Mumbai Court October 1987 Judgments
State of Maharashtra Vs. Shivji and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-30-1987
Reported in: [1990]68CompCas246(Bom)
V.A. Mohta, J.1. This an order of acquittal from an offence of promoting a 'prize chit' in contravention of section 3 and punishable under section 4 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 ('the Act'), the State has filed the present appeal with leave under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The complainant, H. R. Pahuja, at whose instance the police machinery was moved, has also filed a criminal revision. Both the matters are heard together.2. The basic facts are not in dispute. The firm, Ganesh Traders (described as 'the company') sponsored a gift scheme for getting a Rajdoot motor cycle. Eleven ingredients and conditions of the scheme printed overleaf the application form for membership are : (i) the membership fee will be Rs. 11 and each group shall consists of 200 members; (ii) every member will have to deposit a sum of Rs. 330 per months for a period of 30 months; (iii) instalments will have to be deposited in the office every month between...
Tag this Judgment!J.K. Synthetics Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-29-1987
Reported in: (1988)(34)ELT693Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against Order No.S/49-295/83R dated 18.3.83 passed by the Appellant Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay.2. When this appeal was taken up for consideration none represented the appellants. I have considered the appeal memo and heard Shri Prabhu.The undisputed facts are : that the Customs Authorities collected Rs.92,395.51 in excess of the duty payable by the appellants in respect of certain imports affected by them. It appears that during the audit, the audit party pointed out to the customs authority regarding the excess collection. By reason of the audit objection the Assistant Collector by his letter No. nil dated 27.11.82 informed that appellant to claim refund of Rs.92,395.51 which was the excess duty collected.Accordingly the appellants made an application claiming refund of the said amount. Strangely that application was rejected by the Asst.Collector holding that refund claim was barred by time as the same having not been made wit...
Tag this Judgment!The Employees' State Insurance Corpn. Vs. Fariyaz Hotels Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-29-1987
Reported in: (1987)89BOMLR571; (1989)ILLJ356Bom
Pendse, J.1. Fariyaz Hotels Private Limited are a Private Limited Company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and one of its Directors is Hosang Bamanshaw Mistry. The Company owns a hotel known as 'Fariyaz Hotels' situate at 25, Off Arthur Bunder Road, Colaba, Bombay and the hotel consists of a restaurant and two bars. About 175 persons are employed in the hotel, and in the kitchen which is situate on the First Floor of the Hotel, about 41 persons are working. On August 13, 1970, the Regional Director of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation informed the Company that the kitchen attached to the hotel and the restaurant stood covered under the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') with effect from July 1, 1970 and the Company should furnish the requisite information in the prescribed form. Certain correspondence transpired between the Company and the Regional Director, the Company asserting that the kitc...
Tag this Judgment!Ramrao Sitaram Kadam and ors. Vs. District Deputy Registrar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-29-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)BomCR600
C.S. Dharmadhikari Acg. C.J.1. In this petition, the order issued by the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Nanded under section 44 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred as the Act) for the bifurcation of the Market Committee, Hadgaon, dated 9th April, 1984, is challenged on various grounds. One of the contentions raised is that before issuing the notification for the bifurcation of the market committee into two market committees for the marked area, the federation of the market committees i.e. Krushi Bazar Utpan Samiti Sangh, Pune was not consulted, which is a must. Since this mandatory provision was not followed or complied with, under notification issued is ab initio void. The notification is also challenged on the ground that it has been issued in colourable exercise of powers and, therefore, on that count also it is illegal. The notification is also challenged on some other grounds. However, in our view it is...
Tag this Judgment!Kerbaji Marotirao Shinde Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-29-1987
Reported in: (1988)90BOMLR35; 1988MhLJ157
C.S. Dharmadhikari, A.C.J.1. The petitioner was elected as a Chairman of Harbal Seva Sahakari Society in the election held on 15th of August, 198L for a term of three years. He was also elected as a Director of Kandhar Taluka Shetkari Sahakari Kharedi Vikri Sangh in the year 1982 for a term of rive-years. The petitioner had taken loan from respondent No. 5 -- the Maharashtra State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd. for purchase of electric motor in the year 1971 which was re-payable in 10 yearly instalments. According to the petitioner the last such instalment was due in the year 1981-82. In the year 1973 he again took a loan of Rs. 6,300/- for construction of a. well and this loan was also re-payable in 10 equal instalments within a period of 10 years and last such instalment will become due in the year 1987-88. It is his case that earlier loan of Rs. 3,000/- was paid back within the period of 10 years and he was paying the instalments regularly. Petitioner is also a shareholder ...
Tag this Judgment!Nav Bharat Corporation (a/C. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-28-1987
Reported in: (1989)(22)LC562Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appeal filed before the Central Board of Excise & Customs against the Order No. S/10- 121/81B dated 9.11.1981 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay statutorily stood transferred to the Tribunal.2. When this appeal was taken up for consideration Shri Punwani made a prayer for adjournment in order to file certain documents. At this stage it was pointed out to Shri Punwani that even according to the averments contained in the appeal memorandum the appeal before the Board was barred by limitation and therefore no useful purpose would be served by acceding to his request.3. The Addl. Collector's order though dated 9.11.1981 it was despatched on 13.1.1982. At the relevant time the appeal to the Board was required to be filed within a period of three months, from the date of communication of the order. But then, the appeal was received by the Board on 31st July, 1982 after a period of more than six months. In their memorandum of appeal the appellant did not contend...
Tag this Judgment!JaIn Shudh Vanaspati Limited Vs. S.R. Patankar, Asstt. Collector of Cu ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-28-1987
Reported in: 1988(15)ECC180
Pendse, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the original petitioners against the judgment dated September 20, 1982 delivered by the learned single Judge in Miscellaneous Petition No. 602 of 1979 declining the relief sought by the appellants for direction to the respondents to cancel six assessment orders passed on March 13, 1979 subjecting the import of goods to Customs duty. The facts which gave rise to filing of the petition are not in dispute and are required to be briefly stated to appreciate the grievance of the appellants.2. The petitioner is a public limited company and carries on business of manufacture and sale of refined and hydrogenated oil, soaps and gas. The Government of India notified the import policy for April 1978 - March 1979 and import of various items under the Open General Licence was permitted subject to conditions governing importation thereof. One of the item permitted to be imported under the O.G.L. was palm oil. The Government of India, Ministry of Commerce, ...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Barrel and Drum Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. R.B. Said, R ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-28-1987
Reported in: 1989(20)ECC125; 1988(36)ELT99(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by Bharat Barrel Drum . against the order dated August 25, 1982 passed by Mrs. Justice Manohar declining to grant interim relief to the appellants during pendency of Write Petition No. 1643 of 1982. The appellants instituted petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to withdraw notice dated August 3, 1982 and the certificate issued by respondents Nos. 3 to 5. Only few facts are required to be stated to appreciate the claim of the appellants.2. In the year 1955 the appellants purchased a dyeing and bleaching mills in auction and the same was let out to respondent No. 6, M/s. Jalan Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd., which is a sister concern of appellant No. 1. Respondent No. 6 carried on business of processing of the unit in the name 'Jalan Dyeing and Bleaching Mills'. Respondent No. 6 was carrying on business from the year 1955 till the year 1970 and in respect of the business a large li...
Tag this Judgment!Habibulla Saudagar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-28-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)BomCR11; 1988MhLJ285
V.P. Tipnis, J.1. Rule, Shri Vyas, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State, waives service of the rule. By consent, rule heard forthwith.2. This is an application for releasing the petitioner on bail. The petitioner was arrested on 12th July, 1987, in connection with an offence registered at the Dahanu Police Station at C.R. No. 145/87 under sections 302, 307, 147, 148, 149 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The F.I.R. on the basis of which the crime was registered was filed by one Pralhad Shriniwas Kamat on 11th July, 1987 alleging that his elder brother Balu alias Ramchandra Kamat was assaulted by a mob of about 70 to 80 Muslims near the shop of one Intwala Tailor and that said Balu succumbed to the injuries sustained in the said concerted attack.3. As mentioned earlier, the petitioner was arrested on 12th July, 1987. Ninety days of his detention were completed on 10th October, 1987, which was a second Saturday, 11th October was Sunday. On 12th October, 1987, which was Monday, the...
Tag this Judgment!B.S. Mahajan Since Deceased by His Heirs and Legal Representatives Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-28-1987
Reported in: 1988(3)BomCR535
M.P. Kenia, J.1. This is a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash and set aside the judgment and decree passed on the 21st of October, 1985 by the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Cause at Bombay in Appeal No. 30 of 1079. The brief facts leading up to the present petition may be stated as under :---2. One Shamrao Mahajan was the owner of the property known as 'Sita Niwas' at Vallabhbhai Patel Road, Vile Parle (West), Bombay 400 056. He was on friendly terms with one Raisi Mistry and Sometime in the year 1941, the said Shamrao created a tenancy in respect of a two-room premises on the northern side, on the ground floor in the aforesaid building Sita Niwas, the exact date not being known to any of the parties. The exact purpose for which the suit premises was let out has not clearly been established but it appears that the same was let out for the purpose of office-cum-godown as will appear herein below. The said Shamrao Mahajan passed away on ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »