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.
Parle Products Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-1986
Reported in: 1988(15)ECC353; 1987(30)ELT180(Bom)
1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for setting aside the assessment orders issued from March 1968 to June 1977 levying and collecting excise duty on lozenges, a product which is manufactured by the first petitioner, which is a limited company. The second petitioner is a director and shareholder of the first petitioner. The first respondent is the Union of India while the second respondent is the Assistant Collector of Central Excise who has passed the orders which are impugned in this petition.2. On 1st of March 1968 item 1-A was inserted in the Excise Tariff. That item included, among other things, an article known as candy. The first petitioner, hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner', manufactures, among other things, what are called lozenges. The question naturally arose whether lozenges were covered by the word 'candy' which was mentioned in item 1-A of the Excise Tariff. By his order dated 13th of March 1968 the Assistant Collector of...
Airlines CabIn Crew Association Vs. Indian Airlines Corporation and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-1986
Reported in: (1987)ILLJ285Bom
1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are seeking following reliefs :(a) The respondent No. 1 Corporation be restrained from enforcing the terms and conditions of service under the settlement dated March 8, 1982 against the Cabin Crew who are members of the petitioners, and(b) direction to respondent No. 1 Corporation to continue to pay to the Cabin Crew, who are members of the petitioners, wages, dearness allowance and other service conditions and benefits strictly in accordance with the agreements or settlement in operation prior to March 8, 1982.A few facts giving rise to the filing of this petition are required to be stated to appreciate the grievance of the petitioners.2. Respondent No. 2, Air Corporation Employees' Union-is a Trade Union registered under the Trade Unions Act and represent the employees of the Corporation. The petitioner Airlines Cabin Crew decided to form an association of Cabin Crew members in the service of th...
Dinkar Shankar Pawar Vs. the Elphinstone Spg. and Wvg. Mills Co. and a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-1986
Reported in: (1995)IIILLJ641Bom
Pendse, J. 1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the legality of order dated March 31, 1982 passed by the Industrial Court, Bombay and appellate authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') confirming the order dated June 18, 1981 passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Section 4 of the Act. A few facts which gave rise to the filing of the application are as follows:2. The petitioner joined the service of respondent No. 1 Mill as Jobber in Nov., 1958. On Dec. 28, 1971, the petitioner claims that he suffered injury while carrying out his job. According to the petitioner, he left Bombay and went to his native place and stayed there for a period of 15 months. The petitioner returned back for duty on March 29, 1973 and was employed as Badli Worker. On April 1, 1974 the petitioner was made permane...
Rathi Alloys and Steel Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-1986
Reported in: 1988(16)ECC243; 1987(28)ELT201(Bom)
1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are complaining about the levy of custom duty and additional duty in respect of import of stainless/steel ingots/billets and the complaint is based upon the advantage conferred by notification dated July 15, 1977 exempting the import from payment of custom duty. It is not necessary to set out the facts in detail as by mentioning only a few dates, it would be clear that the claim of the petitioners is entirely unsustainable.2. On July 15, 1977, in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Customs Act, the Central Government directed that melting scrap of iron and steel when imported would not be liable to payment of Customs duty. By another notification of the same date, the import of melting scrap of iron and steel was exempted from payment of additional duty. These two notifications were to remain in force upto and inclusive of March 31, 1982. On February 28, 1982, the ...
Chimaji Vithoba Gadge Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-1986
Reported in: (1986)LC650Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the order No.VIII(b) 10(117)Cus/85 dated 8.1.86 passed by the Addl. Collector of Customs (P), Marine & Preventive Wing, Bombay.2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are set out in the order of the Addl. Collector and have not been disputed. The Customs (Prev) Division, Alibag on 20.9.1985 were on their job to work out information regarding smuggling of goods of foreign origin. When they were near Kolad on Rohakolad Road they noticed a truck bearing No.MTT-3330 coming from Roha side. Suspecting the said truck, the officers gave signals to the truck to stop, but the driver ignored the signals who tried to escape from, the scene. Therefore, the officers chased the said truck and intercepted it after sometime. Since the driver could not offer any satisfactory explanation as to the purpose of his visit, the officials detained the truck and brought it to Alibag Customs Office alongwith the three occupants and then sei...
Mrs. Dolly J. Irani Vs. Seventh Asstt. Controller of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-1986
Reported in: (1986)19ITD121(Mum.)
1. This appeal is by the accountable person. The name of the deceased is Shri Rustom B. Najmi. He died on 15-9-1971. The deceased and one Shri Jehangir Irani were together tenants of certain premises situate at 'Dady House' Veer Nariman Road, Bombay. Shri Jehangir Irani shall hereafter be referred to as 'co-tenant'. The rent payable to the owner of the premises was Rs. 809.80 per month at earlier stage. The assessee and his co-tenant sublet the said premises to Raymond Mills Ltd. with effect from 26-9-1969, for a period of ten years on rent of Rs. 5,000 per month. This rent has been described as compensation in the indenture executed on 4-11-1969 in connection with this transaction.The subletting had been effected after obtaining prior permission of the owner of the premises. The permission was given by the owner on the condition that the deceased and the co-tenant agreed to pay Rs. 1,619.60 per month as rent in place of Rs. 809.60 which was payable earlier. This condition was accepte...
B.D. Fibre Enterprises Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-1986
Reported in: (1986)19ITD427(Mum.)
1. The appellant in these two appeals is a trust. As many as 13 common grounds of appeal have been urged but the gist of these grounds is aimed at assailing the order of the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). As these appeals are filed against a consolidated order of the Commissioner for both years we also propose to pass a common order for the sake of convenience, 2. The trust under consideration, namely, B.D. Fibre Enterprise ('master trust') came into existence vide trust deed dated 25-5-1980.The settlor was one Shri Bhogilal Ranchhodlal Patel who settled upon trust a sum of Rs. 10,000 and the three trustees were : (1) Shri Baldevbhai Dosabhai Patel, (2) Shri Bhailal Bhai Baldevbhai Patel, and (3) Shri Parvinchandra Baldevbhai Patel. The trust deed further provided for 100 beneficiaries, each of whom was again a trust ('subsidiary trust'). Each of these trusts was represented in the 'master trust' through a trustee. It was further provided in th...
Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-1986
Reported in: 1986LC511(Bombay); 1986(26)ELT504(Bom)
Singla, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Collector, Central Excise & Customs (hereinafter referred to as the 'Collector'), dated 12th March, 1982 passed under Section 35A of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').2. Petitioner No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the 'assessee'), a company inter alia manufactures internal combustion engines falling under Tariff Item No. 29. Its sales are mostly through the five regional distributors :(1) Parry & Co. Ltd., Madras (2) Meera & Co., Ludhiana (3) Meera Sales Corporation, Karad (4) U.P. Sales and Services Ltd., Kanpur (5) Kirloskar Brothers Ltd., Pune.Its branch office 'Koel Sales and Service' has also operated as a regional distributor. The distributorship is given under the agreements which are identical. It is common ground that if the aforesaid distributors fall in the category 'related person' within the meaning of Section 4(4)(c) of the...
Xoc Malik Bepari Vs. Josefato Francisco Pinto and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-1986
Reported in: 1986(3)BomCR527
G.F. Couto, J.1. The petitioner challenges in this writ petition the judgment dated 26th July, 1985, passed by the second and third respondent as Members of the Administrative Tribunal, Goa, Daman & Diu, ordering his eviction from the premises occupied by him in a building belonging to the first respondent.2. The petitioner is occupying the said premises on the basis of a lease agreement entered into by him with the first respondent. The demise premises were given on lease for residential purposes, but it seems that right from beginning, the said premises had been used for a different purpose, namely, as a cattle shed. It appears that the first respondent decided to demolish the said building and erect therein a new construction and, therefore, served, a notice on the petitioner to vacate the demise premises. A dispute arose between the petitioner and the first respondent, and therefore, eviction proceedings were instituted against the petitioner on several grounds, and inter alia, on ...
Shaw Wallace and Co. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector of Customs and Other ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-1986
Reported in: 1987(3)BomCR151; 1986(10)ECC191; 1988(18)LC384(Bombay); 1986(25)ELT948(Bom)
1. These two petitions and several other companion petitions are placed before me for final hearing and Shri Venkiteswaran, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Shri Bulchandani, learned counsel appearing for the Collector of Customs, and Shri Makhija, learned counsel appearing for the Bombay Port Trust, informed me that apart from considering the validity of the order passed by the Collector of Customs levying penalty under Section 116 of the Customs Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), it is necessary to provide guide-lines in respect of steps to be taken by the ship-owners, by Bombay Port Trust authorities and Collector of Customs so as to avoid daily friction and uneasy feeling and levy of penalties without proper application of mind or without giving enough opportunitie. In view of the fact that large question is involved in this group of petitions, I heard two petitions at great length and, therefore, it would be convenient to deliver main judgment in th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »