Mumbai Court July 1985 Judgments
Amratlal Shamji Thacker Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Ac Ce and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1985
Reported in: 1992(38)LC462(Bombay)
S.C. Pratap, J.1. This is an excise matter.2. The petitioner is a partner in Amar Silk Mills which undertakes from yarn manufacturers job work of twisting and doubling yarn. In 1979 the said firm was required to take out L-4 manufacturing licence and pay excise duty on 'nylon twine yarn', which the firm did under protest and without prejudice.3. According to the petitioner, doubled and twisted nylon twine yarn is already duty paid classified under Central Excise Tariff Item 18 and the same cannot be again subjected to excise duty levy under residuary Tariff Item 68. While grievance accordingly was pending before the authority, a Division Bench of this Court ruled in the case of Garware Nylons Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. 1980 ELT 249 (Bom.) : >1980 CC 256D (Bom), inter alia to the following effect:.nylone twine manufactured by the petitioners has been treated as a kind of nylon yarn by the people in the trade. It is commonly considered as yarn. Hence it can be classified under Item ...
Tag this Judgment!Neksha Pharmaceuticals Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-1985
Reported in: (1986)(6)LC425Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The facts of this ease have been set out very fully in the Order-in-Original of the Collector of Central Excise, Baroda, and it is not necessary to reproduce them. Briefly, the appellants have been manufacturing patent and proprietary medicines falling under Central Excise Tariff Item 14E and pharmacopoeial preparations falling under Tariff Item 68. During the period 1978-79 to 1982-83 (upto January '83) they were manufacturing the abovementioned goods. In regard to the pharmacopoeial preparations they were availing themselves of the benefit of exemption available to small manufacturers of goods falling under that item. In regard to the patent and proprietary medicines, they were availing themselves of the separate exemption for small manufacturers, under Notification No. 71/78, dated 1-3-78, which was subsequently replaced by Notification No. 80/80, dated 19-6-80.2. Following a visit of the preventive staff to the factory of the appellants, a show cause notice was issued to them o...
Tag this Judgment!Mukesh Sawadia Vs. Vinod Gupta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Bom247
ORDER1. This is a writ petition arising out of the proceedings under the C. P. & Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (for short the Rent Control Order).The petitioner claims that he purchased the suit block No. 8 in the Wholesale Cloth Market, Gandhibagh, Nagpur, in an auction sale held on 11-3-1977 for the recovery of the income-tax dues of the earshot while owner of the said block. the said sale, according to him, was confirmed on 12-4-1977. The respondent-tenant was also informed about the purchase of the suit block by the Income-tax Department by its letter dt. 24-10-1977.2. The respondent is the tenant occupying the suit block initially at the monthly rent of Rs. 100/- and from 1-1-1978 at the monthly rent of Rs. 125/-. After the petitioner purchased the suit block occupied by the respondent-tenant, the respondent-tenant started paying rent to the petitioner till 1-7-1979. However, from 1-7-1979 till 10-5-1980, the respondent-tenant did not pay any rent to the pet...
Tag this Judgment!Gulam Mohd. Gulam Mustafa Salod Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-1985
Reported in: [1985(51)FLR318]; (1994)IIILLJ810Bom
S.C. Pratap, J.1. The petitioner was employed as Airport Ticket Clerk with the Director General, Civil Aviation in the year 1968. He was on deputation with respondent No.2, International Airport Authority of India with effect from 1st April 1972. By letter of appointment dated 26th June 1975 respondent No.2 purported to appoint the petitioner as Airport Ticket Clerk with respondent No.2 with effect from 28th Jan. 1975 on terms and conditions mentioned in the said letter one of which as embodied in clause 3 thereof, was that the petitioner would be on probation for a period of one year from 1st January 1975 but which period may be extended or reduced depending upon his performance, attendance and bearing. Under the said clause further, if the petitioner's work was found satisfactory during the said period he may be confirmed. The initial one year period of probation was extended by the second respondent for further six months with effect from 1st January 1976. It is about the time when ...
Tag this Judgment!Sudhakar Bhagwan Kambli Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-1985
Reported in: 1986(1)BomCR192
B.A. Masodkar, J.1. At about 8.30 p.m. on March 29, 1980 in an open place situate in between Building No. E-17 and E-18 at Shahu Nagar, Dharavi, an incident occurred in which Joy Joseph Vergis was assaulted. He received several injuries and in an unconscious state was taken to the Sion Hospital. There, he was admitted by Dr. Prafulla Kulkarni (P.W. 11). He eventually, died after two months on June 1, 1980 while in the hospital and without regaining consciousness. That he met with homicidal death is clear from the testimony of Dr. Kulkarni (P.W. 11), his injury certificate (Exhibit 21), in whose treatment he was as well of the other two doctors, namely Dr. Tekchand Vira (P.W. 9) and Dr. Narendra Rege (P.W. 10) and the eventual post-mortem performed by Dr. (Miss) Smita Karnik (P.W. 12) whose post-mortem notes are at Exhibit 24. The medical evidence shows that the victim received fatal confused lacerated wounds on the front to parietal region, temporal region and the nasal bone as a resul...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Wahed S/O Mohd. Abdullasaheb Vs. Abdul Saleem S/O Abdul Razak Bh ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-1985
Reported in: 1986(1)BomCR511
Sharad Manohar, J.1. This is a revision application filed by the de facto complainant against the order of acquittal passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded acquitting the accused/respondent No. 1 (hereinafter 'the accused') of offences under sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code with which he was charged at the instance of the present petitioner (who will be referred to hereafter as 'the complainant').2. Most of the facts, out of which the present petition arises, are admitted. Some of them, however, are not matters of admission as such. I will state the relevant facts and when they are not admitted facts, I will give indication to that effect in the judgment.Shamshadbegum, who is alleged to have been kidnapped by the accused in the night between 23rd May, 1982, and 24th May, 1982, at about 1.30 a.m. was admittedly not less than 15 1/2 years at that time. This fact about kidnapping became known to the complainant not immediately but after 6 a.m. in the morning when he ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammed Sharif S/O Mohd. Isa Vs. Raisa Begum W/O Mohd. Shariff and an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-1985
Reported in: 1986(2)BomCR276; 1986MhLJ1041
Sharad Manohar, J.1. A question of quite some importance is raised by Mr. Kadar in this petition which arise out of the proceedings under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure instituted by respondent No. 1 against husband-the present petitioner.2. The present petitioner is the husband and respondent No. 1 is the wife and she will be hereinafter referred to as respondent No. 1. The marriage of the petitioner with respondent No. 1 took place on 3-4-1978. There is no dispute that they lived a happy married life till the birth, of the child. The case of the respondent No. 1 is that there was some function by way of felicitation of the birth of the son celebrated by both the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 at the petitioner's place and her allegation is that on that occasion the petitioner demanded a golden ring for the child form the parents of the respondent No. 1 but when the respondent was unable to get that could article from her parents on account of their penury, the pet...
Tag this Judgment!Shantinath Baburao Chaugule Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-1985
Reported in: 1986(2)BomCR299
R.A. Jahagirdar, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in which it has been prayed that section 395(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, be declared as unconstitutional, null and void, because the said provision is ultra vires of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has been described as the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Aurangabad and as we have understood the arguments of the petitioner put forth through his Counsel Mr. S.B. Talekar, the aforesaid provision, namely, section 395 of Code of Criminal Procedure makes a hostile discrimination between the Judicial Magistrates on the one hand and the Metropolitan Magistrates on the other. It is the case of the petitioner that under section 395(1) of the Code, every Magistrate or, for that matter, every Court which is subordinate to the High Court can make a reference if that Court is satisfied that any case pending before it involves a question as to the validity of any law of the lan...
Tag this Judgment!Kokilabai W/O Ramchandra Mahajan Vs. Gangadhar S/O Shivaram Mahajan an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-1985
Reported in: 1986(2)BomCR289
Sharad Manohar, J.1. Under the circumstances which I will presently mention it has been necessary for me to transfer this revision application to the Session Court, Aurangabad. Hence I will state the facts which are relevant only for pointing out the circumstances which necessitates such an order.2. The petitioner before me is the original complainant at whose instance the police filed charge-sheet against present respondent No. 1 (who will be referred to hereinafter as 'the accused') for offence under section 406 of the I.P.C. for alleged commission of misappropriation in respect of a truck belonging allegedly to the complainant. In the proceedings that ensued the trial Court has passed an order of acquittal in favour of the accused and so far as the truck is concerned it is directed that the same should be returned to the accused.3. So far as a part of the order which related to the return of the truck to the accused is concerned the present petitioner has filed an appeal to the Sess...
Tag this Judgment!Ahmedabad Mfg. and Calico Ptg. Co. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1985
Reported in: (1986)(26)ELT252Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The Revision Application filed before the Government of India against the Order-in-Appeal bearing No.896/78 dt. 21.8.78 passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Bombay, statutorily stood transferred to the Tribunal for being heard as an appeal. The appellants are manufacturers of PVC Flexible Films and Sheetings falling under Central Excise Tariff Item No. 15-A (2) and also of PVC Leather Cloth with Cotton back and PVC Leather Cloth with Rayon back falling under Central Excise Tariff Item No.19-III and 22(3) respectively. The Assistant Collector by his order dt. 24.2.72 as well as by his order dt. 2.5.75 granted permission to the appellants to avail of proforma credit in respect of Central Excise duty paid on PVC Films and Sheets used in the manufacture of PVC Leather Cloth with Rayon back in terms of rule 56-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, read with notification No.75/71 dated 29.5.71. On 22.3.77 the appellants were directed by the jurisdictional Sup...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »