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.
Brooke Bond India Ltd. Vs. D.M.Gandhi and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-12-1984
Reported in: 1984(1)BomCR300; [1984]56CompCas9(Bom)
Pratap, J.1. These two appeals by defendant no. 1 arise out of interim injunction proceedings. Appeal from Order No. 3 of 1984, challenges the injunction order of December 20, 1983, passed by the city Civil court in Notice Motion no. 6494 of 1983, in Suit no. 7239 of 1983, while the other appeal arises out of an order of December 30, 1983, passed by the said court in vacation declining to interfere in vacation with the aforesaid order of December 20, 1983.2. To appreciate the dispute, a reference briefly to certain facts and circumstances becomes necessary. The applicant - defendant no. 1 - is a public limited company (hereinafter Brooke Bond). Between brooke Bond and another company - Centron industrial Alliance Limited (hereinafter 'Centron'), a scheme of arrangement was entered into for amalgamation of Centron with Brooke Bond. The said scheme has been approved by the majority of shareholders of both these companies. Brooke Bond and Centron have moved the High Court at Calcutta and ...
Devidayal Electronics and Wires Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-12-1984
Reported in: (1984)86BOMLR149; 1989(23)LC256(Bombay); 1984(16)ELT30(Bom)
1. The object of this petition is to seek the Court's opinion as to the meaning to be given to the words 'industrial unit'.The words are used in a notification, issued under sub-rule (1) of rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, bearing No. 74/78 C.E., dated 1st March, 1978. By the notification the Central Government exempts, inter alia, varnishes 'manufactured with the aid of power .............upto an aggregate value not exceeding rupees one crore, cleared for home consumption on or after the 1st day of April in any financial year by or on behalf of a manufacturer from one or more factories, from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon as to equivalent to two per cent ad valorem, if aggregate value of the said goods cleared, if any, for home consumption from one or more factories during the preceding financial year had exceeded rupees fifteen lakhs'. There is a proviso which reads thus :'Provided that the said goods are manufactured in an industrial unit in respect of which...
Nusserwanji E. Poonegar and ors. Vs. Shirinbai F. Bhesania and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-12-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Bom357; 1984MhLJ356
1. The facts leading to this petition have been set cut in great details and with sufficient accuracy in the judgments of the two Courts below and hence it is not necessary for me to narrate the same. However, for the disposal of this petition a brief restatement of the facts is warranted.2. The suit premises in so far as the petition is concerned, consist of the first floor of a building bearing No. 10-A and situate on Shankarsheth Road, Bombay 400 007. Original respondents 1 and 2 were, according to the petitioners, the legal representatives of the original licensee.3. The petitioners filed a suit being L.E. Suit No. 145/407 of 1976 in the Small Cause Court at Bombay against respondents 1 and 2 under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, as amended by Maharashtra Act No. 19 of 1976. Prior to this amendment, Section 41 of the Act provided for proceedings which could be initiated by a licenser against a licensee through an application. After the amendment, in effec...
Gajanan Narayan Mali Vs. Sudhir Narhar Rasal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-12-1984
Reported in: (1984)86BOMLR356
D.B. Deshpande, J.1. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, filed by the petitioner challenging the concurrent orders of the courts below and it arises out of the following facts;2. 58th Akhil Bhartiya Marathi Sahitya Sammelan is to be held at Jalagaon. For holding this Sahitya Sammelan, a President has got to be elected and the present dispute relates to the election of the President for this Sahitya Sammelan. It is an undisputed fact that till recently the petitioner was the President of the Marathi Sahitya Mahamandal. Now before turning to the merits, it will be necessary to state about the Marathi Sahitya Mahamandal and also about its constituents.3. It may be stated at the outset that the Marathi Sahitya Mahamandal has its own constitution, bye-laws and rules regarding Marathi Sahitya Mahamandal. It is further not disputed that there were some amendments in all these constitution, bye-laws etc.; and the amended constitution, bye-laws etc. came in force ...
Rawji Industrial Corporation Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-1984
Reported in: (1984)86BOMLR158; 1989(23)LC452(Bombay); 1989(42)ELT199(Bom); 1985MhLJ691
Kania, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order of Pendse, J., dated 11th September, 1981, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants. The short question which arises in the appeal for determination is whether the conclusion of the Excise Authorities that the 'corrugated roofing' manufactured by the appellants was a sheet could be said to be bad in law or perverse on the evidence before them.2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows :The petitioners produce articles of fibres glass reinforced polyester. In or about June, 1973 the petitioners addressed a letter to the Central Excise Authorities, inter alia, inquiring whether fibre glass reinforced polyester roofing intended to be manufactured by them would be excisable. The appellants were informed by the Excise Authorities by their dated 2nd June, 1973, that the said item would be excisable under Tariff Item 15A(2) but exempted from the payment of the whole of the duty leviable t...
Dashrath Laxman Satam and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-1984
Reported in: 1984(2)BomCR137
V.V. Vaze, J.1. A wooden partition with an upper-half of glass would be the least expected fixture in small shack looking like a godown. Gala No. 9 on the ground floor of Tardeo Mansion, Tulsiwadi Road, Tardeo was no doubt a godown but its original tenant P.W. 6 Kulwantsingh Chopra alias Mohan Punjabi ('Minoo') had let out the same to P.W. 14 Minoo Meherjibhow Mistry ('Minoo'). As this Gala had no electricity, Minoo approached a neighbour for supplying electrical connection. P.W. 15 Pandurang Raigude ('Pandurang'), the friendly neighbour obliged on payment of Rs. 25/- per month and gave a temporary connection. The modus operandi of the makeshift arrangement was that everyday Pandurang would carry a connecting wire from his power supply up to the rear side of Gala No. 9, provide light from 6.30 P.M. 10.00 P.M. or sometimes till midnight, and then disconnect and coil back the wire every night after use.2. The elaborate lighting arrangements for the shack were necessitated by the fact tha...
Bajaj Tempo Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-1984
Reported in: (1984)(16)ELT294Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal arising out of and directed against the order-in-Appeal No. B-599-510/PN 79-80/83 dated 15-3-1983 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. By this order, the Collector (Appeals) had allowed only partial relief to the appellants.The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the appellants manufacture, inter alia, motor vehicles falling under Central Excise Tariff Item No. 34. For this purpose, they used duty-paid parts and accessories of motor vehicles falling under Item No. 34-A CET. They work under the procedure prescribed in Rule 56-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which permits taking proforma credit of the duty-paid on component parts and raw materials used in the manufacture of specified excisable goods and availment of the said proforma credit towards payment of the excise duty payable on the finished excisable goods for the manufacture of which the duty paid components and raw materials have been used. During the period from 1-8-198...
Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Yavatmal and ors. Vs. Divisiona ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Bom269; (1984)86BOMLR130; 1984MhLJ885
ORDER1. The principal question which falls for consideration in these two petitions is whether the power conferred under Section 43 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing Regulations) Act, 1963 ('the Act ' for short) can be exercised to revise the decision of the Board constituted under Section 10 of the Act. Then can therefore be conveniently disposed of by common judgment.2. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties we may at the outset note a few provisions of the Act and the Rules made there under, namely the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Rules, 1967) ('the Rules' for short). The Act has been put on the Statute Book, as can be seen form its long title, to regulate marketing of agricultural and certain other produce in market areas and markets to be established therefore in the State. For this purpose the State Government has to notify the area called the market area where marketing of the agricultural produce specified by it wo...
Vishnu Ganesh Joshi Vs. Dang Seva Mandal and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Bom394; (1983)86BOMLR143; 1984MhLJ279
Chandurkar, C.J.1. This petition has been referred to the Division Bench by the learned single Judge (Sawant, J.) because according to the learned Judge the decision in Sakinabibi v. Tukaram 1979 Mah LJ 302, which was also a decision of the learned single Judge of this Court, required reconsideration. In Sakinabibi's case the learnedJudge (Pendse, J.) has taken the view that in an inquiry under Section 32P (2) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') there are only two restrictions on the right of the landlord contemplated by the provisions of Section 15 (2) of the Act. These restrictions, according to the learned Judge are : (1) that the land should be resumed for the purpose of either cultivating personally or for non agricultural purpose and (2) that the land should be resumed only to the extent of the ceiling area. The learned Judge held that the other restrictions in Sections 31 and 31 A of the Act could not be read into Section...
indubai and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Bom287
ORDER1. This petition by the land order of appeal No. Alc-A-1742 of 1976 arising out or order of Surplus Land Determination Tribunal No. 1 Kelapur dated 31-5-76 in Ceiling Enquiry Case No. 23|60-A (5) of 1975-76 of Pahapad.2. On return under Section 12 of the Ceiling Act filed by petitioner No. 2, the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal found that the petitioner No.2 family unity held total land 93.02 acres. Potkharab lands found there in was 5.35 acres. His family holding consisted of 3 members including his major son Suresh. The property in the hands of the petitioner No.1 was ancestral notional share of major son their in was determined at held 58.05 acres. Petitioner No.1 held separately 36 acres of land in s. Nos. 3 and 23 situated at Pathoda. Potkharab their in was determined at 3.02 acres. Thus 32.17 acres of petitioner No.1 was clubbed with 58.5 acres of petitioner No.2 Total holding were thus 92.4 acres. Deducting 54 acres of land, surplus with the petitioner was held at 37.4 ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »