Mumbai Court February 1986 Judgments
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. S.D. Kadam and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-1986
Reported in: [1987(54)FLR16]; (1994)IIILLJ1007Bom
Pendse, J.1. By this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners are challenging the legality of the order, dated June 28, 1985 passed by the Presiding Officer, 6th Labour Court, Bombay in 31 applications filed by the workmen under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and awarding diverse amounts to the workmen. The facts giving rise to filing of these applications lie in a very narrow compass and are required to be briefly stated to appreciate the grievance of the petitioners.2. The petitioner Company is a public sector undertaking. Prior to Jan. 24, 1976, a Sterling Company incorporated in the United Kingdom, known as Burmah-Shell Oil Storage & Distributing Company of India Ltd. was operating in India For marketing of petroleum products of the Company. Another company known as Burmah Shell Refineries Ltd. registered under the. Companies Act, 1956 was prior to Jan. 24, 1976 carrying on business ...
Tag this Judgment!Rameshchandra S/O Krishnarao Udapure Vs. Bhaurao S/O Ramaji Uke and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-1986
Reported in: 1986(3)BomCR700
H.W. Dhabe, J.1. This is the plaintiff's revision against the order of the learned lower Appellate Court which has dismissed the application for temporary injunction filed by him setting aside the temporary injunction granted by the learned trial Court.2. Briefly, the facts are that the plaintiff claims that he is the owner of the truck bearing registration No. MHG 5155. According to him he purchased the said truck from one Pritamsingh Bhatia on 15-4-1983 and accordingly on 11-12-1984 his name was registered in the office of Regional Transport Officer as the owner of the said truck as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. A temporary permit was also granted in his name for plying the said truck and as per the said permit he carried on his business. It is his case that the defendant No. 3 (non-applicant No. 1) was working as a supervisor upon the said truck. On 19-3-1985, according to him he had sent the said truck to the office of the Regional Transport Officer by entrust...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-1986
Reported in: 1987(12)LC1067(Bombay)
Desai, J.1. Having considered portions of the judgment appealed from which deal with both the basis of denial of relief (Seepage 229 of the Paper Book) and the contention whether dross and skimmings can be regarded in any view of the matter as goods manufactured by the company, we find ourselves in concurrence with both the approach as well as the ultimate conclusion of the trial Court. In this view of the matter, the Appeal to stand summarily dismissed.2. We may add that this Appeal filed in 1980 by the Union of India has now been brought up for admission. It is true that there is a duty of the office to place these matters for admission in due course and not after five years, but, it is obvious that it is equally the duty of the appellants if there is a mistake on the part of the Office to ensure that the Appeal is brought up for admission. In any case we wish to make it clear that although this delay is a factor to be taken into account, it is not the factor on account of which the ...
Tag this Judgment!Calico Chemicals and Plastics Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-1986
Reported in: (1987)(13)LC779Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This reference application under Section 130(1) of the Customs Act is by the appellants in Appeal CD(T)(BOM) No. 176/81. By this application the applicants requires the Tribunal to refer the points set out in paragraph 8 of the application which according to him are the questions of law arising out of the order-in-appeal to the High Court after drawing a statement of the case.2. We heard Shri S.N. Parikh, Advocate for the applicants and Shri N.K.Pattekar for the respondent Collector. We perused our Order-in-Appeal CD(T)(BOM) Appeal No. 176/81.3. The brief facts of the appeal were: The present applicants application for refund of duty was rejected by the Assistant Collector of Customs as barred under Section 27(1) of the Customs Act. On appeal, the Appellate Collector also rejected holding that the provisions of Section 27(1) are mandatory. In the revision application filed before the Government of India which stood transferred to the Tribunal for being heard as an appeal the applic...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Paper Process Works
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-1986
Reported in: [1986]62STC317(Bom)
Kania, A.C.J.1. This is a reference under section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). The question, which has been referred for our determination in this reference, is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal was correct in law in coming to the conclusion that the paper reels of smaller width sold by the respondent under invoice No. SP/1 dated 16th October, 1975, were not a commercially different commodity from the paper rolls of bigger width from which they were prepared by the process of slitting and therefore the said process of slitting the paper did not amount to manufacture under section 2(17) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, and consequently no tax was payable on the said sale ?'2. It is common ground that the respondent-assessee is a registered dealer. The assessee purchased paper in larger reels or rolls and these rolls were cut by the assessee into smaller paper reels by a slittin...
Tag this Judgment!Omprakash S/O Mulchand Khatri and ors. Vs. Fattelal Maganlal and Compa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-1986
Reported in: 1986(3)BomCR33; 1986MhLJ414
V.A. Mohta, J.1. Following the ratio in the case of Motor General Traders and another v. State of Andhra Pradesh, A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 121 a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Prabhakar Tanbaji Rokde v. State of Maharashtra : AIR1986Bom64 had declared as unconstitutional the notification dated 6th February, 1952 issued under Clause 30 of the Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 ('The HRC Order') by which houses used for residential purposes constructed on a site lying vacant on 1st January, 1951 or on a site made vacant on or after that date by demolition of such structure standing on such site, were exempted from the operation of the HRC order on the ground that indefinite continuation of exemption to such houses was arbitrary and discriminatory and, therefore, hit by Article 14 of the Constitution. Point is whether the ratio of those decisions can be extended also to indefinite continuation of outer limits in the matter of fixation of fair r...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-19-1986
Reported in: (1986)16ITD574(Mum.)
1. These appeals relating to the assessment years 1975-76 to 1979-80 filed by the revenue against the consolidated order of the Commissioner (Appeals) deal with some common issues and are, therefore, for the sake of convenience, disposed of by a consolidated order.2. The assessee is a wholly-owned Government company engaged in the business of refining and marketing of petrol and petroleum products.The first grievance common to all the appeals is against the direction of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the assessee-company is entitled to depreciation at the higher rate of 15 per cent on its plant and machinery since it comes into contact with crude oil and reduced crude oil, which were corrosive chemicals. The learned departmental representative, Shri Srivastava, submitted to us that there was no definition of 'corrosive chemicals' under the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') and, therefore, what are corrosive chemicals have to be understood by what is known in common parlance. Viewed in...
Tag this Judgment!Kamaljit Singh Chadha and Two ors. Vs. Additional Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-1986
Reported in: (1986)(8)LC584Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Appeal No. 278 of 80 arises out of the Order No. 73 of 1980 dated 25-1-1980 passed by the Central Board of Excise & Customs, Appeal No.288 of 80 arises out of the Order No. 72 of 1980 dated 25-1-1980 passed by the Central Board of Excise & Customs, and Appeal No. 302 of 80 arises out of the Order No. 71 of 1980 dated 25-1-1980 passed by the Central Board of Excise & Customs. All these three appeals involve common questions of law and facts and they arise out of one Order-in-Original, hence they are clubbed together, heard together and hence this common order.2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeals may be stated as under:- On 4-6-1978, the appellant, Kamaljit Singh Chadha, Asstt. Flight Purser, Air India, landed at Santacruz Airport as a member of the crew of Air India Flight from London to Bombay. He had three baggages with him. He declared certain items. On questioned by the Customs Officer whether he had anything else to declare, he replied in the...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India and anr. Vs. Hardeo Dutta Tirtharam and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-1986
Reported in: I(1987)ACC81; AIR1986Bom350; 1986(2)BomCR33
1. 'The king can do no wrong' is the burden of song in this appeal filed by the Government of India and one of there servants, Lakharam Shama Sawar (hereinafter referred to as 'defendants 1 and 2' respectively). Article 300 of the Constitution is a point in reference.2. The short facts, relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal, are as under:-The three respondents (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiffs') filed Special Civil Suit No.114 of 1973 in the Court of the learned joint civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar, for recovery of Rs. 11,000/- with interest and costs against the defendants on the allegation that their father Tirtharam Biharilal Dutta, aged about 66, a retired Subhedar of Indian Army, was fatally knocked down on 8th Jan. 1973 at about 3.30 p.m. when he was proceeding towards his kirana shop from his residence along nagar- pathardi road , ahmednagar, by defendant 2 while driving military vehicle No. TUD/ 44520. According to the Plaintiffs, the deceased ...
Tag this Judgment!G.Y. Desle and S.V. Khandge Vs. Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahur ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-1986
Reported in: 1986(1)BomCR481
C.S. Dharmadhikari, J.1. In this writ petition i.e. Writ Petition No. 4594 of 1985, the petitioner who is an associate professor of Horticulture in College of Agriculture at Pune, is praying for a writ of mandamus against the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 i.e. Director of Agriculture and the State of Maharashtra directing them to communicate to the Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri, Ahmednagar, the seniority of the petitioner in Class II grade of the officers allocated and absorbed by the said University. He has also prayed for a direction to the Krishi Vidyapeeth to fix up the seniority of the petitioner as per the regulation of the seniority framed by it.2. According to the petitioner he is senior to the respondent No. 4 A.S. Naphade in every respect. He has given details about his service career in para 7 of the petition. Inspite of this admitted position, he is being bypassed while giving promotions and the respondent No. 4 Naphade is appointed in a promotional post by passing all ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »