Mumbai Court August 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.
Nisha Chandrashekhar Khobragade Vs. Chandrashekhar Gopichand Khobragad ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-1986
Reported in: 1986(3)BomCR742; 1987MhLJ63
M.S. Deshpande, J.1. This revision application is directed against the order passed by the trial Court, refusing to record a compromise between the parties because it did not come within the provisions of section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act.2. The present applicant-wife had filed a petition under section 13(1)(i)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act for a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. The husband-present respondent also filed a petition under section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act for a decree of divorce on the ground that the wife had treated him with cruelty.3. On 12th March, 1986, the parties filed an application stating that without going into the correctness or otherwise of the allegations made by either of them, it was evident that the marriage had irretrievably broken down and they cannot live under one roof and so the marriage should be dissolved by a decree of divorce. Without prejudice to the wife's claim for alimony pendente lite or permanent, the trial Court held ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Jayantilal Harakhchand and Co.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-1986
Reported in: (1987)(27)ELT96Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The Collector of Central Excise, Baroda, has filed this appeal under Section 35B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, against the Order No. V-2(19)2290/82, dated 16-5-83 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, under which he allowed the first appeal of the Respondents for the refund of handloom cess and interest on the amount of duty on cotton yarn consumed in the manufacture of cotton fabrics used in the manufacture of cotton napkins which were ultimately exported out of India. In the appeal, the Collector of Central Excise, Baroda, has contended that in Section 3 of the Khadi and Other Handloom Industries Development (Additional Excise Duty on Cloth) Act, 1953, there is no provision for refund of duty. The proviso under the Section contemplates exemption from the levy of the handloom cess, but not the refund once the cess is collected. As regards the refund of the interest on the duty on the yarn used in the manufacture of fabrics which were further con...
Narotamdas Trikamdas Toprani Vs. Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. L ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-1986
Reported in: (1986)88BOMLR649; [1990]68CompCas300(Bom)
1. The plaintiff is a debenture-holder in the Bombay Dyeing and Mfg Co. Ltd., the first defendant herein. He has filed the present suit on behalf of himself and other debenture-holders of the first and third series of debentures for a declaration that the first defendant company is not entitled to issue the proposed debentures pursuant to a letter of offer dated May 5, 1986, ranking pari passu with the debentures of the first, second and third series of debentures already issued by the first defendant company, and is not entitled to secure the said issue by a first mortgage on the fixed assets of the first defendant company. The plaintiff has prayed that the first defendant company should be permanently restrained from issuing any debentures pursuant to the letter of offer dated May 5, 1986. He has also prayed that the first defendant company should be ordered to repay all application monies received by the first defendant company in respect of the proposed new debenture issue. The pla...
Joaquim Mascarenhas Fiuza Vs. Smt. Jaime Rebello and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-1986
Reported in: 1986(3)BomCR236; [1989]66CompCas349(Bom); 1990(27)ECC20
Dr. G.F. Couto, J.1. The petitioner is a foreign national and not a citizen of India. He challenges the judgment dated January 28, 1986, passed by the learned District Judge, South Goa, confirming the order dated December 24, 1984, made by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Margao, dismissing the application for injunction filed by him.2. The petitioner filed a suit seeking mandatory and perpetual injunctions against the respondents herein on the grounds that he is the co-owner in possession of the property known as 'Govuncatem ' and that the first respondent started laying foundation for a construction on the said property without any right thereto. The suit so filed was resisted by the respondents on several grounds, namely, on the ground that the plaintiff is not a citizen of India and as such, he cannot hold or acquire any immovable property in India unless he had obtained or is deemed to have obtained permission from the according to the respondents, the plaintiff/petitioner could ...
Dharmaji Krishnaji Sonavane Vs. K.A. Parmar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-1986
Reported in: 1986(3)BomCR713; (1987)89BOMLR31
V.S. Kotwal, J.1. Heard Shri C.A. Phadkar and Shri R.S. Deshmukh, the learned Counsel for both the sides.Rule.Parties agree to argue the rule immediately. Shri Deshmukh, the learned Counsel for the respondent waives service. Rule is, therefore, being disposed of finally by consent.2. Shop premises located in Parkar's Chawl in Dharavi area of this metropolis is owned by the petitioner herein and which was rented out to the respondent creating monthly tenancy on the monthly rental of Rs. 12.63. The respondent, as per the landlord is a persistent defaulter in the matter of payment of rent which gave rise to ejectment suit in the year 1979 which however, was settled between the parties. Instead of that, according to the landlord, the same petition of default was repeated on account of which the petitioner-landlord issued notice to the respondent tenant on December 20, 1980 inter alia alleging that the tenant has been in rental arrears for more than six months in between 1st January, 1980 a...
Bajaj Plastics Limited Vs. the Collector, Central Excise and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-1986
Reported in: 1986(10)ECC338
V.A. Mohta, J.1. M/s. Bajaj plastics Limited, a public limited company, engaged in the production of high density polyethylene powder, fabrics and bags, has by this writ petition challenged the validity of, the three communications, Annexure 'C' dated 27th February, 1981, Annexure 'E' dated 6th March, 1981 and Annexure 'H' dated 16th March, 1981 issued by the Collector, Central Excise and the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Division No. 1, Nagpur. By these communications the facility of storing imported raw material in a private bonded warehouse of the petitioner situated within the factory premises, granted under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962 ('the Act') has been withdrawn. 2. The factory is situated in an 'industrial area' within meaning of Section 2(g) of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961, at a distance of about 8 kilometres from the Corporation limits of the city of Nagpur. The petitioner requires high density polyethylene moulding powder and low density m...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Reliance Textiles Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1986
Reported in: (1986)(10)ECC71
1. The appeal arises out of the order bearing No. M-709/TH-114/85 dated 2-5-1985 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.2. The cross objections are not cross objections in the eyes of law. No relief, as such, is claimed. It contains the arguments of the Respondent in the above appeal as to why the appeal should not be allowed. As a matter of fact, Shri Nariman did not contend that cross-objections filed by the Respondent in the appeal are cross-objections in the eyes of law, or that any order is required to be passed on the cross objections.3. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal may be stated as under:- The Respondent M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd. (for short The Reliance) have their factory at Patelganga, District Raigad, Maharashtra holding a Central Excise Licence L-4 dated 6-7-1982 for the manufacture of polyester filament yarn falling under Tariff Item No. 18 of the Central Excise Tariff. The Asstt. Collector, Central Excise, Kalyan Divisi...
Kamani Engineering Corporation Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-1986
Reported in: (1987)(30)ELT482Tri(Mum.)bai
1. M/s. Kamani Engineering Corporation Limited filed an application dated 18-11-1980 to the Govern- ment of India under old Section 131 of the Customs Act and this has been transferred to the Tribunal under Section 131-B ibid and is to be treated as an appeal before the Tribunal. The appeal is against the order No. SG/79/74-A / S/19-142/74-LBIIB, dated 15-11-1975 passed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay as confirmed by Order No. 29 of 1980 under F.No, 381/69/77-Cus.II(A), dated 31-3-1980 of the Central Board of Excise and Customs, under which a fine of Rs 6 lakhs was imposed in lieu of confiscation of a consignment of brandy concentrate imported in 42 fus under B/E No. 246PE per s.s. Oceanfels valued at Rs. 96,539/-c.i.f. for contravention of Import Trade Control Regulations.2. Appearing on behalf of the Appellants, Advocate Shri Taleyarkhan submitted that the consignment in question was imported by the Appellants under the licence for "brandy concentrate" issued to the Appellants' ...
Collector of Customs and Central Vs. Shri Naginkumar Mamaiyabhai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-1986
Reported in: (1987)(13)LC329Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The Collector of Customs & Central Excise Rajkot has filed this application under Section 82B of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 to refer to the Hon. Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad, the point of law which has arisen out of the order of the Tribunal No. 1236/85WRB dated 11.10.1985, in the appeal of Shri Naginkumar Mamaiyabhai Jagda registered under G.C. (BOM) A No. 121/85. Under aforesaid order this Bench directed that the appeal of Shri Naginkumar Mamaiyabhai Jagda be heard and disposed of by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) as the order under which Shri Naginkumar felt aggrieved was passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Rajkot. The Tribunal had held in earlier similar cases that an appeal against the Additional Collector's order in such circumstances would lie to the Collector (Appeals) and not to the Tribunal. Hence the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in the order dated 11.10.1985 was in keeping with identical orders in the past.2. On behalf of the applican...
income-tax Officer Vs. India Photographic Co. Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-1986
Reported in: (1987)20ITD89(Mum.)
1. The assessee-company deals in photographic films and materials. The relevant account year ended 31-10-1979.2. The ITO disallowed under Section 40A(5)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') Rs. 81,802 under Sub-clause (i) and Rs. 64,391 under Sub-clause (ii). He treated the medical expenses reimbursed by the assessee-company to its employees as part of the employees' salaries as per directions of the IAC.3. The Commissioner (Appeals), however, observed that the ITO had treated the reimbursement of medical expenses to the employees by the assessee-company as perquisites and that the said action of the ITO was wrong because any cash payment cannot be treated as perquisite. He relied on the Tribunal Bombay's order in the case of Glaxo Laboratories (India) Ltd. v. Second ITO [1986] 18 ITD 226 (SB), [details not given in Commissioner (Appeals)'s order] for coming to the said finding. He accordingly deleted Rs. 10,806.4. We have already noted above that the ITO has treated reimburseme...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »