Mumbai Court January 1984 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.
Chemifine and ors. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-1984
Reported in: (1984)(18)ELT336Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appeal No. 739/83 is directed against the order S/10-13/83-C dated 18-3-1983 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay by which he ordered confiscation of the Import of goods, Tetracyciine Urea Complex, under Section 11 l(d) of the Customs Act read with Section 3 of the Import and Export Control Act, 1947, but, however, granted an option to redeem the imported goods on payment of fine of Rs. two lakhs in lieu of confiscation.2. Appeal 852/83 arises out of and is directed against the order No.S/10-36/83, C-dated 22-6-1983 passed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay by which he directed confiscation of a consignment of Urea Complex of Tetracy-cline but, however, allowed redemption on payment of fine of Rs. eight lakhs twenty five thousand in lieu of confiscation.3. Appeal No. 1075/83 arises out of and is directed against the order bearing No. S/10-11/83, dated 18-3-83 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay by which he directed confiscation of a consignme...
Choksi Purshottam Vishrambhai Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-1984
Reported in: 1989(23)LC306(Bombay); 1984(17)ELT46(Bom)
1. The petition raises the question as to whether certain gold bangles are ornaments within the meaning of the Gold Control Act, 1968.2. The petitioners are a partnership firm and they deal in the sale and manufacture of jewellery and ornaments. In the course of their business they purchase gold ornaments and send the same to the Official Mint for melting down into bears of standard purity. On 14th day 1969 the petitioners sent 222 gold bangles weighing 4813.800 grams to the Mint for this purpose. The officers of the Central Excise (Gold Division) posted at the Mint passed the bangles as ornaments as defined in the Act and issued a receipt to that effect. Before the bangles could be melted, however, officers of the Gold Circle, Bombay (Preventive and Intelligence) seized them. A statement was taken from a partner of the petitioners, Arvind Kumar Mohanlal Choksi. A panchnama was made, at which the panchas were Popatlat Purshottamdas Soni and Himatlal Deepchand Gandhi. It was noted in th...
Hooseini Metal Rolling Mill Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-1984
Reported in: 1989(20)LC518(Bombay); 1989(39)ELT526(Bom)
1. The petitioners are engaged in the business of metal rolling. They convert zinc ingots into zinc 'callots'. The zinc ingots are supplied to the petitioners by manufacturers of dry cell batteries. They are melted by the petitioners and certain alloying elements are added to obtain a zinc alloy. The melted alloy is cast into slabs in moulds which are cooled by water. The slabs are hot rolled and cut into plates of required sizes. The plates are fed into a cold mill which rolls them into strips of the required thickness. The rolled strips are cut into suitable widths. The strips are fed into into punching presses which punch out circular and hexagonal forms. These circular and hexagonal forms are called 'callots' or 'blanks' and are utilised by dry cell battery manufacturers for being extruded into cans for use in making dry cell batteries.2. Prior to the introduction in 1975 of the residuary Tariff Item 68 the callots were made exigible to excise duty under Tariff Item 26B(2), the rel...
G.S. Ramchandran Vs. M.M. Rajadhyaksha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-1984
Reported in: 1984(1)BomCR507; 1984MhLJ247
R.A. Jahagirdar, J.1. The petitioner was the defendant in R.A.E. Suit No. 663/2086 of 1981 filed by the respondent in the Court of Small causes at Bombay for possession of an apartment Bearing No. 7 in a building called Vatsalganga. The said building is situated on Plot No. 124 at Sion in Bombay. The said apartment will hereinafter be referred to as 'the suit premises'. The suit was filed under the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Bombay Rent Act'. It was alleged by the respondent that the petitioner was the tenant of the suit premises and had committed default in the payment of the arrears of rent warranting a decree for possession. The suit was decreed ex parte on the ground that the petitioner, though served with summons of the suit, had remained absent on the date of the hearing. Originally the summons had been made returnable on 28th of July, 1981, but subsequently the date of the hearing was changed to 7th ...
Premanand Shridhar Kulkarni Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-1984
Reported in: 1984(1)BomCR561
S.N. Khatri, J.1. This Revision Petition by the original accused No. 1 challenges the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 45th Court, Kurla (Shri P.V. Tekade), convicting him for offences punishable under sections 341 and 448 read with section 114, I.P.C. and sentencing him to 7 days' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default 7 days' R.I.2. The material facts are these : The present petitioner along with two others was prosecuted under sections 341 and 448 read with section 114, I.P.C. upon a private complaint filed by the present respondent No. 2 in November, 1979. The matter was originally before another Magistrate, Shri C.T. Patil. On 17th August, 1981, the petitioner was present in Court in person. The other two accused Rajan and Pradip were represented by their Advocate, Miss Mhatre. She represented the petitioner also. The record shows that on 17th August, 1981, the petitioner pleaded guilty (recorded in the proceedings as 'P.G.'). The other two, through their Advocate p...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Rahatali Khan @ Nabhu Khan and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-1984
Reported in: 1984(1)BomCR449; 1985MhLJ243
H.H. Kantharia, J.1. The State of Maharashtra by this criminal revision application challenges an order dated September 27, 1982 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 32nd Court, Esplanade, Bombay in Case No. 37/w of 1981, discharging respondents Nos. 1 and 2 under section 245 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code').2. The facts giving rise to this revision application are that the officers of the Enforcement Directorate, Bombay, on certain information, took house search of room No. 32, 2nd floor, Phataka Manzil, Bhendi Bazar, Bombay- 400003 on April 30, 1975. Shaikh Sayyed Ahmad Haji Basir Ahmed (P.W. 3) and his wife Shanaz Fatima Sayyed (P.W. 2) resided in the said room. During the search officers recovered U.S.A. Dollars 16, 400. Australian dollars 7,000 and Canadian dollars 6,100 in the form of currency notes equivalent to about rupees two lakhs from a steel cup-board. At that time statement of Shanaz Fatima was recorde...
Shabir HussaIn Rajaballi Shaikh Vs. Abdul Wahid Abdul Gafur (Deceased)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-1984
Reported in: 1984(2)BomCR396
V.S. Kotwal, J.1. This is yet another but usual dispute between the landlord and tenant, which has generated quite a substantial degree of contest. The peculiarity of this proceeding is that some of the important features, which logically flow out of the controversy and which have been canvassed, do not reflect in the appellate judgment even inferentially, which has necessitated a little deeper probe in the matter in the wake of the controversy.2. The premises around which revolves the entire dispute are located in Sarjepura area within the city limits of Ahmednagar district, being House No. 146 and are the shop premises. The property is claimed to be exclusively owned by the original landlord Abdul Gafur, who unfortunately is no more and who has been replaced by his heirs in the capacity as co-owners and have also joined the category of plaintiffs. Original defendant No. 1 was inducted as tenant in the suit premises in the year 1970 at the monthly rental of Rs. 125/- where he is condu...
First Income-tax Officer Vs. Smt. Kusumrani Jain
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1984
Reported in: (1984)8ITD208(Mum.)
1. The short question in this revenue's appeal is that the Commissioner (Appeals), whose order dated 5-1-1983, passed in appeal No.Commissioner (Appeals)-XI/E/IT/1982-83, for the assessment year 1979-80 is brought in appeal, wrongly directed the ITO to allow interest under Section 214 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') in respect of excess payment of advance tax which had been made after the close of the financial year 1978-79.2. To understand the question some facts must necessarily be stated.The respondent-assessee made an application to the Commissioner on 13-3-1979 requesting extension of time of 30 days for filing the estimate of income and for payment of shortfall of advance tax under the proviso to Section 212(3A) of the Act. The requisite permission was granted by the Commissioner vide his letter dated 16-3-1979.Thereafter, the respondent paid the balance tax of Rs. 2,02,016 on 27-4-1979. However, after framing the assessment, not only the ITO did not adjust the above pai...
Ramesh Chandrasen Ashar and Another Vs. K.M. Barshiwala, Addl. 1st Ass ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1984
Reported in: (1984)39CTR(Bom)136a; [1984]148ITR1(Bom)
1. This petition impugns a notice of reopening of assessment issued under s. 59 of the E.D. Act, 1953.2. One, Kasturbai Chandrasen Ashar, died on October 11, 1975. Her husband as the accountable person submitted an account for the purpose of estate duty to the Department. The estate included 81 shares of the International Cotton Corporation (P) Ltd., a private limited company. Based upon a valuation report, the value of these shares was shown at the rate of Rs. 1,217.23 per share. There was correspondence in regard to this value. Ultimately, the Department valued the share at Rs. 1,693 inclusive of goodwill and appreciation of assets estimated at Rs. 262. The accountable person accepted this valuation and the estate duty required to be paid upon the assessment was duly paid.3. The accountable person died on October 18, 1978.4. On May 1, 1980, a notice was addressed to the accountable person by the Add. 1st Asst. Controller, Bombay, in respect of the estate of the late Kasturbai. He sta...
Govardhanmal Madanmal Singhvi Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1984
Reported in: 1985(1)BomCR495
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. This petition impugns an order dated 29th June, 1980 of dismissal from service.The petitioner was absorbed as an income tax Officer, Class II in the service of the Union of India, the 1st respondent. In April 1961 he was promoted to Class 1. In May 1972 he was promoted to the post of Assistant Commissioner of income tax.On 6th May, 1975 a raid was made at the residence of the petitioner by the C.B.I. A search was conducted and several account books, bank pass books and the key of the safe deposit locker standing in the name of the petitioner and his wife in premises of the United Bank of India, Peddar Road Branch Bombay were seized. On 14th May, 1975 the safe deposit locker was opened and the amount of Rs. 1,14,690/- lying therein was seized by the C.B.I. On 16th June, 1975 the petitioner wrote to the Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay, informing him of the raid and the seizure and gave details of the ownership of the amount found therein. On 2nd July, 1976 the peti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »