Mumbai Court January 1986 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.
Megha Chanchaldas Jeswani Vs. R.D. Tyagi, Commissioner of Police
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)BomCR587
A.D. Tated, J.1. I have heard the judgment delivered by my learned brother. With the utmost respect I am unable to persuade myself on some of the points mentioned therein. Before proceeding to give my reasons I may indicate the points on which I have not been able to agree with my learned brother. Those points are :---(1) that the ground mentioned in paragraph (g) of the grounds of detention has no tendency to affect the public order, and(2) that the ground mentioned in sub-para (4) of paragraph (h) is irrelevant.According to me, my learned brother has fully stated the facts leading to the passing of the impugned detention order and the scheme of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers and Drug-offenders Act, 1981 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as 'the Act'). He has also referred to the provisions of sections 2 and 3 of the Act which provide for preventive detention of a bootlegger. If the authorities mentioned in section 3 of the ...
Shri Muk TIn Fui and anr. Vs. Collector of Customs (P)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-1986
Reported in: (1986)(25)ELT982Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Shri Muk Tin Fui, Master of the vessel Ngan Chau and M/s. Hongkong Island Shipping Co. Ltd. the owners of the vessel have filed Revision Petitions to the Government of India dated 8-9-1980 and 11-12-1980 under old Section 131 of the Customs Act and these have been transferred to the Tribunal in terms of Section 131B ibid and are to be treated as appeals before the Tribunal.2. The appeals are against the Order No. S/14-4- 742/74 Pint dated 1-10-1976 passed by the Collector of Customs (Preventive) Bombay levying a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- on Shri Muk Tin Fui and Rs. 50,000/- on M/s. Hongkong Island Shipping Co. Against this order, the appellants had filed appeals to the Central Board of Excise & Customs and the Board under their Order-in-Appeal No. 385A-387A of 1980 dated 22-2-1980 disposed of the appeals. The Board reduced the penalty amount from Rs. 1,00,000/-to Rs. 50,000/- in respect of Shri Muk Tin Fui while rejecting the appeal of M/s. Hongkong Island Shipping Co. These tw...
Amritlal Shah and Etc. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)BomCR545; (1986)88BOMLR175; 1986(10)ECC292; 1986MhLJ193
Jahagirdar, J.1. The facts of these two writ petitions ought to be mentioned before we proceed to decide the questions of law raised in them. In Criminal Writ Petition No. 26 of 1986 the detenu had been originally detained by an order of detention passed under S. 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, hereinafter referred to as the 'COFEPOSA Act', by the Government of Maharashtra. That order was of 18th July, 1985 and subsequently the said order of detention was revoked by the Government of Maharashtra on 28th November, 1985. On the same day, a fresh order of detention has been passed by the Government of Maharashtra under the same provision of law and on the same grounds.2. In Criminal Writ Petition No. 30 of 1986, the original order of detention under S. 3 of the COFEPOSA Act was passed by the Government of Maharashtra on 8th April, 1985. After the Advisory Board submitted its opinion to the Government, the Government revoked the order o...
Manu Bharati Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Inco ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-1986
Reported in: [1986]162ITR693(Bom)
Masodkar, J.1. This appeal questions the eventual acquisition of property by the revenue-respondent on the ground that conveyance-deed evidenced by registered document of 12-2-1974 of Plot No. 127, Swami Vivekanand Road, Vile Parle, bearing revisional survey No. 212, was for inadequate consideration and, therefore, it was liable to be acquired. Order for such acquisition under s. 269F(6) of the IT Act 1961, has been made and that order made by the Competent Authority has been upheld by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, 'C' Bench, Bombay. Against that the present appeal has been filed.2. We may, at the outset make the position clear, in that apart from the merit the ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Special Civil Applications Nos. 1628 of 1973, 1629 of 1973, 1630 and 1631 of 1973, decided on 6-2-1981, so as to contend that the proceedings initiated are liable to be quashed as not being in accordance with law, including the init...
Manu Bharati Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Inco ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-1986
Reported in: (1987)59CTR(Bom)226
Masodkar, J. - This appeal questions the eventual acquisition of property by the revenue-respondent on the ground that conveyance-deed evidenced by registered document of 12-2-1974 of Plot No. 127, Swami Vivekanand Road, Vile Parle, bearing revisional survey No. 212, was for inadequate consideration and, therefore, it was liable to be acquired. Order for such acquisition under s. 269F(6) of the IT Act 1961, has been made and that order made by the Competent Authority has been upheld by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, C Bench, Bombay. Against that the present appeal has been filed.2. We may, at the outset make the position clear, in that apart from the merit the ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Special Civil Applications Nos. 1628 of 1973, 1629 of 1973, 1630 and 1631 of 1973, decided on 6-2-1981, so as to contend that the proceedings initiated are liable to be quashed as not being in accordance with law, including the initit...
Dr. Gaur Hari Singhania Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-1986
Reported in: (1986)16ITD1(Mum.)
1. The dispute in this group of the assessee's appeals arising out of common facts is on the question as to whether capital gains has arisen to each of the assessees on his or her contribution, to a newly formed partnership firm, of shares held by them in certain company towards capital in the firm. The firm of J.K. & Sons was constituted as on 1-10-1974 by a deed dated 1-11-1974 consisting of 11 major partners and one minor admitted to the benefits of the partnership. Each of the partners, including the minor admitted to the benefits of the partnership, brought in as share of capital contribution, at the market value of Rs. 27 per share, 20,000 shares of J.K. Synthetics Ltd. originally held by each as investment out of bonus shares received.2. The ITO considered that the difference between the market value of such shares brought in at Rs. 5,40,000 and their cost of acquisition, determined by him at Rs. 28,000, attracted capital gains charge. The dispute came up before the Tribuna...
Gujarat Detergent Manufacturers Association Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-1986
Reported in: 1988(19)LC228(Bombay); 1988(38)ELT447(Bom)
1. The petitioners are an association of Small Scale Industries Units and are engaged in the manufacture of detergent washing powder and Acid Slurry. The raw material required for manufacture of detergent washing powder includes 'Linear Alkyl Benzene' and 'Dodecyl Benzene'. Both these products are canalised through State Trading Corporation. The State Trading Corporation enters into various contracts with foreign suppliers for the purchase of Linear Alkyl Benzene. The actual users of the products are required to register their requirements with the State Trading Corporation and when the vessels carrying the items are about to arrive, the Corporation gives information to the actual users requiring to complete the formalities and clear the material. The petitioners accordingly registered their requirement with the State Trading Corporation for the period April 1983 to March 1984. On April 4, 1984 the Corporation informed the petitioners of the arrival of the vessel and allotment of certa...
Metal Distributors Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-1986
Reported in: 1988(19)LC324(Bombay); 1988(37)ELT512(Bom)
1. Petitioner No. 1 are a Limited Company and carry on business as metal distributors and importers of diverse ferrous and non-ferrous metals. Pursuant to the contracts between the petitioners and the foreign suppliers, during October 1979 and February 1980 diverse quantities of alloy steel scrap was shipped by the foreign suppliers. The petitioners imported 733.212 metric tonnes of the goods and upon importation of the goods between October 15, 1979 and February 1980 the petitioners presented as many as 26 bills of entry for effecting clearances of goods for home consumption. The petitioners were claiming that the correct classification fell under Tariff Item 73. 03/.05, while it was the claim of the Department that the goods were liable to be assessed under. Tariff Item 73.15(1)(2). Ultimately, the goods were cleared on May 28, 1981 after the petitioners paid the duty as demanded by the Department. In subsequent proceedings adopted by the petitioners. It was found that the claim of t...
Air India Vs. S. Ganapathi and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-1986
Reported in: (1993)IIILLJ425Bom
Pendse, J. 1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-Air India are challenging the legality of the order dated April 30, 1983 passed by the Presiding Officer, National Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, dismissing the application seeking approval to the action of removal of respondent No. 1 under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The facts giving rise to filing of that application are as follows.2. Respondent No. 1 was an employee of Air India and working as Traffic Supervisor in the Commercial Department at Calcutta. On or about Nov. 17, 1980 a charge-sheet was issued to respondent No. 1 alleging wilful insubordination, disobedience and disorderly behaviour and wilful damage to the work and property of the Corporation. The charge pertains to the actions of respondent No. 1 on Nov. 9, 1980 and Nov. 12, 1980. The charge-sheet recites that respondent No. 1 on Nov. 9, 1980 took away some o...
ishverlal J. Naik Vs. Sureshchandra K. Arya and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-1986
Reported in: 1986(1)BomCR503
ORDER1. Though there was a delay in implementing the judgment of this Court, we are satisfied that there was no intention on the part of the respondents to defy the orders of this Court and to not comply with them. Besides, the learned Govt. Advocate states sny event, respondents tender apologises for the delay in executing the orders of this Court.2. Hence, in our view, no case for contempt was made. Rejected....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »