Mumbai Court November 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.
M.C. Tahkur, Asstt. Collector of Central Excise and anr. Vs. Extrusion ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-1987
Reported in: 1992(38)LC450(Bombay)
Pendse, J.1. By this Notice of Motion, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise is seeking stay of the operation of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1539 of 1981. Appeal No. 1192 of 1987 against the judgment has already been admitted and is pending for hearing and final disposal. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge gave a declaration that amendment to Section 2(f) and Tariff Item No. 27 in the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and also Tariff Item 8312.11 in Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act are unconstitutional, ultra vires and null and void. A further declaration was given that no excise duty can be levied with reference to the process of lacquering and/or printing of plain aluminium collapsible tubes or rigid cans. As the consequential relief of the declaration is granted, the learned Single Judge quashed the order dated July 14, 1981 passed by the Excise authorities and further directed the appellants to r...
Abdul Sattar Rehmanbhai Vs. Julekhabi Rahiman Daryawardi (Smt.) and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-21-1987
Reported in: 1988(2)BomCR312; (1988)90BOMLR139
C.S. Dharmadhikari, J.1. These writ petitions are filed by the Employers challenging the orders passed by the Presiding Officer, II Labour Court, Kolhapur, directing them to pay Rs. 40/- to each of the employees under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.2. Initially these matters were placed before the Single Judge of this Court---Daud, J., who by his order dated 17th of September 1986 referred the following question to the Larger Bench :'Whether employees within the meaning of section 2(f)(i) of the Beedi Act cannot take recourse to the I.D. Act for the resolution of their grievances, not falling within section 39(2) of the Beedi Act ?' This question is referred to larger bench in view of the decision of Joshi, J., in Special Civil Application No. 882 of 1973. (Ramanbhai Patel (Asali Sampal) v. Judge, Labour Court, Akola & others), decided on 28th July, 1980 wherein a view was taken that an application under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is not maint...
Jyoti Nikul Jariwala and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Bom123; 1988(1)BomCR1; 1988MhLJ96
ORDER1. These petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, assail the constitutional vires of Item 10 of Schedule I being an appendage to the Bombay Court-fees Act, 1959.2. To understand the question that arises for determination in these petitions, it will suffice if 1 narrate the events leading to the institution of the first petition. Petitioners in that petition claim to be the executor/executrix/trustees of the Last Will and Testament dated 5 March 1985 of Harihar Jethalal Jariwala, better known by his name on the silver screen as Sanjeev Kumar. Sanjeev Kumar died at Bombay on November 6, 1985, and, under the will aforementioned, petitioners were appointed as executors of the estate left by him. Petitioner 1 has instituted a petition for probate to the estate of said Sanjeev Kumar and that petition has the consent of petitioner 2 and the other executors. After the petition had been lodged, the office of the Original Side of this Court, calculated the amount payable vide the cl...
Arvind Anand Gaikwad Vs. Uni Abex Alloy Products Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-1987
Reported in: (1994)IIILLJ684Bom
Pendse, J. 1. This is an appeal preferred by the original petitioner in Writ Petition No. 886 of 1983 against the order dated April 28, 1983 passed by Mr. Justice Bharucha summarily rejecting the petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the legality of order dated January 19, 1983 passed by the Ninth Labour Court at Bombay in Reference No. 1027 of 1981.2.The appellant was employed as a fitter by respondent Company by appointment letter dated October 5, 1975. The appellant was appointed in the factory of the respondent situate at S.V. Road, Manpada, Thane. The appointment letter, inter-alia. recites that the employer reserves the right to transfer the appellant from one Department, Section or job to another in the factory or from one establishment to another, whether or not such an establishment is in existence on the date of issue of this letter. The appellant claims that in August 1977, he joined the Union of Association of Engineering Workers and was...
State of Maharashtra and ors. Vs. Dnyaneshwar S/O Gangadhar Parkhi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)BomCR628
A.A. Desai, J.1. This revision is directed against order dated 2nd May, 1987, dismissing the Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 20 of 1986 filed by the State for setting aside the ex-parte decree. Mr. B.P. Jaiswal, the learned Counsel while assailing the impugned order posed questions of a considerable magnitudes as regards the responsibility of the Civil Court in an adjudication of a claim against the State.2. The applicant No. 2 the Executive Engineer, on 27th April, 1973 entered into a contract with the non-applicant decree-holder for construction of two wards of Mental Hospital at Nagpur. The work order was issued and construction was agreed to be completed within twenty months therefrom. The decree-holder could not complete the work within the stipulated period. The Superintending Engineer extended period upon 31st July, 1975 without compensation and thereafter with compensation at the rate of Rs. 4.50 per day till completion of the work. On 15th January, 1978 the Contractor decree-h...
A.B.C. and Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-1987
Reported in: (1988)(34)ELT272Tri(Mum.)bai
1.This appeal arises out of and is directed against the order in appeal bearing No. S/49-7/83 Exempt dated nil issue dated 27.12.1983 passed by the Collector of Customs (Apeals), Bombay.2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are; the Appellants M/s. Merzario Shipping Agencies Pvt. Ltd. imported 40 empty containers against the B/E No. 1605 Item No. 3 of 11.10.1982 on a condition to re-export all the containers. They executed a guarantee/ bond with Assistant Collector of Customs, Exemption Section on 7.10.82 binding themselves to re-export the said containers within 15/30 days from the date of importation. On 2.3.1983 the Customs authorities issued a notice to the appellants directing them to re-export the containers within 10 days from the date of notice or in the alternative to pay the amount demanded. The Customs authorities again issued a notice dated 23.4.1983 directing the appellants to pay an amount of Rs. 9,50,000/-within 7 days from the date of notice in t...
Dena Bank Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-1987
Reported in: (1988)25ITD109(Mum.)
1. These four appeals relating to the assessment years 1973-74, 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1978-79, filed by the assessee against the consolidated order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) VII, Bombay, deal with the same issue and are, therefore, for the sake of convenience, disposed of by a common order.2. The assessee is a nationalised bank, which is administered by the Chairman and Managing Director, Directors representing the Reserve Bank of India, Ministry of Finance, etc., all appointed by the Government of India. The method of accounting was mercantile and the previous year was the calendar year. In the account books of the calendar year 1971 relevant to the assessment year 1972-73, the assessee-bank had made a provision for bonus amounting to Rs. 30 lakhs according to the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India. However, as a result of negotiations with the union of the bank workers, the actual bonus, which had to be paid for this year in the calendar year 1972, happe...
Pralhad Shamburao Newale and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)BomCR566
A.D. Tated, J.1. Criminal Writ Petition No. 601 of 1987 has been filed by Pralhad Shamburao Newale who is one of the accused in Special Case No. 4 of 1986 pending against him and others in the Court of the Special Judge, Pune. He has prayed for a declaration that section 161 read with section 2(20) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, be declared as unconstitutional on the ground that they amount to a colourable exercise of the legislative amending powers by the Maharashtra Legislature amending the Central Act, namely I.P.C. (Act No. XLV of 1860). He has also sought a writ of certiorari, or a writ in the nature of certiorari, directing, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India or the revisional powers of the Court under section 482 Cri.P.C. to quash and set aside the criminal proceedings in Special Case No. 4 of 1986. Criminal Application No. 1749 of 1986 has been filed by Arvind Ganesh Bhopatkar for quashing the proceedings in Special Case No. 4 of 1986....
Maharashtra Small Scale Electrical Manufacturers Association and anr. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)BomCR458
S.M. Daud, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution takes exception to a notification dated May 30, 1986 bearing S.O. No. 309(E) purpoting to have been issued under section 29(B) of the industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 (I.D.R. Act/or the Act).2. Petitioners are an Associations registered under the Societies Registration Act, purporting to represent the Small Scale Electrical Manufacturers of this State. The I.D.R. Act has been enacted to provide for the development and regulations of certain industries as proclaimed by the Central Government in their policy Resolution, of 1948 as amended from time to time. Section 29-B of the Act which figures in this case, empowers the Central Government to exempt certain undertakings from the rigour of the Act. Sub-section (2-A) thereof permits the Central Government to reserve for exclusive production by the small units any article or class of articles specified in the I Schedule upon its satisfaction to be reached a...
Kay Foam Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-1987
Reported in: 1988(34)ELT449(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. A short point falls for determination in this appeal preferred against the judgment dated January 21, 1986 by the original petitioner. The petitioner/appellant imported polythene-polyols, a chemical between July 1977 and August 1978. The Customs authorities levied duty upon the imported articles under Chapter 39 of the Customs Tariff, and the appellant accordingly paid duty. Subsequently, the appellant realised that the duty was payable under Chapter 38 of the Customs Tariff and therefore excess duty was recovered by the Customs authorities. Thereupon, on March 3, 1980 the appellant filed a refund application before the Assistant Collector of Customs seeking, refund of the amount of Rs. 2,94,226.65. On March 25, 1983 the appellant's refund application was rejected by the Assistant Collector on the ground that the refund sought was barred under provisions of Section 27(1) of the Customs Act. The appellant preferred an appeal, but the Appellate Collector upheld the order and...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »