Mumbai Court July 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.
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC1914DTri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal under Section 35-B of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 filed by M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. against the orders of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Division 'M' Bombay's Order No. V(10)18-3/79, dated 6.2.1980 and Order No.A-1630/B-H-182/82, dated 26.10.1982 of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) under which the appellants' claim for refund of duty amounting to Rs. 66,119.74 under Notification No. 232/67, dated 9.10.1967 was rejected. Shri Setalwad for the appellant has argued that Notification No. 232/67, dated 9.10.1967 permits supply of the petroleum products mentioned therein as bunkers to an ocean-going vessel on the foreign run. The phraseology used in this notification is different from that used in Notification No. 11/49, dated 5.4.1949 which stipulates that rebate can be allowed of the duty paid on all excisable goods exported as ships' stores on board the vessel bound for any foreign port. These two phrases came up for in...
Ghatageppa Parreppa Mugeri and ors. Vs. M.R. Naik and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Bom56; 1983MhLJ984
Chandurkar, Actg. C.J.1. The Petitioners in this petition are challenging an order made under S. 77-A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Kolhapur. By this order the Assistant Registrar, respondent No. 1, purposing to act in exercise of his powers under S. 77-A(1) (a) and (b), has directed that the Managing Committee of the Chandgad faluka Shetkari Sahakari Kharedi Vikri Sangh Ltd. Turkewadi, Taluka Chandgad, District Kolhapur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Society') would stand dissolved and an Administrator would conduct the affairs of the Society until further orders.For a proper appreciation of the circumstances which, according to the Assistant Registrar, led him to exercise his powers of appointment of an Administrator, it is necessary to state a few facts. Admittedly, the period of five years for which the circumstances which, according to the Assistant Registrar, led hi...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Raghunath Hindurao Gajbar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-1983
Reported in: (1984)86BOMLR27
1. This appeal is filed by the State Government against the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kolhapur, acquitting the respondent of all the offences, with which he was charged, viz. those under Section 7(i) and 7(v) read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.2. The facts that are relevant for the purpose of the appeal are very few. The respondent was accosted by the Food Inspector while he was carrying certain quantity of milk for sale. According to the Food Inspector, who is the complainant in this case, the respondent informed him, when he was accosted, that he was carrying buffalo milk for sale. The Food Inspector took sample of the milk, divided it into three parts and one of the parts was sent by him to the Public Analyst as required by law, on the same day, that is to say on 8th November, 1977.Section 11(c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, (hereinafter 'the Act') requires the Food Inspector to follow certain definite procedure in thi...
Sunder Mansukhani Vs. Gobind S/O. Hemraj Keswani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-1983
Reported in: 1984(1)BomCR262
C.S. Dharmadhikari, J.1. This is a writ petition by the tenant against the judgment and decree passed by the Small Causes Court, Pune and confirmed in appeal by the 7th Extra Assistance Judge, Pune.2. The original landlord filed a suit for ejectment on the ground that the defendant-tenant has acquired suitable alternative residence and that the defendant is not using the suit premises for the purpose for which the same were let out to him for a continuous period of more than six months. The landlord also claimed possession of the suit premises on the ground that the defendant-tenant has committed acts which are contrary to the provisions of Clause (o) to section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act and that he requires the premises bona fide and reasonably for his own occupation. After appreciating all the evidence on record the trial Court held that the plaintiff has succeeded in proving that the defendant is not using the suit premises for a continuous period of more than six months a...
Voltas Limited Vs. M.M. Kendrekar, Presiding Officer and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-1983
Reported in: 1984(2)BomCR15
H.H. Kantharia, J.1. By this Special Civil Application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India M/s. Voltas Limited, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, having their registered office at 19, Graham Road, Bombay- 400 038 and branch at Voltasagar, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Bombay- 400 033 (hereinafter referred to as the Company) challenges an award dated 9-3-1976 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, 4th Labour Court, Bombay, in Reference (IDA.) No. 330 of 1974 directing the Company to reinstate Narayan K. Naik, one of their employees (hereinafter referred to as the workman) with full back wages.2. The workman had been in the employment of the Company as 'Sepoy' intermittently for a period of 8 years from 28-10-65 to 24-9-73 on temporary basis. His last employment in this manner was from 18-9-73 to 24-9-73 which was, as per the appointment letter dated 18-9-73, automatically to cease on 24-9-73 unless extended in writing; but it could be terminated on any day earli...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Etc. Vs. H.K. Khatau and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-06-1983
Reported in: 1983(2)BomCR747; [1984(48)FLR322]; (1984)ILLJ448Bom
Pendse, J.1. The question whether the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 would apply to the Field Workers employed by the General Insurance Companies, and if so, whether such Field Workers are employees within the meaning of S. 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, falls for consideration in these three petitions. As the questions involved in the three petitions are identical, we propose to dispose of these petitions by common judgment and we will set out the facts in Writ Petition No. 2290 of 1982 to appreciate the submissions advanced at the bar.2. Respondent No. 1 H. K. Khatau in Writ Petition No. 2290 of 1982 was originally employed by Vulcan Insurance Co. Ltd. on 15th February, 1965 on the Development side. The Development staff consisted of Field Officers and Field Workers, and their services were regulated by the Code of Conduct issued by the Company. The main functions of the Field Workers were (a) to recruit, train or direct and/or control the agency and/or f...
Mary Manharlal Ratanlal Vakil Vs. Wadhwa Sales Corporation, Nagpur and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-06-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Bom27
1. This appeal filed by the original defendant is directed against the order passed by the trial Court rejecting her application made under Section 34, Arbitration Act for stay of the legal proceedings. 2. The respondents (plaintiffs) filed a suit for a declaration that they are vested with all the rights of publishing, advertising, distributing, selling, reprinting and all other rights in the 5 books of Ratanlal Dhirajlal viz.Law of Crimes.Indian Penal Code,Law of Torts,Indian Evidence Act, andCriminal Procedure Codeand that the defendant stands divested of her rights in the said books and for perpetual injunction against her.3. Admittedely, the parties had entered into the agreement dt. 6-10-1980 and the arbitration clause 21 thereof reads thus :'In case of differences or disputes with regard to interpretation of any clause or words therein or implementation of the terms of this agreement or any other disputes regarding this agreement, the same shall be referred to the joint arbitrat...
Kastruchand Vs. Qazi Syed Saifuddin
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-06-1983
Reported in: AIR1983Bom360
1. This is plaintiff's second appeal, both the Courts below having dismissed his claim for ejectment and possession.2. Admitted facts are that the defendants was the monthly tenant of the plaintiff on occupation of these premises on monthly rent of Rs. 200/-. The plaintiff approached the Rent Controller for permission to determine the tenancy of the defendants. Before the Rent Controller, the parties came to terms on the point of default in payment of rent for the period Nov. 1972 to May 1973, and in terms of the compromise arrived at, the Rent Controller passed the following order.'I, therefore, order that whereas the non-applicant issued two cheques for arrears of rent from 1-11-1972 to 31-5-1973 and if they are dishonored, applicant-landlord shall be deemed to have been granted a permission under Clause 13 (3) ibid'.3. Admittedly, in pursuance of the terms of the compromise order. the defendants issued one cheque for Rupees 1,000/- dated 23-9-1973 and the other for Rs. 400/- dated 1...
Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Harilal Govindji and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-06-1983
Reported in: 1983(2)BomCR625; (1983)85BOMLR586
S.N. Khatri, J.1. This is an appeal by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, against the decree of the learned Bombay City Civil Court Judge (Shri H. Suresh), granting certain declarations and injunctions against the Corporation, I will later have occasion to advert to these reliefs in detail.2. The facts that are no longer in dispute are theses. Respondent No. 2, defendant No. 2 is owner of plot admeasuring about 54'x96' at Andheri East. In April 1957, plaintiff-respondent No. 1 took it from him on a monthly lease on rent of Rs. 85/- per month. There are several structures on the plot, which undisputedly belong to the plaintiff. Thus the factual position is that the structures belong to the plaintiff, whereas the land beneath them belongs to defendant No. 2. As the land and the structures have been treated as a single unit for the purposes of taxes. I shall refer to the unit as composite unit, to distinguish it from the components.3. On 22nd January, 1963 the Dy. Assessment Off...
Finolex Cables Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC2047DTri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal under Section 35-B of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 filed by M/s. Finolex Cables Ltd. against the Order No.TC-305/81 dated 19.8.82 of the Collector of Central Excise Pune confirming the demand of duty amounting to Rs. 1,01,786.90 being the amount of illegal utilisation of proforma credit by the appellants. The appellants have advanced two-fold arguments. Firstly, they have contended that the Collector's show cause notice No. TC/305/81 dated 18.9.81 for review under Section 35-A(2) of the Central Excises & Salt Act 1944 of the Asstt. Collector Central Excise Pune-H's Order No.V(68)30-61/8O dated 22.9:80 was time barred as the same was issued after the time limit prescribed under old Section 35-A(3)(b) under which the notice should have been issued within the time limit specified in Section 11 A ibid. In support of this contention, the appellants relied on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ Petition 149/80 dated 17.4.80 in the case of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »