Mumbai Court December 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.
Fakira S/O Laxman Khobragade Vs. Ramesh S/O Shaligramji Jaiswal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)BomCR693
M.M. Qazi, J.1. The appellant (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) filed the suit against the respondent) for recovery of arrears of rent for the month of September 1977. The defendant contested the claim on the ground that the plaintiff had lost title and interest in the suit property and hence the suit for recovery of rent at his behest was not tenable. According to the defendant, he paid rent to the plaintiff till August 1972 but he stopped paying the same thereafter since he learned that the suit house was purchased by one Parasmal in November 1975 in auction held by the Municipal Council for recovery of taxes.2. In view of the pleadings the point that fell for consideration was whether the plaintiff lost his title to the suit house on 10-11-1975? Both the courts concurrently found that the plaintiff lost his title to the suit house on 10-11-1975. The suit was accordingly dismissed, hence this revision.3. Mr. Gaikwad, learned Counsel for the plaintiff vehemently contended tha...
United Export Corporation Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-1986
Reported in: (1987)(12)LC583Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These two appeals arise as under. M/s United Export Corporation imported two consignments of stamping foils. The adjudicating authority ordered confiscation but allowed redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 24,000/- in respect of one consignment and Rs. 20,000/= in respect of other consignment. Feeling aggrieved by the orders, M/s. United Export Corporation preferred two appeals before the Appellate Collector of Customs. The Appellate Collector by his common order bearing S/49-311 & 312/79-L dated 6-10-80 rejected the appeals. Thereafter, M/s. United Export Corporation preferred one Revision Application before the Government of India which statutorily stood transferred to the Tribunal for being heard as an appeal.2. When that Revision Application came up for consideration, it was pointed out to the appellants that since there were two appeals before the Appellate Collector, there should have been two Revision Applications and the appellants were given an option either to restric...
Hariganga Cement Ltd. Vs. Company Law Hoard and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-1986
Reported in: 1987(2)BomCR250; [1988]64CompCas603(Bom); 1987MhLJ775
S.W. Puranik, J.1. The petitioner-M/s. Hariganga Cement Limited-is a public limited company duly incorporate and registered under the Companies At, 1956, and this petition by the said company is directed against the common order bearing reference No.20/1/86-CL-I, dated July 31,1986, passed by respondent No.1, the Company Law Board, in a petition filed before it under section 250 read with section 237 and 147 of the Companies Act, 1956, as well as a petition filed under sections 408 and 409 of the Companies Act,1956. By the said impugned order, the Company Law Board had directed investigation into the affairs of the petitioner company (hereinafter referred to as 'the company') under section 237 of the Companies Act, while dismissing the application under section 408 and 409 of the Companies Act, and partially allowing the application under section 237,247 and 250 of the Companies Act.2. Brief facts leading to the present petition may be stated as follows:The petitioner-company was promo...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Shaikh Ukhan Shaikh Rehman
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-1986
Reported in: 1988(1)BomCR444
A.D. Tated, J.1. The State of Maharashtra preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 21st October, 1980 passed by the learned 3rd Joint Judicial Magistrate, F.C. Malegaon (Shri S.B. Deshpande), whereby he acquitted the respondent of the offence under section 2(i)(j) read with section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Rule 29 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. The prosecution case was that on 24th May, 1973, the Food Inspector Shri Sashikant Bhalerao visited the restaurant of the accused at village Dongrale. He disclosed his identity and gave out his intention to draw sample of the food articles namely Khari-shev weighing 300 gms. from the accused. Accordingly the complainant purchased Khari-shev weighing 300 grams and he divided it-into three equal parts. He packed the three parts of the samples in three different dried and clean bottles. Thereafter he sealed them in the presence of panchas. He also obtained the necessary receipt...
Mirabai (Mrs.) W/O Ashok Patil Vs. Ashok Bhaurao Patil and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)BomCR469
H.H. Kantharia, J.1. This is an application for condonation of delay for filing an application for leave to appeal against an order of acquittal for an offence punishable under section 494 read with section 109 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The short facts giving rise to this application are as under :The applicant was a complainant in Criminal Case No. 307 of 1982 in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sindkhede. She had filed the said complaint charging her husband for an offence of bigamy and 12 others for aiding and abetting him. The said case resulted in the acquittal of all the accused persons by a judgment and order passed on 12th July, 1984. The applicant applied for certified copy of the said judgment and order on the same day and got the copy on 27th July, 1984. She filed Criminal Application No. 1163 of 1984 in this Court for leave to file an appeal against the order of acquittal on 12th October, 1984. As per section 378(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code...
Collector of Customs Vs. Hargovindas and Co.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-15-1986
Reported in: (1987)(29)ELT975Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal arises under the following circumstances. The Respondent M/s. K. Hargovindas & Co. Exports Pvt. Ltd. imported 995 bags of Skim Milk Powder valued at Rs. 1,07,3147- c.i.f. and sought clearance against Licence No. 2796882 dated 11-8-77. The licence in question was an 'INITIAL LICENCE' issued to the manufacturing exporters for raw materials, components, consumer stores, in accordance with para 106(1) of Part C, Section 1 of Red Book, Volume 2 for 1977-78. The said licence was issued to build up stock. The licence did not indicate the export product. The Customs authorities objected for the clearance on the ground that as per paragraph 106(1) (C) the import is permissible only against exports of specified product but the goods imported, viz., skim milk powder was listed at serial No. 47 of the List at Annexure II to Part B of the Policy Book, Vol.11, A.M. 1978 and the licence produced was not valid against clearance of the goods in question. The respondent sent a reply ...
Chandrabadan Bavabhai Jadhav Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-15-1986
Reported in: (1987)(11)LC162Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against order-in-original bearing No. 10/Addl. Collr/1986 dated 29.1.86 (issued from file No.F.VIII/10/407 Addl. Collr./85) passed by the Addl. Collector of Customs (Preventive), Gujarat, Ahmedabad. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal may be stated as under :- 2. On information that contraband gold was to be landed near the creek of Saronda Village, a batch of Customs Officers kept watch nearby spot.Late in the night, the Customs Officers noticed certain persons proceeding towards a boat and the persons on board the boat handed over one jacket each to those persons who had anchored the boat. Thereafter they heard firing and they also resorted to firing. The persons who had carried the jackets escaped taking advantage of the darkness.3. During the investigation, it was found out that a boy of a village Tadgam had received a jacket containing gold lagdies and had handed over that jacket to his father. Kalan Patel sometime...
Appellate Collector of Customs Vs. Chloride India Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-1986
Reported in: (1987)(12)LC759Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The review show cause notice issued by the Government of India in exercise of their power under Section 36(2) of the Central Excises & Salt Act (as it then stood) against the order-in-appeal No. 1239 of 79 dated 26-11-79 (issued from file No. V-2(31)1981/78/7973) passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Bombay statutorily stood transferred to the Tribunal for being heard as an appeal. The assessee M/s. Chloride India Limited were the manufacturers of electric batteries falling under tariff item 31 C.E.T. They were bringing duty paid containers into their factory for use in the manufacture of electric batteries and were availing concession under Rule 56A of Central Excise Rules in respect of those containers. They had been submitting from time to time to the Central Excise Authorities that in the course of manufacture of electric batteries certain number of battery containers were getting damaged and became unserviceable. They were also applying for permission to des...
Harikishan Narotamdas Kapadi Vs. Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Ha ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)BomCR487
H.H. Kantharia, J.1. The applicant-accused, by this criminal revision application, challenges and judgement and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Silvassa, on 6th July, 1985 dismissing his Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 1984.2. The short facts giving rise to this application are as follows :The applicant has a small grocery shop at village Dokmardi in the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli at Silvassa. On 16th August, 1983 at about 11.00 a.m. Food Inspector Harishsinh Govindsinh Chauhan (P.W. 1) visited his shop. He disclosed his identity and called upon the applicant to produce his licence for selling for articles which the applicant could not produce. He then demanded a sample of turmeric powder and ground-nut oil. He took 600 grams of turmeric powder and ground-nut oil. So long as ground-nut oil is concerned, it was not found adulterated and, therefore, we are concerned only with the applicant selling turmeric powder. After completing the necessary...
Narendra Oil Refineries and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-1986
Reported in: [1988]68STC208(Bom)
S.W. Puranik, J.1. The first two petitioners herein are oil refineries and are challenging the interpretation of section 2(12A) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. Admittedly, the petitioner are dealing in the manufacture of edible oil as well as non-edible oil and they also deal with the activity of manufacturing oil by crushing oil seeds. The petitioners also manufacture cakes, refined oil and soaps. One of the other activities of the petitioners-refineries is that they procure washed cotton seed oil and convert it into refined cotton seed oil.2. The controversy centres around the question whether the petitioner unit could be termed as 'edible oil unit' within the meaning of section 2(12A) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, as far as the activity of the petitioners of procuring washed cotton seed oil and converting it into refined cotton seed oil is concerned. The relevant section which falls for interpretation is as follows :'2. (12A) 'Edible oil unit' means an eligible unit engaged ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »