Exhibit 'A' to the petition describes that he is a confirmed teacher and he is selected and sponsored for doing research as Teacher-Research Fellow under the Faculty Improvement Programme of the University Grants Commission in Marathwada University, Aurangabad, and he has been sanctioned academic leave...
Gurumukhdas Seumal Nangrani Vs. Kantilal Lalji Chheda and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-14-1983
Reported in: 1983(2)BomCR406
Sharad Manohar, J.1. This criminal writ petition is the offshoot of the criminal proceedings pending in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate Court No. 5 at Dadar, pursuant to the complaint filed by the present petitioner against respondent No. 1.It is unnecessary to set out in details the grievance of the petitioner in his complaint. It is enough to state the nature of his complaint only to that extent to which it would be necessary to appreciate his grievance mouthed by the present writ petition.2. The complaint has been filed by the petitioner against the accused contending that he had placed an order with respondent No. 1, who is a printer, for printing certain books which were to be published by the petitioner. For that purpose, certain printing materials were entrusted to respondent No. 1 (who will be referred hereafter as the accused). It is also his contention that certain amount belonging to the petitioner (who will be referred to hereafter as the complainant) was already l...
All India Reporter Ltd. Vs. Nagpur Improvement Trust
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-14-1983
Reported in: (1983)85BOMLR321
Ginwala, J.1. By these three writ petitions the petitioners challenge the validity of the 'Bhamti Parsodi Street Scheme' framed by the Nagpur Improvement Trust and sanctioned by the State Government, on identical grounds. They can, therefore, be disposed of by a single Judgment.2. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties it would be convenient at this stage to set out the relevant provisions of law. Since it was found 'expedient to make provisions for the improvement and expansion of the town of Nagpur', m a particular manner, the erstwhile Legislature of the Central Provinces and Berar enacted the Nagpur Improvement Trust Act C.N.I.T. Act' for brief) in the year 1936. The duty of carrying out the provisions of this Act is vested in a body corporate called the Nagpur Improvement Trust, respondent No. 1 herein ('the Trust' for short). Chapters II and III of the Act deal with the constitution of the Trust and the proceedings of the Trust and committees. The N.I.T. Act ...
The Collector of Central Excise Vs. Healer (India) Laboratories
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC1223DTri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed by the Collector of Central Excise Bombay-I against the order No. 983/BI-l 84/82 at. 5.7. 82 of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). M/s. Healer (India) Laboratories have also filed a cross objection against the same order, and hence both the appeal and the cross objection have been heard and considered together and a common order is being passed.2. The departmental representative on behalf of the appellant, the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay has argued that the respondents' claim for-refund was time-barred and it has been correctly rejected by the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise. Dn. K. II under his order dt.20.1.82., The Appellate Collector of Central Excise has wrongly held that the limitation runs for 6 months frcm 31.3 81 which was the laat day for the financial year 1980-81 during which the clearances of excisable goods manufactured by the respondents exceeded the exemption limit under Notification No. 80/80 dt. 19.6.80. Since the respond...
NavIn Chemicals Manufacturing Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC911DTri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal under Section 129-A of the Customs Act filed by M/s. Navin Chemicals Mfg. &. Trading Co. Ltd., New Delhi against the-order No. S/16-DEEC-154/81/S/10-8/83, dated 17-2-1983 of the Addl.Collector of Customs, Bombay, confiscating 10 Kgs. of Crude Emetine valued at Rs. l,25,176/- and allowing the same to be redeemed on payment of a fine of Rs. 10.000/-. At the outset, the learned departmental representative. Shri Krishan Kumar has objected to the appeal being heard and decided on merits by me, on the ground that it involves a question relating to rate of duty of Customs, and therefore, in terms of Section 129-C(3) of the Customs Act the same should be heard by the Special Bench. Shri Daya Sagar, who appeared on behalf of the appellants stated that the appeal was filed by the appellants with the Special Bench at Delhi, and in column No. 8 of the prescribed proforma the appellants have stated that the order-under-appeal involves the rate of duty matter. But according...
Gopaldas T. Aggarwal Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-1983
Reported in: (1983)6ITD451(Mum.)
1. One Tulsiram Devidayal executed a deed of trust on 2-2-1943 whereby he settled certain properties on several beneficiaries. The settlor's wife Mansadevi had a life interest in the trust property. After her death during the joint lives of the assessee and his wife Pannadevi they were each to have a 12.5 per cent share, right, title and interest in the income of the trust estate. Mansadevi died on 5-6-1955 from which date the above-mentioned 12.5 per cent share devolved on the assessee and his wife. The assessee's wife Pannadevi herself died on 8-3-1971. On her death, as provided by the trust deed, her share of the income devolved on the assessee. During the previous year relevant to the year under appeal, the assessee assigned his 12.5 per cent share to Gopaldas Aggarwal, HUF, for a consideration of Rs. 49,500. In respect of this transaction, the assessee claimed a long-term capital loss of Rs. 74,500 which he computed by deducting from the consideration of Rs. 49,500, a sum of Rs. ...
Ram Ugrah Singh Girjarsingh and anr. Vs. Board of Trustees of the Port ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-1983
Reported in: 1983(2)BomCR447
R.A. Jahagirdar, J.1. An application, being Ejectment Application No. 5/23/E of 1975, has been filed in the Small Causes Court at Bombay, by the Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay, which is the respondent in this petition, against two petitioners under section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act before its amendment in 1976. That application has been filed for ejecting the petitioners from a plot of land measuring 301. 01 sq. metres which is in possession of the petitioners under the permission granted by the respondent. In that application the petitioners raised a contention that they are the tenants of the premises from which they are being sought to be ejected. The contention of the respondent that the premises in question are exempted under section 4 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as 'the Bombay Rent Act', was countered by the petitioners by contending that the respondent is not a local authority.2. The lea...
Milak Brothers Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-06-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC1062DTri(Mum.)bai
1. Mis. Milak Brothers, hereinafter referred as the exporter/appellant, filed a revision application dated November 15, 1980 before the Joint Secretary (Revision Application), Ministry of Finance, Government of India against Order-in-Appeal Nos. S/49-14/78-E dated 9th of November, 1979 which was a common order in sixty six appeals passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay. As per revision application, the said order was despatched on the 23rd May, 1980 and received by the importer on 27th May, 1980. Since these were not controverted, we accepted the dates as mentioned in the R.A. The related sixty six orders though passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs on different dates and in respect of different consignments of exports, are more or less similarly worded. The R.A. came to be transferred to the Tribunal by virtue of the provisions of Section 131-B of the Customs Act, 1962 hereinafter referred as the Act, as Appeal and came to be registered as No. 55O/8O-D by the Tri...
Lakshmi K. Bhatia Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-02-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC1961DTri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal under Sec. 129-A filed by Smt. Lakshmi K. Bhatia against the Order No. S/49-525/82P dt. 17-9-82 of the Appellate Collector of Customs and Order No. S/14-4-520/82 Pint dt. 3-6-1982 of the Asstt. Collector of Customs under which the assorted fabrics worth Rs. 6162 have been confiscated absolutely and the penalty of Rs. 1000 have been imposed on the appellant. The learned Advocate for the appellant has stated that the appellant is an illiterate lady, and the statement recorded by the Customs Authorities under Sec. 108 of the Customs Act on 2-6-1982 is not correct even though it bears the certificate of her younger sister that she has explained the contents to the appellant who accepts the statement as correct. The Advocate has argued that sister is a minor person and she would not understand the requirements or complications of law. She was made to sign the certificate by the Customs Officer. The statement cannot therefore, be accepted as voluntary and correct. In th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›