Mumbai Court March 1985 Judgments
Srinivas Ramnath Kamat Bambolkar Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-1985
Reported in: (1985)87BOMLR246; 1986MhLJ441
K. Madhava Reddy, C.J.1. A Division Bench of this Court by its judgment dated March 21. 1984 allowed First Appeal No. 3 of 1977 preferred by the Union of India and set aside the award dated November 29, 1976 made in respect of a plot of land initially requisitioned under the Defence of India Act, 1962 and derequisitioned on June 28, 1973 after The Requisitioning And Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (for short 'Requisition Act') came into force 'so far as it pertained to the additional initial compensation awarded.'2. While several grounds were raised for reviewing that judgment, we do not think any of them merits consideration except the ground that no appeal lay to the High Court against the award of an arbitrator made in a requisition made under the Defence of India Act. The Defence of India Act does not provide for an appeal against an award made thereunder. But this contention is raised having regard to the fact that while the Defence of India Act had expired on January ...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. V.H. Patel and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-1985
Reported in: 1990(46)ELT45(Bom)
Kurdukar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 18-9-1984 passed by learned Single Judge, Pendse, J. in Writ Petition No. 1465 of 1984 making rule absolute in items of prayer clause (b) of the petition.2. The respondent in this appeal constitute a partnership firm and carry on business of exporting diamonds. The respondents are also a recognised export house within the meaning of the relevant import policies.3. It is common ground that the respondents firm under the relevant import and export policies of 1982-83 applied for import licence relying upon paragraph 185 (4) of the said policy. It is also common ground that an imprest licence was granted to the respondents on or about 15-1-1983 for the CIF value of Rs. 2,44,97,242/- against an FOB value of export Rs. 3,76,88,066/- for the import of uncut and unset diamonds. It is also common ground that the first respondent had accordingly imported and exported the diamonds as per the licence and virtually they have fulfilled ...
Tag this Judgment!C.F. Marconi Vs. Madhav Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-1985
Reported in: 1985(2)BomCR357
B.C. Gadgil, J.1. Plaintiff in Suit No. 5692 of 1963 of the file of the City Civil Court, Bombay, has preferred this appeal against the dismissal of his suit on the ground that the suit against the defendant co-operative society is not maintainable in the absence of a notice under section 164 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. This appeal was originally placed before the learned Single Judge Sharad Manohar, J., for hearing. On June 20, 1984 the learned Judge passed the following order :'In view of the important question of law relating to the interpretation of section 164 of the Co-operative Societies Act involved in this appeal, the appeal is referred to a Division Bench. Liberty is given to the appellant to move the Division Bench for a fixation of early date of hearing'.On the basis of this order the office has placed this matter before the Division Bench for hearing.3. In order to understand the controversy between the part...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmi Motor Service Vs. Regional Transport Authority for Goa, Panaji a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1985
Reported in: AIR1985Bom436; ILR1985Bom1978
Couto, J.1. These Writ Petitions, both directed against a Resolution passed on 29th November, 1983 by the Regional Transport Authority for Goa declining to grant several Inter-State stage carriage permits to the petitioners give rise to the same questions of law. Hence, they will be disposed of by a common judgment.2. Petitioners are a firm registered under the Partnership Act, 1932 and they carry on the business of providing motor transport to the public. Their experience in such kind of business extends for over 15 years and they maintain an up-to-date garage and booking offices. They are also financially solvent and hold stage carriage permits on the Panjim-Bombay and Panjim-Poona routes. In addition, they hold permits under S. 63(7) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. By a notice published in the local newspapers on 1st December, 1982, the Directorate of Transport invited applications for grant of stage carriage permits, inter alia, on the Panjim-Belgaum route, Panjim-Bangalore route ...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Godrej Soaps Ltd. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1985
Reported in: 1990(27)LC287(Bombay)
ORDERKania, J.1. There is no substance in this appeal. The appeal is directed against the interim relief granted by Pendse, J. by his order dated 6th September 1984. In effect, by the said order, the appellants were restrained from implementing the show cause notice dated 25th August 1984, a copy of which has been annexed as Exhibit 'F' to the petition. The petition itself is filed in order to challenge the said show cause notice, and hence allowing the show cause notice to be implemented would render the petition infructuous. It is curious that when the petition reached hearing before Bharucha, J. on 11th December 1984, instead of proceeding with the hearing of the petition, the appellants applied for and obtained an adjournment. Needless to say, no affidavit in reply was filed uptil then nor has such an affidavit been filed till today Prima facie, the show cause notice seems to have been issued without any proper application of mind. As pointed out by Mrs. Sujata Manohar, J. in her o...
Tag this Judgment!Carona Sahu Co. Limited Vs. A.K. Roy, Cce and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1985
Reported in: 1992(40)LC271(Bombay)
Madhava Reddy, C.J.1. The short question that falls for consideration in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is whether the petitioners herein are entitled to claim the benefit of exemption on the whole of the customs (sic) duty granted under Notification No. 171 of 1967 dated 24th July 1967 issued under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, framed under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.2. The Petitioners are a company incorporated under the Companies Act and carrying on business of manufacture and sale of 'footwear'. Footwear were subject to the levy of excise duty under Item No, 36 at 10% ad valorem with effect from 28th February 1965. Under notification No. 24/65 dated 28th February 1965, footwear were wholly exempted from the levy of customs duty. This exemption was withdrawn under Notification No. 92/67 dated 26th May 1967. However, by another Notification No. 171/67 dated 24th July 1967 with which we are presently concerned and ...
Tag this Judgment!Sharad L. Patel Vs. K.J. Chacko, 3rd Additional Income-tax Officer and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-1985
Reported in: (1985)49CTR(Bom)131; [1986]159ITR791(Bom); [1986]25TAXMAN7(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. By this petition filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the legality of the notices dated January 18, 1984, issued by the respondent No. 1 under section 148 of the Income. tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The notices were issued in respect of the assessment years 1975-76 to 1979-80. They are in identical terms and merely recite that respondent No. 1 has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax for the relevant assessment year has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act and, therefore, the respondent No. 1 proposes to reassess the income. The petitioner was called upon to deliver, within 30 days, return in the prescribed form of income in respect of which the petitioner is assessable for the relevant years. On receipt of these notices, the petitioner addressed a letter dated January 30, 1984, to respondent No. 1 seeking the reasons for the issue of the notices and also as to whe...
Tag this Judgment!Nandiram Harikishandas Mukhi Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1985
Reported in: 1985(2)BomCR419; 1987(11)ECC207
Kurdukar, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the orders passed by the authorities below in the adjudication proceedings taken up under the Customs Act, 1962 and the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. The impugned orders are annexed to this petition at Exhs. C, D, E and F.2. The petitioner is a resident of Pune and it is his case that during the partition in the year 1947 he migrated from Pakistan to India along with his family members. Respondents 2 to 5 are the officers of the Central Excise and Customs in the Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue of Government of India. It is not disputed before us that on December 9, 1976, the residential premises of the petitioner at Pune were raided by the Gold Control Officers. During this raid, 27 gold coins weighing 600.600 gms. (sovereign) valued at Rs. 27,100/- were seized. Those coins were seized on the assumption that the petitioner has contravened the provisions of the Gold (C...
Tag this Judgment!N. K. Nayar and Others, Etc. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1985
Reported in: 1985(1)BomCR754; (1985)87BOMLR141; 1985MhLJ450
Gadgil, J.1. The applicants in both these applications are praying for an anticipatory bail. These applications were initially placed before a learned single Judge. However, they have now come up before us as the question arose before the learned single Judge as to whether the provisions of S. 438 of the Cri.P.C. can be utilised by this Court when the case or the contemplated criminal proceedings would be in some other State.2. Though only this aspect in both these applications has been placed before us for our decision we have heard the learned Advocates on behalf of both the sides on the merits of the applications and we feel that it would be in the interest of the parties if the applications are decided on merits as well if we come to the conclusion that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the applications.3. Before going to the rival contentions of the parties it would be necessary to state few facts which have given rise to these applications. Criminal Application No. 334 of ...
Tag this Judgment!Ajay Gambhir and anr. Vs. Dean, Mahatma Gandhi Institute of Medical Sc ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Bom26; 1985(2)BomCR372; 1985MhLJ597
Mohta, J.1. The writ petition is filed by two students of the Mahatma Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences of Sewagram, District Wardha ('Institute') run under the aegis of respondent No.2, the Kasturba Health Society (Society). Dean of the Institute is respondent No.1 and Local Managing Committee of the Institute is respondent No.12. Are these respondents or any of them in the matter of admission of students to various study courses amenable to writ jurisdiction of High Court under Art.226 of the Constitution, is the principal point, that arises in the petition.2.Dr. Ajay Gambhir, petitioner No.1 and Dr. (Mrs.) Mohini Goswami, petitioner No.2 passed their M.B.B.S. Examination from the Institute. They completed their internship and so also the two house-jobs. First petitioner did house jobs one in Paediatrics and the other in Medicine and second petitioner one in Gynaecology and Obstetrics and the other in Anaesthesiology. They entered into a Bond as per Annexure VI to the petition, un...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »