Mumbai Court July 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.
Uttam Hundrajmal Awatramani and anr. Vs. Jayant Dattatraya Bhalerao an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1986
Reported in: 1987(2)BomCR33; (1986)88BOMLR522
S.N. Khatri, J.1 This is an appeal by the two contemners who have been ordered by a learned Single Judge of this Court to be detained in Civil Prison for a month and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- each for committing civil contempt.2. The material facts are not in dispute and they are these: The first contemner Uttam is the son of one Rukmini. The second contemner Shyam is her son-in-law. The first respondent Jayant Bhalerao (hereafter for short 'the plaintiff') instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 2475 of 1980 in the Pune Small Causes Court for eviction of the first contemner from a house, bearing C.T.S. No. 851/2, Bhandarkar Institute Road, on three grounds, namely, default in payment of rent, unlawful sub-letting and the tenant's having acquired an alternate suitable residence. The two sub-tenants were also impleaded as defendants Nos. 2 and 3. They are not parties before us. This suit was decreed by the Small Causes Court on 15th February, 1982 and the first contemner was directed to deli...
Dashrath Kishan Kotkar and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1986
Reported in: 1986(3)BomCR418; (1986)88BOMLR507; 1986MhLJ986
S.W. Puranik, J.1. Petitioner No.1 is a Police Sub-Inspector in the State Traffic Branch at Nasik while the petitioner No. 2 is Head Constable in the same Branch at Thane. The petitioner No.1 has a Farm where watermelons are grown. One Waman was engaged by him to look after watering and rearing of fruit. In the month of March 1986 the said Waman had collected the fruit crop from petitioner No. 1's field and despatched it in to a dealer in Bombay by truck. He had received Rs. 2,257/- as consideration of the sale of crop. The said Waman on receipt of the amount claims to have forwarded the amount to his Master-Petitioner No.1. It is further the case of the complainant Waman, that on 25th March, 1986 in the morning at about 9, the petitioner No.1-his Master and petitioner No. 2 came to the farm and they suddenly assaulted him with fist blow and slaps. The petitioner No.1 also aimed a revolver at him and threatened him with death. Thereafter they went away.2. This is a gist of the report l...
Shridhar Dada Kate (Dr.) Vs. Usha Shridhar Kate
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1986
Reported in: 1986(3)BomCR676; 1987MhLJ81
Sharad Manohar, J.1. This is a petition for divorce filed by the petitioner/husband (who was the petitioner also in the trial Court, but was the respondent in the earlier matrimonial proceedings between the same parties).For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to hereafter as 'husband' and 'wife'.2. The facts are not at all in dispute and they have been very well stated in the Para 2 of the judgment of the trial Court.Briefly speaking, the facts are that the marriage between the two spouses took place on 12-5-1956 according to the Hindu rites. There was no issue from the marriage and ultimately the marriage went on the rocks with the result that the wife had to file Hindu Marriage Petition No. 75 of 1976 in the Court of the Civil Judge, (S.D.), Ahmednagar for obtaining decree for restitution of conjugal rights. The petition was contested but ultimately the decree for restitution of conjugal rights was passed in favour of the wife. There is no dispute that the decree h...
Mahindra Re-rolls Industries and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1986
Reported in: 1990(25)ECC296; 1988(33)ELT684(Bom)
S.M. Daud, J.1. This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the show cause notice dated 26-10-1981 - hereinafter referred to as 'Exhibit-M' or 'the notice.'2. The questions that arise for determination in this petition have to be considered in the following background :-Petitioners are engaged in the manufacture of iron and steel products at Jalna. The products manufactured by petitioners and others like them, are subject to payment of Excise Duty, which is governed by Tariffs issued under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 - hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. One of the products manufactured by the petitioners, is a flat product of iron and steel of less than 3 mm in thickness and less than 125 mm. in width. The process by which this product is manufactured is known as 'Hot Rolling'. The manufacture is by using six rolling stands of six passes. Rollers of the first four stands have oval types of groves between the pair of rolls in con...
Oyaldas Topandas Vs. Shrikant Ganpatlal Gupta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1986
Reported in: 1986(3)BomCR152; 1986MhLJ706
H.W. Dhabe, J.1. Parties by Counsel, Rule heard forthwith. The respondent landlord filed an application for fixation of fair rent under Clause 4 and 5 of the C.P. & Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (for short the Rent Control Order). The learned Rent Controlled by his order dated 30-10-1980 fixed the fair rent of the suit premises in accordance with his order. In the appeal preferred by the landlord, the fair rent was enhanced by the appellate authority. The appeal filed by the tenant was dismissed. Being aggrieved, the petitioner tenant has preferred the instant with petition.2. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Omprakash v. Fattelal, : 1986(3)BomCR33 has struck down the Clauses 6, 7 and 7-A of the Rent Control Order on the ground that they are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. After this judgment was delivered, the learned Single Judge of this Court (Puranik. J.) In Writ Petition No. 1701 of 1981 decided on 20-3-1936, Purushottamd...
Altish Bose Vs. East India Hotels Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1986
Reported in: 1986(3)BomCR85
S.C. Pratap, J.1. This is defendant's revision against order passed by the trial Court on plaintiffs' summons for judgment directing the defendant, as a condition of leave to defend the suit, to deposit a sum of Rs. 20,000/-.2. Considering the impugned order in the light of the plaint and the affidavit-in-support of the summons for judgment as also the affidavit-in-reply thereto, there can be no doubt that such a suit cannot be a summary suit at all. More than one triable issue arises in the present suit. This is not a suit based upon any promissory note or a bill of exchange but a suit claiming damages for breach of an agreement, several terms whereof will have to be constructed and interpreted by the Court in the light of the evidence that will be led at the suit. In the circumstances, the defendant is entitled to unconditional leave.Hence Order :3. This revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 29th July, 1985 passed by the trial Court on plaintiffs' summons for Judgment No. 245...
Music India Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1986
Reported in: 1986(25)ELT1032(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. The petitioner No. 1 is a Public Limited Company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act and is engaged in the manufacture of gramophone records and music cassettes. The petitioner No. 1 has a factory at Kandivli in Bombay where gramophone records and music cassettes are manufactured. The gramophone records are liable to excise duty under Tariff Item No. 37A, while music cassettes under Tariff Item No. 59. The petitioners cleared the goods prior to year 1980 after payment of excise duty upon assessable value which was inclusive of post manufacturing expenses. It is the claim of the petitioners that they became aware of the judgment of this Court in the case of Bombay Tyre International Ltd. v. Union of India, 1979 ELT 625 delivered in November 1979 and realised that the assessable value cannot include post manufacturing expenses. On May 27, 1980, the petitioners submitted price list to the Assistant Collector in which the assessable value stated was one determ...
Music India Limited, Shri Ramesh Ambalal Patel Vs. the Union of India ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1986
Reported in: 1988(14)LC475(Bombay)
Pendse, J.1. The petitioner No. 1 is a Public Limited Company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act and is engaged in the manufacture of gramophone records and music cassettes. The petitioner No. 1 has a factory at Kandivli in Bombay where gramophone records and music cassettes are manufactured. The gramophone records are liable to excise duty under Tariff item No. 37A, while music cassettes under Tariff Item No. 59. The petitioners cleared the goods prior to year 1980 after payment of excise duty upon assessable value which was inclusive of post-manufacturing expenses. It is the claim of the petitioners that they became aware of the judgment of this Court in the case of Bombay Tyres International Ltd. v. Union of India 1979 ELT 625:1980 Census 37D delivered in November 1979 and realised that the assessable value cannot include post-manufacturing expenses. On May 27, 1980, the petitioners submitted price list to the Assistant Collector in which the assessable value state...
Sixth Income-tax Officer Vs. I.P. Pereira
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-1986
Reported in: (1986)19ITD266(Mum.)
2. The assessee is an individual who was in the service of B.P. (Indian Agencies) Ltd. He retired after about 29 years of service with effect from 10-4-1977, which falls during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1978-79 under consideration in the present appeal. On retirement, he was entitled to a total pension of Rs. 12,672 per annum.He, however, opted for the service benefit, which, we are given to understand, was three years' salary, which amounted to Rs. 77,760 in lieu of surrender of 5.4 per cent thereof from the pension. The pension was, thus, reduced by 5.4 per cent of Rs. 77,760, i.e., Rs. 4,199 and the reduced pension was only Rs. 8,473 as against Rs. 12,672 earlier.In the salary certificate, which was given by the employer the amount of service benefit of Rs. 77,760 was shown as gratuity and exemption of an amount of Rs. 28,594 was claimed under Section 10(10)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act')- The ITO, however, held that what was received by the as...
Ahmedabad Advance Mills Ltd. and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-1986
Reported in: 1987(11)ECC65
1. Petitioner No. 1 is a company registered under the Companies Act and is engaged in the manufacture of cold rolled high carbon alloy steel and special steel strips in India. The petitioners have set up a factory at Navsari where hot rolled strips in coil from are cold rolled to final gauges as required by the customers. Under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 hot rolled stainless steel strips fall under Tariff Item 73.15(2) and the standard rate of duty is 300% ad valorem. By notification dated January 15, 1982 issued by the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1982, exemption was granted to the import of hot rolled stainless steel coils of a width exceeding 500 mm. when imported into India for cold rolling, from so much of that portion of the duty of customs leviable thereon and specified in the First Schedule as in excess of 100 per cent ad valorem.2. The petitioners imported hot rolled stainless steel strips in coil for...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »