Mumbai Court October 1987 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.
JaIn Shudh Vanaspati Limited Vs. S.R. Patankar, Asstt. Collector of Cu ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-28-1987
Reported in: 1988(33)ELT77(Bom)
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, i...
JaIn Shudh Vanaspati Limited Vs. S.R. Patankar, Assistant Collector of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-28-1987
Reported in: 1988(14)LC101(Bombay)
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, is...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Rajkumar Sitti @ Kundanlal Malhotra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-27-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)BomCR15
V.P. Tipnis, J.1. Antop Hill Police Station filed charge-sheet against the respondent herein for an offence under section 506 (Part II) of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that on 21st October, 1985, at about 11.30 a.m. at Joy Tailoring Shop No. 3, Municipal Bldg., Punjab Camp, Govandi, the accused gave threats to commit murder of the complainant and witnesses Nos. 1 and 2 and also gave threats to cause damage to the shop of the complainant. The accused preferred an application before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 30th Court, Kurla, for discharge as, according to the submission of the accused, the offence under section 506, I.P.C. is non-cognizable and as no permission under section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been sought by the police, the whole proceedings are vitiated. A decision of this Court in Prabhakar v. State of Maharashtra, : 1986(1)BomCR272 was cited in support of the said submission. The learned Magistrate, relying on the same judgment, held t...
Vasantlal Lallubhai Patel and ors. Vs. Shankarlal Bechardas Patel and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-27-1987
Reported in: 1987(3)BomCR454
H. Suresh, J.1. This is a notice of motion in a suit for a declaration that the property in suit is owned by the plaintiffs and the defendants as tenants in common and that this property be divided by metes and bounds on partition. In this suit the plaintiffs have taken out this motion for appointment of Court Receiver in respect of the suit property which is described in Ex. A to the plaint.2. Since there is no controversy that the property comprised in Ex. A is jointly owned both the parties, I need not deal with, in detail, the contentions of the parties at this stage. The defendants, particularly defendant No. 5, submits that he has been exclusively managing the property and the plaintiffs allege that he has been mis-managing the same.3. The controversy, in particular, relates to one of the properties namely godowns Nos. 4 and 5. It appears that these godowns were vacant since 1980. However, a suit had been filed in this Court being Suit No. 1795 of 1984 by one Soonawalla as agains...
Prakash Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. S.K. Bhardwaj, Assistant C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-27-1987
Reported in: 1988(15)ECC301
M.L. Pendse, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by Prakash Cotton Mills Private Limited and its Director against the judgment dated July 16, 1980 delivered by Mr. Justice Aggarwal dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants for quashing show cause notice dated August 30, 1975 and March 17, 1976 issued by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bombay. Few facts giving rise to the filing of the petition are as follows:2. Prakash Cotton Mills have a registered Office in Bombay and are owners of Textile Mill situate at Lower Parel, Bombay. The Textile Mill is duly licensed and employs large number of workers, who work on spindles and handlooms. The Mills have obtained an excise licence under Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and the licence specifies the place of manufacture of cotton fabrics, the place being the factory premises. On March 11, 1963, Officers of the central excise department seized certain goods of the Mills which were then lying in the premises of M/s. ...
Dr. A. Gomes Vs. Fifth Wealth-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-19-1987
Reported in: (1988)26ITD108(Mum.)
1. The common grounds raised in these appeals challenge the valuations placed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the assessees' shares of the properties situated at Versova, Mogra, Amboli, Andheri, Bandivali and Juhu. In general terms, the assessees' objections to the valuations adopted by the CWT(A) are four-fold and these may be summarized as under : (1) The CWT (Appeals) failed to appreciate the legal impact of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 hitherto referred as ("ULC Act") on the values of the said properties. (2) The CWT(A) failed to appreciate and take into account the effect of the presence of cultivators and/or trespassers on the valuation of these properties. (3) The CWT(A) erred in adopting the rate of 61/2 per cent for capitalising the net rental income from these properties. (4) With reference to the property situated at Juhu village, the CWT (A) erred in seeking to include the reversionary value of the land up to the year 1994 and beyond. Since these pr...
Seventh Income-tax Officer Vs. Legal Heirs of Late Sri Ramrao K.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-19-1987
Reported in: (1988)24ITD448(Mum.)
1. In this appeal by the revenue, the objection is in regard to the cancellation of assessment framed against the legal heirs of deceased Ramrao K. Rupji.2. Ramrao K. Rupji was the karta of a Hindu joint family which possessed of some agricultural lands situate in Marol Village, Kurla Taluka, in the suburb of Bombay. The State Government of Bombay had taken up acquisition proceeding and issued a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 18-5-1955. Subsequently, the HUF entered into an agreement with Standard Vacuum Refining Oil Co. (India) Ltd. and pursuant thereto, possession of the land was taken on 23-4-1958. The lands were not acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, but by means of a transfer upon agreed terms as a result of negotiations. According to the agreement, Ramrao K. Rupji, as karta of the HUF, agreed to sell the land to Bsso Company (Standard Vacuum Oil Company had come to be Esso by that time) for a price of Rs. 4,72,626. The agreeme...
Dinesh Ishwarlal Patel Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-1987
Reported in: (1988)(34)ELT382Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against order bearing No.S/14-4-105/82 PINT, dated 13-10-1982 passed by the Addl. Collector of Customs, Bombay.2. The subject of challenge in this appeal is confined to the penalty of Rs. 2,000/- imposed on the appellant.On 5-2-1982 on information the Customs Preventive staff intercepted one Shri Tejraj Chhanganji Jain who was found carrying a packet containing smuggled wrist watches. After questioning him the room occupied by the present appellant was searched. No incriminating article was found. On further interrogation of Shri P.C. Jain and on coming to know that he had kept certain Wrist watches in the premises of the appellant, the appellant's premises was again searched. 105 wrist watches of foreign origin were seized. In the course of the investigation the statement of the appellant was recorded. Among other things the appellant stated that Shri P.C. Jain had come to his residence and had left two paper wrapped packets. He also state...
Vasudeo Mahadeo Ambre Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-1987
Reported in: (1994)IIILLJ615Bom
H.H. Kantharia, J.1. In these two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, facts are common and the law points are the same and, therefore, they are being disposed of (by this common judgment. 2. The petitioners, in both the petitions, were employed by the Mill Mazdoor Sabha (the second respondent) which is a trade union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. The services of the petitioners were terminated. They, therefore, raised industrial disputes and demanded reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages. Conciliation proceedings were initiated and as the matter could not be settled, a failure report was submitted. Ultimately by identical orders, dated 31st May, 1982, the State of Maharashtra (the first respondent) declined to refer the disputes for adjudication to the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal since in the opinion of the Government, the petitioners were not the workmen within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (h...
Abbashbhai K. Golwala Vs. R.G. Shah and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Bom187
ORDER1. The plaintiff, the three defendants and Kantilal Ochhavlal Sheth were carrying on business in partnership in the name of M/s. Goodwill Light House on the terms and conditions recorded in the Deed of Partnership dated 19th June, 1971. The partnership business consisted of manufacturing and/or dealing in Stoves, Lanterns, Blow lamps, Pressure Cookers, Milk Cookers etc. The business was carried on at Ryfa Buildings. Block No. 1, Safedpool, Kurla-Andheri Road, Bombay. Each of the 5 partners had 20% share in the said partnership business. Under clause 2 of the partnership deed it was provided as follows :'2. The Partnership with the change in the constitution of the firm, has commenced the partnership business on and from the 1st day of January, 1971 and shall continue unless dissolved or determined by and with the mutual consent of all the partners provided that any of the parties hereto may retire from the partnership after giving to the others a previous notice in writing of not ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »