Mumbai Court July 1985 Judgments
Collector of Central Excise Vs. India United Mills
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1985
Reported in: (1986)(8)LC486Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against Order in appeal bearing No. A-893/ BI-249/83 dated 13-4-1983 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay.2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal be stated as under:- The Respondents, M/s. India United Mills No. 1 is a composite Mill engaged in the manufacture of 'cotton blanket cloth' and 'cotton waste blankets' which were classified under Tariff Item No. 19-I and Tariff Item No. 68 respectively. By their letter dated 24-7-1980, they claimed refund of Rs. 6,25,200.40 p. duty amount paid for the period from 4-8-1977 to 28-6-1980 on the 'cotton waste blankets'. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, in his order dated 21-8-1981, despatched on 24-8-1981 rejected the claim by observing that: On scrutiny of your above referred refund claim it is observed that the same pertains to the C. Lists Nos. 119, 127, 135, 19, 49, 93, 53, 60, 19, 91, 29, 39 filed by you from time to time for classifying the sai...
Tag this Judgment!Trustees of Tekchand Chandiram Vs. Fourth Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1985
Reported in: (1986)15ITD400(Mum.)
1. The assessee is a public charitable trust created by a deed dated 30-7-1960. The assessee was granted exemption under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') from year to year until the assessment year 1977-78 when for the first time exemption under Section 11 was denied to the assessee by invoking Section 13(1)(bb) of the Act enacted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975. The denial came in the wake of certain additions to the trust property which, according to the income-tax authorities, brought the trust, within the mischief of the above provision. The additions consisted of a cinema theatre donated by the settlor himself named Prabhat Cinema situated in Ulhasnagar on 15-2-1966. The assessee-trust gave the theatre on licence to Rajshri Associates on 17-2-1977. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the ITO's orders. According to him, the assessee was carrying on cinema business in the years under appeal and such business was not carried on in the course ...
Tag this Judgment!Jagannath Ganeshram Agrawal and anr., Etc. Vs. State of Maharashtra an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Bom241; 1986(1)BomCR179; 1986MhLJ87
Madhava Reddy, C.J.1. A common question of law that arises in these two writ petitions is, whether the requisition of certain buildings made under the Bombay Land Requisition Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') of 1984, more than twenty-five years ago can validly be continued? The petitioner in writ petition in writ petition No. 102 of 1985 is the owner of Block No. 11, Ganesh Building at 122 Navi Peth, Jalgaon. It was requisitioned on 18th April 1953 for the allotment to the employees of the Maharashtra State. Ever since the date of requisition it has been continuously allotted to different officers. The last such order of the allotment was made on 16th Oct. 1984 and the order of requisition was continued. Likewise the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 922 of 1985 is the owner of the building i.e. Alai Bungalow bearing House No. 1369, Kanheri Wadi, near Shivaji Garden, Nasik, which formed the subject-matter of the requisition first made on 27th June 1949. It has been allotted co...
Tag this Judgment!Anwarali Ashrafali Vs. Abdul Aayyum S/O. Abdul Khaliqui Fitwalla and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1985
Reported in: 1986(1)BomCR581
S.K. Desai, J.1. The writ petition is by the aggrieved opponent in Ejectment Application No. 104/E of 1984. The said application had been filed by the landlord who is the respondent before me. The landlord's claim was that he had given certain premises on licence to the occupant in April /May, 1973. Further according to the landlord the occupant had requested for permission to stay in the premises for a limited period in order to secure medical treatment for his wife. The occupant's case, as revealed in the points of defence, is that he was in occupation of the premises since December, 1971, and that he was paying Rs. 15/- per month for the room he was exclusively occupying. It was claimed by the respondent that the landlord was not issuing any receipts in respect of the said payment and that a similar practice was followed by the landlord for other tenants/occupants. The opponent also claimed to have given a deposit of Rs. 2,000/- (two thousand) to the landlord at the time when he was...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of India Vs. Javed Textiles and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1985
Reported in: (1985)87BOMLR412; [1988]63CompCas161(Bom)
Sawant J.1. We are inclined to condone the delay in filing the present appeal on the following grounds:There were in all 16 suits filed against what is otherwise known as the Ansari group of concerns and the suit from which the present appeal arises was one of them. All these suits were filed through the same advocate, Shri S.W. Oka, in the Thane Court, and against decrees in seven suits, seven appeals have been filed in this court. Six of the appeals are filed on the same ground on which the present appeal is sought to be filed. The appeals filed have been admitted and are pending decision. However, it appears that this was a lone matter in which the appeal remained to be filed in time.2. The explanation of the appellant-bank for the delay in filing the appeal is that its advocate, Shri Oka, was under the impression that he had filed an application for a certified copy of the decree in this matter also as he had done in the remaining 15 suits. It is only later, i.e. on July 30, 1982 (...
Tag this Judgment!Dorab Pirojsha Siganporia Vs. the President and Appellate Authority of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1985
Reported in: (1985)87BOMLR426; (1986)IILLJ501Bom; 1986MhLJ409
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution arises out of proceedings under the Payment of Gratuity Act. 1972.2. The petitioner is a practising Advocate and Solicitor. Prior to 1st April, 1936 one Framji M. Vachha was practising as a Solicitor in the name and style of M/s Vachha & Co. as its sole proprietor. The said Framji Vachha and respondents Nos. 4 and 5 (who also are solicitors) constituted a partnership firm under the name and style M/s Vachha & Co. In August 1947 respondent No. 2 (hereafter 'the employee') joined this firm as a clerk. In April 1959, Framji Vachha expired but the firm M/s Vachha & Co. continued with the two surviving partners. On 1st April, 1965 the petitioner joined this firm as a partner. By mutual consent this firm was dissolved with effect from 31st August, 1977. Under clause 15 of the dissolution deed :'The staff of Messrs. Vachha & Co. has been taken over by Framrose and Rustomji (respondents Nos. 4 and 5 respectively) from 1st September, 1977 a...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of India Vs. Javed Textiles and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Bom246; 1986(1)BomCR355; 1986MhLJ483
Sawant, J.1. We are inclined to condone the delay in filing the present appeal on the following grounds :-There were in all 16 suits field against what is otherwise known as Ansari Group of Concerns and the suit from which the present appeal arises was one of them. All these suits were filed through the same Advocate Shri S. W. Oka in the Thane Court and against decrees in seven suits seven appeals have been filed in this Court. Six of the appeals are filed on the same ground on which the present appeal is sought to be filed. The appeals filed have been admitted and are pending decisions. However, it appears that this was a lone matter in which the appeal remained to be filed in time.2. The explanation of the Appellant-Bank for the delay in filing the appeal is that its Advocate Shri Oka was under the impression that he had filed an application for certified copy of the decree in this matter also as he had done in the remaining 15 suits. It is onlylater, i.e. on the 30th July 1982 (the...
Tag this Judgment!Vidarbha Engineering Industry Vs. Member, Industrial Court and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1985
Reported in: 1986(1)BomCR66
H.W. Dhabe, J.1. This is a writ petition arising out of the interim relief granted by the Court below asking the petitioner to reinstate the respondents 3 to 23 by way of an interim measure pending decision in their cases filed by them under sections 28 and 30 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short the Act). The power is exercised by the Courts below under section 30(2) of the Act.2. It is not in dispute between the parties that the petitioner industry was closed on 1-4-1983 from which date the services of the respondents 3 to 23 also stood terminated. Since admittedly the industry of the petitioner is closed, there is no question of granting any relief of reinstatement by way of an interim relief pending decision in the said cases because granting the same would amount to directing the petitioner to reopen his industry. It is open to doubt whether the Labour Court has, even at the time of deciding the case finally ...
Tag this Judgment!Dinyar Rustom Patell Vs. Rustom J.R. Patell and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1985
Reported in: 1986(2)BomCR222
Sharad Manohar, J.1. The present Notice of Motion had been taken out by original defendant No. 1 in the suit filed by the plaintiff. The Notice of Motion is for appointment of Receiver in respect of the suit premises. Mr. Varihawa, who was appointed as amicus curiae for assistance to the Court and who gave very real and very precious help to the Court described the suit as bizarreand frivolous. I will probably have occasion to examine that aspect of the question (whether it is a frivolous suit) in separate proceedings. At present, I am concerned mainly with the question as to whether defendant No. 1 (herein the defendant) was made out any case for the relief of Receiver's appointment and that too not in his own suit, but in the suit filed by the plaintiff. 2. I will first set out the facts which are either not disputed or are incapable of being disputed. Some legal position will also be referred while stating the facts for explaining the legal relevance of the fact question. (a) The su...
Tag this Judgment!Khodaram Sheriar Irani and ors. Vs. Damodar Shripal Bagal and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1985
Reported in: 1986(1)BomCR372; (1985)87BOMLR409; 1986MhLJ829
R.A. Jahagirdar, J.1. The six appellants before me are the plaintiffs in S.C. Suit No. 6318 of 1283 pending in the City Civil Court at Bombay. They will hereinafter be referred to as 'the plaintiffs'. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are defendants Nos. 1 and 2 respectively in the said suit and they will be described accordingly in this judgment. A few facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal from order may be stated. There was at the relevant time in the name of the first defendant a licence issued under the Bombay Prohibition Act to sell country liquor. That licence was issued in the year 1975. The second defendant is the tenant of the premises in which defendant No. 1 carried on the business of selling the country liquor. Some time in the year 1976, the plaintiffs or some of them, at any rate, entered into an agreement with defendants Nos. 1 and 2 under which, it is stated, the plaintiffs were given the benefit of the liquor licence which was standing in the name of the first d...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »