Mumbai Court February 1986 Judgments
India United Mills No. 1 Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1986
Reported in: (1986)(8)LC565Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This application under Section 35G(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 is by the Respondent in, Appeal No ED 65 of J984. By this application, the applicant requires the Tribunal to refer the questions of law set out in Annexure B to the application by drawing up a statement of the case. We heard Shri Biradar, Advocate and Shri N.K.Pattekar, JDR.2. During the hearing, Shri Biradar conceded that the questions at serial Nos. 3, 4 and 5 do not arise from the order of the Tribunal. So far as question No. 6 is concerned, his submission was that the Bench may if it deemed fit modify the question. He, however, contended that the questions at serial Nos. 1 and 2 arise out of the order-in-appeal No 65/84. In support of his contention, he urged the very grounds which he had urged at the time of hearing of the appeal.3. Shri Pattekar appearing for the Respondent Collector, contended that no question of law as such arises and therefore question of reference to the High Court would not ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State, Bombay Vs. N.L. Mehta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1986
Reported in: [1986]61STC362(Bom)
Kania, A.C.J.1. These are two references under section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (referred to hereinafter as 'the said Act'). Both the references have been made at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax. The two questions referred to us in both the references are the same, and there is a common statement of the case. In view of this, both the references are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The assessee was assessed as an unregistered dealer for the periods 18th October, 1970, to 31st March, 1971, and 1st April, 1971, to 16th March, 1972, respectively. These assessments were made by the Sales Tax Officer, A Ward, Unit IV, Bombay, on 8th March 1976, under section 33(6) of the said Act. The assessee is a firm which started its business as a building contractor from 18th October, 1970. The turnover of the assessee exceeded the prescribed limit on 29th March, 1971. However, the assessee filed an application for registration under the said Act as late as 17th...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Corporation of Gr. Bombay Vs. Santan Marshall Fernandes
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)BomCR474; (1986)88BOMLR683; 1986MhLJ633
C.S. Dharmadhikari, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay-B.E.S.T. has challenged the order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal overruling the preliminary objection raised to the very maintainability of the application.2. It appears from the record that the deceased Lawrence was knocked down by the BEST bus on 17th February, 1982 and he died in the said accident. The applicant Smt. Santan Marshall Fernandes, who is the maternal, aunt of the deceased Lawrence, therefore, filed an application under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. It was contended by the maternal aunt Smt. Santan that the deceased was the son of the sister of her husband and was residing with her since childhood. The deceased had no other relation either nearer or remote and she is the only surviving heir of the deceased. She, therefore, preferred a claim of Rs. 97,000/- by way of compensation. This application was stoutly opposed by the Corporation on the gro...
Tag this Judgment!Ramji, Son of Lalji Naniya and ors. Vs. Gautamchand S/O Punamchand Aba ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)BomCR634; 1987MhLJ78
M.S. Ratnaparkhi, J.1. The petitioners who were the defendants before the Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Jalna, in Regular Civil Suit No. 358 of 1982 are invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as they feel aggrieved due to the failure on the part of the trial Court to frame an issue about the jurisdiction of the trial Court.2. The facts giving rise to this litigation may be briefly stated as follows:-The respondent was the landlord of the tenements which admittedly were let out to the present petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 (Original defendants Nos. 1 and 2). It is the case of respondent that though the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 were his tenants, their tenancy was validly terminated by the quit notice, as a result of which their possession over the tenements assumed the characteristic of the trespassers. They, therefore, claimed Rs. 4,500/- by way of mesne profits. Petitioner No. 3 has been joined on the ground that he has been il...
Tag this Judgment!Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. Gulabbaksh Mulla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1986
Reported in: I(1987)ACC70; (1986)88BOMLR412; 1986MhLJ455
V.V. Vaze, J.1. It was like any other day at the Chembur level crossing, The line man had pulled down the; gates (and literally so, because of the counter-poising heavy weight at the other end of the fulcrum) to allow the train to pass by unimpeded. On the other side of the two gates were queues of motorised vehicles, bullock-carts and pedestrians who were all biding their time along with the cattle for the train to pass by and the gates to open. One such vehicle belonged to Duke & Company which is engaged in the manufacture of aerated waters. The company had a fleet of specially designed trucks to transport crates of their bottled products to the retail outlets. To load and unload the crates the company had a complement of men and Gulab Baksh was one of such loaders perched on the crates of aerated waters.2. As there was no knowing as to when the train would pass by, Gulab Baksh who was bored by waiting decided to combat the ennui by having a smoke. His stock of bidis was exhausted an...
Tag this Judgment!YesmIn Rustum LentIn Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-1986
Reported in: [1987(54)FLR169]; (1994)IIILLJ396Bom
Pendse, J. 1. The petitioner was employed by the Finlay Mills Ltd. on March 7, 1970 as a Clerk. The petitioner was eon-firmed as a Junior Clerk in the Office of the Mills by letter, dated October 1, 1971. a copy of which is annexed as Ex. 'I' to the affidavit of Virendra Ambalal Inamdar. Constituted Attorney of Respondent no. 2 and sworn on February 7, 1986. The petitioner continued to be in employment till October 19, 1983 when the Management of the Textile Undertaking was taken over by the Ordinance issued by the Government of India. Subsequently, the Parliament passed the Textile Undertakings (Taking Over of Management) Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and under Section 2(d) of this Act, the expression 'textile undertaking' means an undertaking specified in the second column of the First Schedule, while under Section 2(c), the expression 'textile company' means a company specified in the third column of the First Schedule, as owning the undertaking specified in the c...
Tag this Judgment!Gwalior Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-1986
Reported in: [1986]62STC363(Bom)
Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. This is a reference under section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. The reference relates to assessment for the period 7th July, 1970, to 31st March, 1971. An assessment order for the above period was made under section 33 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, on 17th February, 1972 by the Sales Tax Officer 'C' Ward. In the order, the right to levy penalty under section 36(2)(c) was reserved because for this assessment period of about nine months, the tax paid by the applicants was less than 80 per cent of the amount of tax assessed. Thereafter a show cause notice dated 18th April, 1972 was issued by the Sales Tax Officer for levy of penalty under section 36(2)(c). The applicants replied to this notice on 28th April, 1972. Thereafter the Sales Tax Officer dropped the penalty proceedings on 18th April, 1973. A similar show cause notice was again issued on 18th August, 1973. However, penalty proceedings were again dropped in respect of this show cause notice.2...
Tag this Judgment!Jawasharlas Vs. Saraswatibai Babulal Joshi and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Bom276; 1986(3)BomCR94
ORDER1. This revision application by the original defendant is directed agasit the order passed bythe trial court permitting non-application NO. 5 who climed tobe the assignee of the interest of the oppnents Nos. 1 to 4 Original plaintiff toconituue thesuit under s. 22 R, 10 of theCode of Civil Procedure.2. The Opponents Nos. 1 of brought Small Cause Suir No. 687 of 1981 for possessin against the applicant on the ground that permission todetermine thelease of the applicant was obtained by the Oppents Nos. 1 of 4 formtheRent Controller and pursuant to the permission a notice todetermine thelease was issued. The suit was resisted bythe applicant contending that thenotice had been wairved had thOppents Nos. 1 to 4 and they agreed tocontinue the lease. The Oppensent No. 5 filed and application unde O. 22, R. 10 Civil Procedure Code for leave to continue that suit the being added as plantiff No. 4 According to him the Oppennts Nos. 1 to 4 assigned their interest as well as the right toconti...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Wahed Son of Sk. Farid and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-1986
Reported in: 1986(3)BomCR288; 1986MhLJ833
V.P. Salve, J.1. In this petition, the petitioners have challenged the judgment and order dated 16-12-1980 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad, in case No. 1976-WTN - App-8 by which the appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed and the judgement of the Deputy Collector. Land reforms, dated 29-12-1975 was confirmed.2. The lands involved in this petition are Survey Nos. 288 and 293 of village Apparao Peth, Taluka Kinwat, District Nanded. It is the case of the petitioners that they were cultivating the land in question. Petitioner No. 3. was cultivating land Survey No. 288 and petitioner No. 1 was cultivating land Survey No. 293. Petitioner No. 2 is the son-in-law of petitioner No. 3. Respondent No. 2 was Inamdar of the said lands. After the application of the Hyderabad Abolition of Inams and Cash Grants Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Inam Abolition Act') the said lands were declared and recorded in the names of petitioner No. 3 and petitioner No. 1 and occup...
Tag this Judgment!Appellate Collector of Customs Vs. Chloride India Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1986
Reported in: (1988)(34)ELT288Tri(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 26.11.1979 (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 d...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »