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.
Yeshwantrao Martandrao Mukane Since Deceased Through His Legal Represe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-1986
Reported in: 1986(1)BomCR533
B.A. Masodkar, J.1. This appeal by original defendant No. 1 (since deceased and represented by his heirs) and original defendant No. 2 questions the decree made for permanent injunction restraining them from disturbing the possession of the plaintiff as far as the property 'Sadanand Palace', outhouses and the land surrounding the said Palace otherwise than by due process of law.2. Certain positions are not in dispute. The present suit was filed by the respondent-original plaintiff seeking the relief of injunction with regard to the said Palace as well as the agricultural lands numbering about eight, all situated at Ashagad, Mouje Aswe, Taluka Dahanu, District Thane. Although at the hearing of the appeal, the learned Counsel for the respondent-plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff pleaded any other type of legal possession, it is obvious from the plaint allegations that the plaintiff came to the Court alleging that there was an agreement for sale between the plaintiff and original defe...
Kondiba Son of Chokha Kamble Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)BomCR241
G.M. Khandekar, J.1. This is an appeal by the accused, who has been convicted by the learned Session Judge, Beed, in session Case No. 26 of 1981 for offence of murder under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and also convicted under section 309, ibid, and sentenced to suffer S.I. for six months.2. Most of the facts in this appeal are not in dispute. The accused was residing at village Kawadgaon within the jurisdiction of Yusuf Wadgaon Police Station in Kaji Taluka of Beed District along with his wife named Vatsalabai (since deceased) and four children, the eldest of them being a girl named Chaya (P.W. 8). Their house was situated in Maharwada locality of the village and Rukminibai, who is the mother of the accused, was residing separately but near his house. Rukminibai used to work as an agricultural labourer for earning her livelihood. The deceased Vatsalabai also used to work on wages in the fields since prior to the date of incident. F...
Associated Aluminium Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-1986
Reported in: (1986)88BOMLR112; 1989(20)LC33(Bombay); 1986MhLJ272
Bharucha, J.1. The principal argument in this petition is that there is invidious discrimination between manufacturer-exporters following the procedure laid down under Rule 12 of the Central Excise Rules as contrasted with those following the procedure under Rule 13 thereof. It is necessary to advert to these provisions immediately. Under Rule 12 the Central Government may, from time to time, by notification in the Official Gazette, grant rebate of duty paid on excisable goods, if exported outside India, to such extent, and subject to such safeguards, conditions and limitations as regards the class of goods, destination, mode of transport, and other allied matters as may be specified therein. Rule 13 provides that good's, other than those falling under Item Nos. 5 and 12 of the First Schedule to Central Excise and Salt Act, may be exported outside India without payment of duty from a ware-house or a licensed factory, provided the export is made in accordance with the procedure set out ...
Lingeshvaran Durgaiya Gaud Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-1986
Reported in: I(1987)ACC146
V.V. Vaze, J.1. Lingeshvaran Gaud is employed as a driver by Lijjat Papad concern and his duties require him to drive their vehicle to transport staff from place to place. On 28-9-1970 Gaud as usual brought the workers to Dadar Railway Station, Western Railway and parked his vehicle opposite the general railways stores near the eastern 'foot path. The occupants got down from the rear left door and as Gaud felt that the door was not properly locked by the alighting workmen he got down from the driver's seat and wanted to go around the vehicle and slam the offending panel shut. While doing so Gaud noticed from his side view mirror that a government vehicle was coming from behind. The vehicle brushed passed him, dashed against his right foot and shoulder as well as the body of his vehicle. Gaud was treated for fracture for which he had to incur medical expenses and preferred a claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for Greater Bombay which dismissed the claim on the ground that ...
Bhagirathibai Sonu Jadhav and anr. Vs. G. Ratinath Nageshkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-1986
Reported in: I(1987)ACC124
V.V. Vaze, J.1. Sonu Jadhav retired from the railways and his last salary drawn was Rs. 350/- per month. After retirement to supplement his income (probably from his meagre savings) Sonu Jadhav took to selling toys and tidbits making two to four rupees a day. He was knocked down by a car in the early hours of 11th October 1969 in front of Mahim Church, Mahim for which the widow and the son of the deceased held G. Ratinath Nageshkar, the owner of Car No. BYH-2606, responsible. They filed an application bearing No. 903 of 1970 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for Greater Bombay at Bombay which dismissed the claim on the ground that the applicants have not proved that BYH-2606 owned by Nageshkar was involved in the accident. Alternatively the Tribunal gave a finding that for the loss of consortium the widow is entitled to a sum of Rs. 2000/- but that the applicants have failed to prove that they were getting any peculiar benefit from the earnings of the deceased Sonu. Hence the a...
Hasmukharai Chatrabhuj Shah and Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-1986
Reported in: (1986)LC430Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The Revision Application filed before the Government of India against the order bearing 372-A, - 374-A of 1979 dated 15-12-1979 passed by the Central Board of Excise & Customs statutorily stood transferred to the Tribunal and registered as Appeal No. 315/80.2. Two Revision Applications filed before the Government of India against the Order-in-Appeal bearing No. 539-A - 540-A of 1979 dated 6-3-1980 passed by the Central Board of Excise & Customs, statutorily stood transferred to the Tribunal for being heard as appeals and they are registered as Appeal Nos. 392/80 and 437/80.3. As all these appeals involve common questions of law and facts they are clubbed together. Hence this common order.4. The appellants in Appeal Nos. 392/80 and 437/80 had requested for an adjournment but their request was not granted. They had however, remained absent on the date of hearing. Therefore, Shri Pattekar who appeared for the respondent was heard.5. The brief facts necessary for the disposal o...
Ranbir Rajkapoor Vs. S.S. Bhonsale, Tax Recovery Officer and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-1986
Reported in: [1986]162ITR153(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. The petitioner is the owner of an immovable property known as Daboo House, Plot No. 16, Jay Bharat Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Khar. Respondent No. 1 is the Tax Recovery Officer. On January 16, 1984, he issued a proclamation of sale for public auction of the petitioner's property for recovery of arrears of tax amounting to Rs. 37,98,451. The reserve pride was fixed at Rs. 15,00,000. The property was put to auction and was sold on March 8, 1984, for a price of Rs. 8.70 lakhs in favour of respondents Nos. 3 and 4. The property was sold for a price far less than the reserve price. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had informed the Tax Recovery Officer that he had filed an appeal and taken other proceedings for challenging the amount of arrears of taxes mentioned in the recovery certificate. The petitioner had succeeded in getting the amount of arrears reduced by the income-tax authorities. The Tax Recovery Officer thereupon on March 9, 1984, that is, a day next to th...
Ahmed Comerbhoy Mills Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-1986
Reported in: 1986(7)ECC190; 1986(25)ELT513(Bom)
Smt. Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. The petitioners (who are the appellants herein) inter alia manufacture and process vegetable oils and manufacture other products therefrom. The petitioners have their factory at Ahmed Oomer Street, Two Tanks, Bombay-8. The petitioners, inter alia, manufacture vegetable non-essential oil. They process this oil in order to remove impurities. The processed vegetable non-essential oil is then hydrogenated to produce vegetable tallow which according to the petitioners themselves is a vegetable product. This vegetable tallow is sold and/or used in the manufacture of soap and other products. In respect of vegetable tallow in question the parties have proceeded on the footing that vegetable tallow is used in the manufacture of soap.2. Central Excise tariff entry 12 deals with vegetable non-essential oil of all sorts. Under tariff entry 12 a notification No. 33/63 dated 1st of March, 1963 has been issued under which, inter alia, vegetable non-essential oil falling u...
Bombay Wires Healds Manufacturing Company, Bombay Vs. Employees State ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-1986
Reported in: 1986(3)BomCR18; (1986)IILLJ121Bom; 1986MhLJ283
1. Messrs. Bombay Wire Healds Manufacturing Company of Sonawala Estate, Goregaon (East), Bombay, are an ancillary unit engaged in the manufacture of Wire Healds which are used by textile mills in their Weaving Departments. The purchasing mills require a bundle of 500 pieces of wire and though the wires are manufactured in the factory premises at Goregaon by the Appellant Company, they find it economical, with a view to conserve scarce floor space of their premises, to get the threading of these wires and bundling them together from house-wives who do the work at their own premises. The material required viz., the wires, the thread etc. is supplied by the factory to the house-wives who collect the same in the factory premises in the morning, take them to their respective homes and after completing the threading and bundling work, return the packages the next day. These packages are then examined by checkers and packers and the house-wives are paid at the rate of 10 paise per bundle of 5...
Bombay Tyres International Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-1986
Reported in: 1989(21)LC43(Bombay); 1989(39)ELT544(Bom)
1. This writ petition under Article 226 impugns the order of the 3rd respondent dated 1st November 1974 rejecting the petitioners' application for refund of a part of the excise duty paid upon their product 'tread rubber', also called 'camel back'; the appellate order of the 2nd respondent dated 9th October 1975; and the 1st respondent's order in revision dated 1st December 1978.2. The petitioners paid excise duty upon the tread rubber manufactured by them including in the value thereof its packing cost. In January 1974 the petitioners learnt of the decision of the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras, dated 8th June 1973 in the case of the Madras Rubber Factory Ltd., that the packing cost of tread rubber was to be excluded in computing the excisable value. On 17th January 1974 the petitioners made an application to the Superintendent of Central Excise, Bombay, for refund of the excise duty on the cost of packing the tread rubber manufactured by them during the twelve months e...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »