Mumbai Court June 1985 Judgments
Yashwant Sahakari Sakhar Karkhane Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-1985
Reported in: 1986(7)ECC31; 1991LC147(Bombay); 1986(26)ELT904(Bom)
Dharamadhikari, J.1. As all these writ 'petitions involve common questions of law and fact they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. It is an admitted position that the petitioners are manufacturers of sugar. Initially under the notifications issued by the Government in exercise of powers conferred upon it by Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, an exemption or rebate was granted to them in terms of Notifications No. 203 of 1972 dated 28th September, 1972 and No. 189 of 1973 dated 4th October, 1973. Since the argument before us is based solely on these notifications, it would be worthwhile if the said notifications are reproduced in extenso:Notification No. 203/72 dated 28th September, 1972.'Government of India Ministry of Finance(Department of Revenue and Insurance)New Delhi, dated the 28th September, 1972NotificationCentral ExcisesG.S.R. In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, ...
Tag this Judgment!Basavanappa S/O Limanappa Vs. Abdul Sattar S/O Haji Abdul and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-1985
Reported in: 1986(2)BomCR202
Sharad Manohar, J.1. This application is filed by the accused, both under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code and under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for quashing the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 43 of 1981, the charge framed therein against him, as also the non-bailable warrant issued against him on 27-4-1984. The charge framed by the learned Magistrate against him is under section 420 I.P.C. Against the order of framing charge, he filed Revision Application to the Sessions Court, which was dismissed as early as on 7-1-1983. The petitioner did not move his small finger against the said order and even in the present petition it is not his contention that there was anything wrong about the said order. But his novel plea is that because the respondent/complainant filed a suit against him in the Civil Court and even obtained an ex parte decree against him, the criminal proceeding which was instituted against him changed its character into a proceeding of purely civi...
Tag this Judgment!Bombay Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking and anr. Vs. Best Kam ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-14-1985
Reported in: 1986(1)BomCR440; [1986(52)FLR39]
M.H. Kania, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated August 16, 1984 whereby the aforesaid Writ Petition No. 1204 of 1984 was allowed. 2. The appellant No. 1 which was respondent No. 1 in the writ petition is an industry admittedly covered by the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as 'the B.I.R. Act'). The respondent No. 1 herein which was the petitioner No. 1, in the writ petition is a trade union some of the whose members are working in the undertaking of the appellant No. 1. Respondents Nos. 2 to 41 are workers working in the B.E.S.T. Undertaking, the appellant No. 1, who are members of respondent No. 1 Union. Respondents Nos. 42 and 43, whose names have been deleted from the title of the memorandum of appeal on the application of Mr. Singhvi, are registered as representative Unions under the provisions of the B.I.R. Act. Respondent No. 1 Union is registered under the Indian Trade Unions A...
Tag this Judgment!Ashish Son of Premdutt Sharma Vs. Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Sec ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-14-1985
Reported in: 1986(2)BomCR82; 1985MhLJ826
V.A. Mohta, J.1. Petitioner Ashish Sharma, a lad aged 16 years, prosecuted his studies of 10th Standard in St. Francis De'Sales High School, Sadar, Nagpur, of which second respondent is Head Master. He joined that class on 9th August, 1984 with a view to appear for the 10th Standard Examination to be conducted at the end of academic session 1984-85 consisting of two terms. Total working days for the first term came to 87 and that of second term to 79. He attended the school for 47 days and 70 days respectively. Percentage of attendance in the first term comes to 54.02 and that for the second term comes to 96.2. Some time in November 1984, he paid the examination fees to enable him to appear at the March/April, 1985 Secondary School Certificate Examination to be held by the Higher Secondary Education Board, respondent No. 1. The Board entered the name of the petitioner in the list of candidates registered for examination and allotted to him Roll No. J 077112. On the basis of the entries...
Tag this Judgment!Kantilal and Sons Vs. Second Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-1985
Reported in: (1985)14ITD388(Mum.)
1. Since these two appeals, filed by the same appellant, raise a common issue, they are disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience.2. The appellant, Kantilal & Sons, is a partnership firm carrying on business in all sorts of bolts, nuts, rivets, washers and screws. They are also the distributors of bolts, nuts and rivets manufactured by the Indian Steel & Wire Products Ltd., Tatanagar. In the present appeals, we are concerned with the assessments of this firm for the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82.3. In the first year 1980-81, for which the previous year was the Samvat year 2035, the appellant claimed a sum of Rs. 10,460 as commission paid to Shri Deepak Kantilal Doshi, ex-partner in its profit and loss account. In support of this claim, it produced the deed of partnership and the deed of retirement. According to the deed, dated 6-10-1979, Shri Deepak K. Doshi, the retiring partner, was to be paid 15 per cent of the net profits in this year and subsequent ...
Tag this Judgment!Shaikh Abdul S/O Maulasaheb Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-1985
Reported in: 1986(2)BomCR675
Sharad Manohar, J.1. The question involved in this petition is covered by the judgment of this Court reported in 1982, Maharashtra Law Journal, P. 181. Even Mr. Deo, appearing for the State, fairly conceded this position.2. The facts are very simple :---From the petitioner, who is allegedly a milk Vendor, sample was taken by the Food Inspector on 19-1-1980. The usual procedure was followed. One of the samples of the milk was sent to the Public Analyst and his Report was received by the Local Health Authority on 5-2-1980. The authority, however, dragged its feets for the full period of 4 months further and did not institute prosecution before 7-6-1980 and thereafter on 9-6-1980 a notice was given by the local authority to the petitioner under section 13 of the Food Adulteration Act informing him that he was at liberty to send to the Director of Central Food Laboratory another sample of milk. There is a dispute as to whether such a notice was received by the petitioner or not. But the lo...
Tag this Judgment!Parle Products (P.) Ltd. Vs. First Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-12-1985
Reported in: (1985)14ITD257(Mum.)
1. This appeal under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 ('the Act') is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in his appeal No. CIT(A)VI/ST of 1982-83 dated 14-2-1983 relating to the assessment year 1979-80. An interesting question has arisen for our consideration, namely, whether in computing the capital of a company for the purposes of surtax under Rule 2 of the Second Schedule to the Act, the amount of capital computed under Rule 1 of the said Schedule shall be diminished by the cost of the assets as on the first day of the previous year owned by it, the income from which, in accordance with Clause (iii) or Clause (vi) or Clause (viii) of Rule 1 of the First Schedule to the Act, is required to be excluded from its total income in computing its chargeable profit, even though the assets in question did not yield any income during the previous year and, consequently, there was no question of excluding such income from the total income of the company in arriving at the c...
Tag this Judgment!Mangal Vithal Koyale Vs. Gopalrao Bhimrao Koyale and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-12-1985
Reported in: 1986(2)BomCR639
Sharad Manohar, J.1. The order passed by the learned Magistrate discloses nothing, but dereliction of duty on his part to such an extent that the order has scandalised this Court. I am extremely unhappy to make observation of such a character against my own Subordinate Judge. But the order passed by the learned Magistrate leaves me no other option.2. The facts are very simple.The present petitioner is the wife on one Vithal, who is the son of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the brother of respondent No. 3. Evidently, she is recently married to Vithal. Her contention is that her in-laws have been torturing her for not bringing any dowry to fill in their coffers. She contends, on 19-2-1983 the three respondents together tried to beat the devil out of her, causing serious injuries to the extent of making her un-conscious. She further contended that after that incident, on 20-2-1983, the three accused took away all her ornaments and drove her away her houses; She had to take shelter at her fat...
Tag this Judgment!Mansingh S/O Sajjusingh Vs. Sudhir Ganpatrao Girdhari and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-12-1985
Reported in: I(1986)ACC191; 1985(2)BomCR771; 1985MhLJ659
S.J. Deshpande, J.1. Both these Revision Applications involve a common question in regard to the applicability of the provision of Order 38, Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code to the proceedings before the Claims Tribunal. They are, therefore, disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The judgment is delivered in Civil Revision Application No. 626 of 1983. The petitioner is the owner of a truck bearing No. MTS 3546, which was involved in an accident which led to the prosecution in Crime No. 235 of 1983. The proceedings before the Claims Tribunal, also arise out of the same accident. The claimant-Sudhir Ganpatrao Girdhari is the original petitioner before the Claims Tribunal. His claim for compensation is pending before the Tribunal in Claim No. 30 of 1983. The claim was filed against the driver of the truck and also the New India Assurance Company and owner of the truck. 3. During the pendency of the claim, it appears that the original claimant made an application on 7th December, 1983 s...
Tag this Judgment!Mansingh Vs. Sudhir Ganpatrao Girdhari and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-12-1985
Reported in: 1(1986)ACC191
S.J. Deshpande, J.1. Both these Revision Applications involve a common question in regard to the applicability of the provisions of Order 38, Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code to the proceedings before the Claims Tribunal, They are, therefore, disposed of by this common judgment,2. The judgment is delivered in Civil Revision Application No 626 of 1983. The petitioner is the owner of a truck bearing No. MTS 3546, which was involved in an accident which led to the prosecution in Crime No. 235 of 1983. The proceedings before the Claims Tribunal, also arise out of the same accident. The claimant-Sudhir Ganpatrao Girdhari is the original petitioner before the Claims Tribunal. His claim for compensation is pending before the Tribunal in Claim No. 30 of 1983. The claim was filed against the driver of the truck and also the New India Assurance Company and owner of the truck.3. During the pendency of the claim, it appears that the original claimant made an application on 7th December, 1983 sta...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »