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.
Godrej Soaps Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-1986
Reported in: 1986(10)ECC174; 1986(25)ELT482(Bom)
1. Petitioner No. 1 Godrej Soaps Limited - is a company registered under the Companies Act and inter alia manufactures various types of soaps. By an agreement dated February 26, 1981 entered into with Reckitt & Colman of India Limited, respondent No. 3, the petitioners agreed to manufacture and sale soaps to Reckitt & Colman. The sales were to be effected on principal to principal basis and the manufacture was according to the specifications set out in the schedule to the agreement and production instructions given by the Reckitt & Colman. The purchaser was to supply soap dyes, while the material like soap paste formulations, chemicals etc. was to be procured by the petitioners. The soap to be manufactured by the petitioners had the brand name 'DETTOL'. Delivery of the soaps manufactured by the petitioners was on cash basis. It is not in dispute that the petitioner Company and Reckitt & Colman are two different and independent entities and have no interest in the business of each other...
Putalabai W/O Digamber Gowali and ors. Vs. Tatya Sakharam Dhere and an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)BomCR429
Sharad Manohar, J.1. This second appeal is filed by the original plaintiffs whose suit for possession of the suit land has been decreed by the trial Court but has been dismissed by the District Court in appeal filed by original defendant No. 1.2. The facts are as follow :-The subject matter of the suit is land bearing Block No. 64, in village Arjunsond. The land formerly belonged to one Aba Hawale who died on 20th November, 1959, leaving behind him his widow Sundrabai (plaintiff No. 3) and six daughters. Two of the daughters, Putalabai and Chingubai are plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2. The other four daughter are not parties to the suit and I am required to examine the question as to the effect of their non-joinder in the suit.There is no dispute that after the death of Aba Hawale his widow, present plaintiff No. 3 (appellant No 3 before me), was in possession of the suit land and was managing the same. There is further no dispute that her son- in-law, defendant No. 2, (respondent No. 2 in the...
Wipro Products Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-1986
Reported in: 1986(8)LC665(Bombay)
Pendse, J.1. Wipro Products Limited, the petitioner, is a Company registered under the Companies Act and is a manufacturer of micro processor based system/mini computers. In order to develop and manufacture these articles the petitioner need to import designs and drawings and for which permission has been given. The petitioner company placed an order for supply of designs and drawings with Continental Computer Corporation, United States of America on February 17, 1981. The foreign supplier agreed to supply the drawings and designs on diskettes. The goods were imported by the representative of the petitioner Company by air and reached Bombay Air Port on January 4, 1981. The petitioner filed a Bill of Entry and classified the goods under Tariff Item No. 49.04/06 and requested that the goods should be passed free of payment of any duty.1A. The Collector of Customs by order dated February 6, 1981 held that the Item No. 49.04/06 is not applicable. The Petitioners carried an appeal to the Ce...
Vijay Valia and Etc. Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Etc.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-1986
Reported in: 1988(1)BomCR77; (1986)86BOMLR491; 1987MhLJ49
The provisions of Sections 24(5) and 25(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.Whether an offence is cognizable or non-cognizable, it is an offence against the State. Both the State and a private party have a right to prosecute an offender whether that offence is cognizable or non-cognizable, and the prosecution, whether launched by a private party or the State, is a prosecution on behalf of the State.A combined reading of Sections 24 and 25 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 shows that for conducting prosecutions in all Courts the State is empowered to appoint Public Prosecutors or Additional Public Prosecutors or Special Public Prosecutors while for conducting prosecutions in the Courts of Magistrates, the State is empowered to appoint, in addition, Assistant Public Prosecutors.The Maharashtra Law Officers (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Remuneration) Rules, 1984 provide for the appointment and payment of fees to Pu...
Pan Asia Commercial Enterprises and Another Vs. Union of India and Ano ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-1986
Reported in: 1986(10)ECC49; 1986LC36(Bombay); 1986(25)ELT508(Bom)
1. The petitioner No. 1 is a Partnership firm of which petitioner No. 2 is a partner. The firm is engaged in import of various goods including HDPE i.e. High Density Polyethylene Moulding Powder. The petitioners placed order for import of approximately 450 Metric tonnes of HDPE from M/s. Avin Exports, New York and part of the goods were shipped and arrived at Port of Bombay on March 8, 1982. The petitioners filed the Bill of Entry for clearance of the goods for home consumption. At the time of clearance of the consignments, the petitioners claimed benefit of Exemption Notification dated December 4, 1979 for the purpose of countervailing/additional duty. The Assistant Collector of Customs denied the benefit of the Exemption Notification and levied countervailing duty. The petitioners, feeling aggrieved, has filed present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in this Court on May 25, 1982. The petition was admitted on May 26, 1982 and by interim order, the goods were cl...
Joao Xavier Pinto Vs. Oswald J.C. Velho and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)BomCR113
G.F. Couto, J.1. The petitioner challenges in this petition, the judgement passed in appeal by the third respondent whereby it was held that he has not show sufficient cause and therefore, his eviction of the suit premises had been ordered under section 32(4) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968.2. A few facts may be stated. The respondent No. 1, through his father, entered into an agreement of lease with the petitioner herein on 2nd June, 1969. The rent agreed was of Rs. 200/- per month and the premises were for the commercial purpose of running a barber's shop. The said rent was subject to valuation made by the Revenue Authorities and, accordingly, such valuation was made on 13th August, 1969 and the rent was fixed at Rs. 50/- per month. Inspite of this fixation of the Rent by the Revenue Authorities, the petitioner continued to pay the rent at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month. A new agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the ...
BashiruddIn Khwaja MohiuddIn Vs. Binraj Murlidhar Shop at Malkapur and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Bom235; 1986(3)BomCR590; 1987MhLJ30
V.A. Mohta, J.1. By this Letters Patent Appealunder the provisions of Civil P, C, before amendment of 1976, the judgment of the learned single judge dated 14th/21st July 1967 confirming the judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court for partition and separte possession of 28/288 th shae in field survey No. 187/6 of Mouza Malkapur, has been challenged.2. the suit hads been filed on 30-11-1940 initially claiming relief in respect of filed survey No. 187/2, By various amendments the description of the property and so also the survey number of the filed waschanged from 187/2 to 187/6, on the ground of mutual mistake, Intially the applications for amendment were rejected and shit dismissed. Dismissal was confirmed up to stage of second appeal. However, the amendmants came to be allowed by this Court in a Letters Patent Appeal and matter remended for fresh enquiry (L. P. A. NO. 4 of 1947 decided on 13 the March 1952).3. The trialCourt after remand held ...... issues in favour of the pl...
inspecting Assistant Vs. Jeetendra Kapoor
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-1986
Reported in: (1986)18ITD259(Mum.)
1. In this departmental appeal, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is challenged with reference to the deletion of three amounts. The matter is considered seriatim below.2. The IAC found that the assessee had debited the income and expenditure account with a sum of Rs. 64,649 being interest paid to two parties- Prasad Productions and Shree Laxmi Pictures. The assessee claimed allowance of the interest under Section 80V of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). The IAC disallowed the claim, inter alia, for the reason that the provisions of Section 80V were introduced after 1-4-1976. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the claim restricting it to Rs. 48,487.3. The learned counsel for the department has pointed out that even accepting that the borrowings could be regarded for payment of tax, it was not borrowed during the year of account. The money was borrowed earlier and continued to be utilised by the assessee. The dates of the loans were 3-12-1971 and 4-12-71. It was for the asses...
Rameshchandra Jamnadas and Co. Vs. Terene Traders and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-1986
Reported in: 1986(3)BomCR406; (1986)88BOMLR427
V.V. Vaze, J.1. History's most grand lose accomplishments can have the most banal of origins. Sagacity and foresight of many a captains is industry combined to put Bombay on the map of India as its industrial capital. The pioneers of Mulji Jetha Market, the hub of the whole-sale business in India can justifiably take pride in their contribution to the economic prosperity of Bombay. More than a century ago, i.e. on 20th July, 1871, the New Piece Goods Bazar Company Limited was incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1866, as a limited Company with an authorised capital of Rs. 7,20,000/- which was raised to one Crore of rupees after 102 years i.e. in 1968. The object for which the Company was established, were, inter alia, to acquire specified lands, buildings at Sheikh Memon Street, Khutterwady Lane, Ganeshwadi Lane, Fazendaree land to erect or construct new houses, warehouses, shops, offices and other buildings. The statement of objects puts it modestly that the aim of the promote...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›