Mumbai Court September 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.
Trustees of the Port of Bombay Vs. Aljimulla Rathod
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-26-1983
Reported in: 1(1984)ACC442
P.B. Sawant, J.1. This is an appeal by the Bombay Port Trust against the order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Bombay, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The admitted facts are that the deceased Vinod Aljimulla Rathod was employed with the Port Trust as a sweeper at the Byculla and Sandhurst Railway Stations. On 12-6-1974 while he was on duty he met with a railway accident between Byculla and Sandhurst Railway Station and died after he was admitted to the Byculla Railway Hospital. At the time of his death his wages were Rs. 283.44 per month. The Port Trust had resisted the application for compensation on the ground firstly that the deceased was not a workman within the meaning of the said Act and secondly, the death was not during the course of the employment. The learned Commissioner negatived both the said grounds and awarded a sum of Rs. 8,000/- as compensation by his order dated 7-3-1977.2. For the reasons st...
Mahindra and Mahindra Limited Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-1983
Reported in: 1984(16)ELT76(Bom); [1982]138ITR670a(Bom)
1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging the order dated November 27, 1980 passed by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Bombay Division 'R' rejecting the claim for refund of Rs. 3,29,446.90 and Rs. 6,19,223.40.2. The facts which gave rise to this petition are required to be stated to appreciate the grievance of the petitioners against the impugned order. The International Tractor Company of India Limited was engaged in the manufacture of tractors at their factory at Kandivli, Bombay. The maximum retail sale prices of the tractors were controlled by the Central Government under the orders issued under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The Company entered into a distributorship agreement with Voltas Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'Voltas') on March 17, 1970 and under the said agreement Voltas were appointed the sole distributors of the tractors manufactured by the Company. It is required to be stated that ...
T.G. Merchant and Company Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-1983
Reported in: (1984)(16)ELT269Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Addl. Collector on File No. S/6-1142/82-B and endorsed on S/Bill No. 23805, dt. 29-1-83.2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal stated briefly are : that the appellants have been issued a licence No.S/15-38/74-75-B, dt. 23-8-74 for Private Warehouse for the storage of all kinds of Wines, Whisky, Beer and other potable spirits, canned goods and cigarettes. The appellants are also engaged in the business of importing all kinds of Wines, Whisky, Beer etc. in their private bonded warehouse for re-export as ships stores or to any other countries outside India except Nepal, Tibet and Bhutan. The appellants received order for shipment of Johnnie Walker Red Label Scotch Whisky from M/s. Grand Cellar, Sharjah for which irrevocable Letter of Credit dt. 18-1-83 was received in their favour with a stipulation that the shipment from India to Sharjah should take place dt. 29-2-82 at the latest. In terms of the above letter of credit...
Durga Mhoan Hoshi Vs. International Metal Industries and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1983
Reported in: 1985MhLJ276
ORDER1. The plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,35.181|- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum on Rupees 4,28,750|- from the date of the suit till payment and for costs of the suit,. The suit was filed as a Summary Suit by the plaintiff under O, 37 of the Civil P.c. In the suit decree on admission as prayed was granted the in favour or the plaintiff and against the defendants. The minutes of the decree however, which were filed by the parties provided that if the defendants pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 4,21.00|- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum by monthly instalments as detailed therunder, the decree was to be marked as fully satisfied. The amount was to be paid by monthly instalments which were set out in the minutes and it was provided that if the defendants committed a default in payment of any two installments the plaintiff was entitled to execute the decree forthwith the and recover the entire decretal amount or th...
income-tax Officer Vs. Thakur Vaidyanath Aiyer and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1983
Reported in: [1984]7ITD9(Mum)
ORDERPer Shri M. R. Sikka, Judicial Member - This appeal has been filed by the department against the order dated 12-2-1981 of the commissioner (Appeals), whereby he has allowed the expenditure of Rs. 45,776 to the assessee-firm section 37(1) of the income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act).2. The assessee is a firm of chartered accountants. It came into existence under a deed of partnership dated 23-11-1970. This partnership deed was subsequently amended and clause 13(b) of the supplementary partnership deed dated 1-10-1975 provided as follows :'That life insurance policies for Rs. 1 lakh each commencing from October 1975, shall be taken by the firm for R. K. Thakur, V. Rajaraman, R. K. Thakur, A. P. Jha, N. Awatar, D. Chaudhary and K. N. Gupta partners, for such term of years that the sum assured would be payable to the said partners after their competing the age of 59 but before the age of 61 years in each case and the premiums payable on the said policies will be payable out of the profits of...
Chunilal Ishwarlal Patel Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1983
Reported in: 1984(1)BomCR115
R.A. Jahagirdar, J.1. The appellant before us had preferred a writ petition, being Special Civil Application No. 144 of 1981 in the Court of the Judicial Commissioner. The learned Judicial Commissioner, by his judgment and order dated 16th October, 1981, dismissed the writ petition holding that the petition was not maintainable, because the rules and provisions of the Grant-in-aid Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code) did not create any right in the petitioner. Since the petitioner was apparently trying to enforce the right arising out of the Code, the petition could not be admitted because no relief could be given in the said petition. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the learned Judicial Commissioner, the petitioner has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal.2. Before proceeding to consider the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant, who was the Head Master of a school conducted by the 5th respondent in this appeal, it would be appropriate to recapitulate all the relevan...
Chandrakant Mulraj Vs. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1983
Reported in: [1985]58CompCas320(Bom)
Parekh, J.1. On this originating summons, the question that needs to be determined is as follows :'Whether the defendant company having made a bonus issue in proportion of 2 : 5 (40%) to its equity shareholders is, under the terms of clause (d) under the head 'Options' of the principal terms of the prospectus dated 14-8-1980 issued by it, bound and liable to give to the plaintiff, who holds sixty-five bonds, issued by it pursuant to the said prospectus a reduction of Rs. 90 (40%) in the conversion price of Rs. 225 per equity share fixed in the said prospectus.'2. The plaintiff's case is that on or about August 14, 1980, the defendant issued a prospectus offering to the public 5,35,500 100% convertible bonds of Rs. 450 each for cash at par on the terms set out therein. The terms, inter alia, provided as follows :'4. Value : The bonds will have a face value of Rs. 450 each. Options : Each bond carries a right to receive two ordinary shares of Rs. 100 each of the company at a price of Rs....
Vijayakumar and Etc. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1983
Reported in: AIR1985Bom280
ORDER1. This common judgment disposes of writ petition Nos. 1376 of 1977 and 1071 of 1978. The question that arises in these writ petitions is as to whether in view of the order for restoration of land passed after 26th Sept. 1970 in favour of the tenant under S. 49B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (for short 'the Tenancy Act') the land restored to the tenant should be excluded in computation of the ceiling area of the landholder.2. Briefly the facts are that the landholder Vijaykumar filed a return under S. 12 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act 1961 (for short 'the Ceiling Act') after the commencement date i.e. 2-10-1975. The Surplus Lands Determination Tribunal (For short 'the SLDT') determined the total holding of the landholder at 76 acres 38 gunthas out of which 3 acres 38 gunthas were allowed as put kharab. From the remaining total holding of the landholder he was allowed to retain 54 acres and 19 acres were de...
Sow. Shantabai Vs. Sahadeo and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1983
Reported in: II(1984)ACC513
Puranik, J.1. This Appeal arises out of the decision given in Workmen Compensation Case No. 6 of 1978 by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati on 8-8-1980. The respondent No. 1 Sahadeo, had preferred a claim for Rs. 25,880/- against the respondent No. 2-- Bhaurao and Appellant--Shantabai, inter alia alleging that Sahadeo was engaged by the labour contractor Bhaurao for the construction of Shantabai's house and that on 23-3-1977 while removing the centering of the construction slab, he sustained an injury to his right thigh which was fractured and which amounts to a permanent disability.2. Bhaurao--Respondent No. 2 as non-applicant No. 1, was the main contesting party before the trial Court. He admitted that he was the Labour Contractor and that he had engaged Sahadeo as a labourer on daily wages. He, however, submits that removal of centering was not bis job and he was specifically told not to remove the centering. Yet in clear disobedience of the said order, he tried to remove the ce...
Rallis India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1983
Reported in: (1984)(16)ELT264Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. A-2067/BII-242/82, dated 29-11-82 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Bombay) by which he rejected the appellants' appeal preferred against the Order-in-Original No. V(28A) Demand-54/82/ 7730, dated 13-7-1982 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bombay Dn. V, by which he confirmed the demand of Rs. 23,138.37 and directed the appellants to pay the said amount forthwith.2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are few and simple. The appellants are the manufacturers of fans. They were permitted to avail proforma credit under Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise on 9-1-1981 and they have utilised the credit of Central Excise duty paid on stampings and laminations amounting to Rs. 20,138.37 towards payment of duty on electric fans manufactured and cleared by them. By means of a letter dated 11-6-1981, the Assistant Collector infor...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »