Mumbai Court August 1986 Judgments
Sukar Naran Vs. Collector of Customs and Central
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-1986
Reported in: (1986)LC574Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Shri Sukar Naran has filed an appeal dated 8-12-1980 to the Government under old Section 80 of the Gold (Control) Act against the Order No. XVII/8-11/OA/71/PT-II dated 30-8-80 of the Collector of Customs & Central Excise, Ahmedabad imposing on him a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- under Section 74 of the Gold (Control) Act 1968. This appeal has been transferred to the Tribunal under Section 82K of the Gold (Control) Act and it has to be treated as an appeal before it.2. The brief facts of the case are that the Naval vessel INS Brahmputtra intercepted one vessel "Jalaram Vishwas" bearing Registration No. 70/70 of Dubai on 16-2-71 off the Veraval Coast. On questioning the crew members, it was revealed that Jalaram Vishwas carried contraband goods from Dubai for being landed at Daman in India.Accordingly the INS Brahmputtra took charge of the Jalaram Vishwas and brought it to Veraval and handed over the vessel and the crew members to Veraval Customs authorities. The Veraval Customs off...
Tag this Judgment!Hanuman VitamIn Foods Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-1986
Reported in: 1986LC553(Bombay); 1987(32)ELT376(Bom)
ORDERKania, C.J.1. Appeal admitted.2. Respondent, except Respondent No. 3, waive service of Appeal, Respondent No. 3 only a formal party.3. Same Appearances.4. By consent, appeal placed on board and called out.5. It is an undisputed position that the Appellate Tribunal has proceed on the basis that the regulations in question were consumer goods and hence it was not permissible to import such goods under O. G. L. (Open General Licence). This point was neither raised before the Tribunal not raised in the grounds of Appeal before the Tribunal. It is on this point that the Tribunal has decided against the appellants. Rule 10 of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982 read with the proviso thereto provides that the Tribunal cannot rest its decision on a ground not set out on the Memorandum of Appeal except where the other party had a sufficient opportunity of meeting that ground. In view of this, the order of the Tribunal is clearly bad and is liab...
Tag this Judgment!Vidarbha (Rent Contorl) Bhadekaru Sangh, Akola and anr. Etc. Vs. State ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-1986
Reported in: 1986MhLJ882
Deshpande, J.1. In Writ Petition No. 1670 of 1950 the rule is restricted to the prayer for a direction torespondent No. 1 to enact a uniform Rent Control Legislation throughout the State of Maharashtra and striking down the Notification dated October 24, 1968 whereby house used the nonresidential purposes constructed on a site lying vacact on the 1st day of Janauary, 1967, or on a site made vacate after that date by demolition of any structure standing thereon, is emempted from the provisions of te C, P. and Berar Letting Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949: and non-residential premises construced before the1st day January, 1967, have beenexexpted from the provisions of Chapter-III of the said Order.2. In Writ Petition o. 1695 of 1985, the petitioner seeks a writ striking down the provisinos of Chapter III of the C. P. and Berar Letting Of Houses and rentControl Order .............. under the C,P. and Berar.3. In Writ Petition No. 1671 of 1985, petitioner No.1 is a Society registered u...
Tag this Judgment!Hiralal S/O Bagmal Bhandari Vs. Bhagirathibai Wd/O Hartibakas Agarwal ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)BomCR67; 1986MhLJ925
M.S. Deshpande, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution for striking down the provisions of Clause 21-A of the C.P. & Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 for short, 'the Rent Control Order'), and the notification dated May 7, 1984, issued by the respondent No. 4 investing the Deputy Collector and special Land Acquisition Officer (General), Akola, with the powers of a Collector under Clause 21 of the Rent Control Order, and directing the Collector to hear the appeal filed by the respondent No. 1 against the order passed by the Rent Controller under Clauses 13(3)(vi) & (vii) of the Rent Control Order.2. The petitioner is the tenant of the respondent No. 1 at Rs. 50/- per month in a house situated in old Bhaji Bazar at Akola. Respondent No. 1 filed an application under Clause 13(3)(vi) & (vii) of the Rent Control order before the Rent Controller. The application was opposed by the petitioner and came to be dismissed. Respon...
Tag this Judgment!Bhivraj Son of Kundanmal and anr. Vs. Ravindra Nagreshwar Mamidwar and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-1986
Reported in: 1986(3)BomCR284
H.W. Dhabe, J.1. These two criminal application filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the 'Code') can be disposed of by this common judgment.2. Briefly the facts are that according to the complainant - respondent No. 1 the suit truck was purchased by him for a consideration of Rs. 75,000/- from one Syed Hussain Syed Khwajasaheb, resident of Degloor, district Nanded. According to him the purchase price was to be paid to two instalments; one instalment of Rs. 30,000/- to be paid on 2-7-1983 and another instalment of Rs. 45,000/- to be paid on 20-10-1983. Further according o the complainant the possession of the vehicle was delivered to him on 2-7-1983. It is the case of the complainant that be obtained a loan of Rs. 45,000/- from the M.S. Finance Corporation, Hyderabad under which it was agreed that the loan amount should be paid in instalments of Rs. 3,500/- per month inclusive of interest payable on the said loan. However, according to him, he fell in arr...
Tag this Judgment!Pramod Son of Laxmikant Sisamkar and Uday Narayanrao Kirpekar Vs. Garw ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-1986
Reported in: 1986(3)BomCR411
H.W. Dhabe, J.1. These are two criminal writ petitions which can conveniently be disposed by this common judgment.2. The petitioners in these two writ petitions are engineering graduates, who were employed in the respondent No.1 Company. It may be stated that the petitioners have qualified themselves in Instrumentation Engineering. There are common terms and conditions of service in the company and it appears that at the time of appointment, the candidates are required to enter into an agreement of service on the basis of the said terms and conditions. The petitioners were initially appointed for a period of 3 years whereafter their period of service was extended by further period of 3 years. However, before the completion of the extended period of 3 years, they left their service and joined some other company.3. The respondent No. 1 Company filed the instant complaint cases against them on the ground that the petitioners left the service in contravention of the terms and conditions of...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. V.R. Nimbkar
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-1986
Reported in: (1986)19ITD714(Mum.)
2. The assessee is a HUF and the appeal relates to the assessment year 1977-78. For this assessment year, the assessee incurred a loss of Rs. 3,750 on sale of Poona Industrial Hotel, which was a short-term capital asset. This loss under the head 'Capital gains' arising from the transfer of a short-term capital asset (short-term capital loss) was sought by the assessee to be set off against income from dividend, etc., instead of against the income arising from sale of long-term capital assets (long-term capital gains) amounting to Rs. 27,295. The ITO, however, set off the short-term capital loss of Rs. 3,750 against the long-term capital gains of Rs. 27,295 instead of against the income from dividends, etc., while completing the assessment. On appeal, the AAC directed that the assessee should not be denied the option to set off the short-term capital loss of Rs. 3,750 against the income from sources other than long-term capital gains, i.e., dividends, etc. The result was that the incom...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Govind Gaikar and anr. Vs. Manoharlal D. Rupani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)BomCR419
A.D. Tated, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 2nd November, 1981 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Bombay, on Notice of Motion No. 737 of 1981 dated 12th February, 1981 taken out by the plaintiff in S.C. Suit No. 691 of 1981.2. The respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff') filed S.C. Suit No. 691 in the Bombay, City Civil Court against the appellants (hereinafter referred to as 'the Defendants') for specific performance of an agreement dated 23rd January, 1978 whereby the defendant No. 1 is alleged to have agreed to sell 224 square yards of land out of Survey No. 357 situate at Sindhi Society, 8th Road, Chembur, Bombay 400071. The plaintiff averred that the defendant No. 1 agreed to sell the suit land admeasuring 224 square yards marked in red boundary on the sketch, annexed to the plaint and market Exhibit 'B', to him for Rs. 9,000/- and that he received Rs. 4,500/- and the remaining consideration was to be paid by the plaintiff to the 1st...
Tag this Judgment!Central Board of Direct Taxes and Others Vs. Aditya V. Birla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-1986
Reported in: [1988]170ITR136(Bom)
ORDER1. Mr. Parekh fairly states that the only ground on which the agreement has been disapproved by the Government is that the applicant was not in the service of a foreign employer as such and hence Messrs. Thai Rayon Co. Ltd. could not be regarded as an employer of the applicant. A perusal of section 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and particularly clauses (7) and (8) thereof shows that where the intention of the law-makers was to refer to income chargeable under the head 'Salary', that has been expressly so stated in the relevant provision itself. In view of the absence of any such words in section 80RRA of the Act, it cannot be said that what the section contemplates is only an amount received by an Indian assessee from a foreign employer as salary. In view of this, we agree with the reasoning and conclusions of the learned trial judge.2. Appeal dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Shridhar Waman Surushe Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)BomCR533; 1986MhLJ942
G.G. Loney, J.1 Scope of recalling and re-examination of a witness under the provisions of section 311, Cri.P.C. arise for consideration in this criminal application.2. The applicant has approached this Court against an order dated 11-9-1985 passed by the J.M.F.C., Buldana in Criminal Case No. 81 R/83 granting permission to the complainant to recall and re-examine her in her complaint case against her husband under section 494 I.P.C.3. The relevant facts are that Narmada filed a complaint case against Shridhar and 21 others for an offence under section 494 read with section 34, I.P.C. She alleged that she is the legally wedded wife of Shridhar and during the subsistence of their first marriage, Shridhar performed second marriage with accused No. 16. She further alleged that the other accused person abetted the offence by bringing about the second marriage. It is her case that after her marriage with Shridhar in February, 1972, she was deserted for some time and there were certain legal...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »