Mumbai Court December 1985 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.
Bharatiya Shikshan Prasarak Sanstha and anr. Vs. Pralhad Apparao Mane ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-1985
Reported in: 1986(1)BomCR529
C.S. Dharmadhikari, J.1. The petitioners in this case have challenged the notice dated 8/8/1981 issued by the Labour Court in Reference No. (IDA) B. No. 1 of 1981 on the ground that the said reference itself is not maintainable in view of the provisions of section 42-E of the Marathwada University Act, 1974.2. It is clear from the record that respondent No. 1 Shri Mane, whose services were terminated by Kholeshwar Mahavidyalaya, Ambejogai, approached the College Tribunal for Marathwada University at Aurangabad. After hearing both the sides the Presiding Officer of the College Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by Shri Mane. The said order was not challenged by Shri Mane before any forum and therefore, under section 42-E the decision of the Tribunal became final and binding upon the parties. Section 42-E of the Act read as under:'42-E. Notwithstanding anything contained in any law or contract for the time being in force, the decision of the Tribunal on an appeal entertained and dispose...
Dina Dara Sukhia Vs. Vijay Dattatraya Kanhere and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-1985
Reported in: 1986(2)BomCR332
S.M. Daud, J.1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution takes exception to an order passed against the petitioner when she tried to execute the decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 190 of 1962.2. For an understanding of the questions to be resolved here, the following factual context has to be borne in mind :-The subject-matter of the dispute is a plot of land with a structure standing thereon being used for the exhibition of films under the name and style of 'Capital Cinema' at East Street, Pune-1. Originally, the property belonged to Zillubai and Mohmed Esa. Deceased Nilkanth Kanhere as given a lease of the land by the two owners afore-mentioned, and, he put up the structure which came to be a cinema house given the name mentioned above. Kanhere executed a registered lease on 19-2-35 in favour of the owners promising to pay a monthly rental for the duration of the lease, which was placed at 10 years. The lessee had an option to extend the lease for a further period of ...
N.N. Jajodia Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-1985
Reported in: (1986)(25)ELT948Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This application under Section 130(1) of the Customs Act is by the appellant in Appeal No. 248/80. By this application the applicant desires that the questions set out in paragraph 7 of the application may be referred to the High Court by stating a case. According to the applicant the questions set out in paragraph 7 are questions of law arising out of the Order-in-Appeal CD(T) (BOM) 248/80.2. Shri Nankani appearing for the applicant reiterated the contentions set out in the application. He urged that the Tribunal had not followed the basic principle in applying the circumstantial evidence. He urged that in the case of circumstantial evidence the circumstances should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but they should also be inconsistent with his innocence. But then the Tribunal while' applying the circumstantial evidence had not applied the above principle, and therefore, the" questions of law would arise from the order of the Tribunal. Shri Nankani further conte...
Ramesh Amritlal Shah Vs. Collector of Customs (P)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-1985
Reported in: (1986)(8)LC694Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the Order bearing No. S/U-4-792/83 Pint dt. 6.4.1984 passed by the Collector of Customs (P), Bombay.2. As the challenge in this appeal was only with regard to the personal penalty imposed on the appellant, it is unnecessary to set out the facts in detail. Suffice it to say that on 24.8.1983 the Rummaging Officers of the Preventive Collectorate boarded the ship 'MANSCO-3' in the inner harbour. They asked the Captain to produce crew list, crew property list, store list and the Import General Manifest. The Captain was not in a position to produce the list. The Captain or the agent of the ship had not taken any steps to file the arrival report or the IGM.The Rummaging Officers came to know that the Chief Officer and the Chief Engineer of the ship had left the vessel in a fishing craft without completing Customs, health and immigration formalities. On inspection of the holds of the vessel the Rummaging Officers found a large number of wh...
Indian Hume Pipe Company Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India and Other ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-1985
Reported in: 1986(9)ECC14; 1989(20)LC460(Bombay); 1986(26)ELT685(Bom)
1. This petition seeks to quash an order passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise on 15th January, 1981 granting approval to a classification list filed by the 1st petitioners but without allowing them the benefit of the exemptions granted by exemption notifications 119 of 1975 and 118 of 1975.2. The 1st petitioners manufacture pipes. They entered into an agreement with the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay for fabricating RCC pipes. The Corporation supplied to the 1st petitioners cement and MS wire free of charge; the 1st petitioners fabricated the RCC pipes by using the cement in concrete and by embedding the MS wire, and they forwarded the pipes to the Corporation.3. The 1st petitioners at their factory manufactured spare parts and equipment used in the manufacture of pipes and in the repairs of their machinery. They also manufactured machines which in turn were used as parts of other machinery used for the manufacture of pipes.4. The 1st petitioners filed the said ...
Starlite Corporation, Bombay Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-1985
Reported in: 1989(20)LC380(Bombay); 1989(39)ELT538(Bom)
1. What a glass bead is a question that has periodically exercised the Excise authorities. This is because of a notification dated 1st March 1961 issued under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, whereby the Central Government has exempted 'glass bangles and glass beads from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon.'2. The petitioners started manufacturing what they say are glass beads in 1967. They are meant to be used as chatons, i.e., to say as stones in setting, in artificial jewellery. Until 1977 they got exemption from the payment of excise duty under the terms of the said notification. In 1978 samples were drawn by the excise authorities and there was some correspondence. On 8th March 1978, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise wrote to the petitioners that, having duly considered the matter, he had come to the conclusion that the articles manufactured by the petitioners were glass beads falling under Item 23A of the 1st Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt ...
In Re: Shree Laxmi Traders Limited and in Re: Ex Parte Bhagwati Dye-ch ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1985
Reported in: [1987]62CompCas49(Bom)
Parekh J.1. Two company petition, bearing Nos. 366 of 1983 and 142 of 1984, have come up for final hearing whilst Petition No. 388 of 1985 has come up for admission. The petitioner in each of the matters seeks a winding-up order against the respondent company, Shri Laxmi Traders Limited.2. I shall first deal with tHe subject-matter of Company Petition No. 366 of 1983 and then with the subject-mater of Company petition No. 142 of 1984 and thereafter with Company Petition No.388 of 1985, in that order.3. In so far as Petition No.366 of 1983 i concerned, it is the petitioners' case that the respondent-company owed to the petitioners a sum of Rs. 2,24,797.39, that the petitioners gave the usual statuary notice, but the same was no complied with by the company and hence he petitioners filed the petition. The petition, in its usual course, came up for admission and on August 31, 1983, consent terms were arrived at. Under the said consent terms, the company agreed to pay the dues of the petit...
Harshad Ratilal Shah Vs. Ishardas Sudarshanlal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1985
Reported in: (1985)87BOMLR662; 1986MhLJ325
M.H. Kania, Acting C.J.1. This is an appeal against a judgment of Parekh, J. dated April 9, 1985 passing an order of adjudication on the aforesaid insolvency petition No. 12 of 1984. The appellant before us is the judgment-debtor against whom the order of adjudication was passed. The respondent firm is the petitioning creditor. Only a few facts require to be stated for the purpose of the disposal of this appeal because the only question argued before us is whether the learned trial Judge had jurisdiction to entertain the aforesaid petition.2. The petitioning creditor filed a suit against the debtor in this Court being summary suit No. 1165 of 1980. An ex pane decree was passed in the said suit. The judgment-debtor appealed against; the said decree and, in the appeal, obtained an order for the payment of decretal amount by instalments. The judgment-debtor failed to pay any instalment and the entire decretal amount became due and payable, The petitioning creditor thereafter took out an i...
Lalchand Narsingdas Raghuwanshi Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-1985
Reported in: (1986)(25)ELT965Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The Revision Application filed before the Government of India against the Order No. 3A of 1980 dated 7-1-1979 passed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs statutorily stood transferred to the Tribunal for being heard as an appeal.2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal have been stated in the Order-in-Original and to some extent in the Board's order. We therefore do not propose to set out the facts in detail. Suffice it to mention that the Customs officers seized certain gold bars from two persons Batavia and Goryani. Their statements revealed that the gold bars were given by the present appellant Raghuwanshi. The statements of Raghuwanshi were also recorded and he admitted having given the gold bars to Batavia and Goryani. In addition he stated that he secured them from one Usman. He however did not give the address or other particulars of Usman and Usman could not be traced. The investigation and the search of the residence of the appellant were also carried o...
Harshadray S. Soneji Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-1985
Reported in: (1986)LC382Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed by Shri Harshadray S. Soneji, Proprietor of M/s. Soneji Trading Co. against the order-in-original No.17/85/Collector dated 19-6-1985 passed by the Collector of Customs (Prev.), Bombay cancelling the appellant's licence as a Gold Dealer issued to him under Section 27 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. Arguing the case of the appellant, advocate Shri Shah contended that the Collector took the aforesaid decision mainly on the ground that the appellant made an incorrect statement in his application for issue of a Gold Dealer's Licence and in the appalication for renewal of the Gold Dealer's Licence by M/s. J. Chandulal & Co. that the appellant had no interest in any gold dealing firm. The advocate stated that the alleged incorrect declaration by the firm M/s. J. Chandulal & Co. was in their application in form G.S. 6 for the renewal of the Gold Delaer's Licence and in particular in the printed declaration under Sl. No. 8 of the form which was to the effect...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »