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.
The Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-1987
Reported in: 1988(15)ECC369
M.L. Pendse, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the original petitioners against judgment dated November 23, 1985 delivered by Mr. Justice Bharucha in Writ Petition No. 1867 of 1981. The learned single Judge dismissed the petition in view of the fact that the issue involved in the petition stands concluded by judgment of Justice Mrs. Manohar in Writ Petition No. 1420 of 1981 (Kamala Mills Ltd. v. Union of India) [1985] 6 ECC 238 . The judgment of Justice Mrs. Manohar was challenged in Appeal No. 5 of 1986, but the appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench by judgment dated October 13, 1987, and the decision of Mrs. Justice Manohar was upheld. In view of the decision of the Division Bench, the main contention in the appeal stands concluded.2. Shri Bharucha, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, submitted that the appellants were served with two show cause notices dated December 22, 1976 and January 31, 1978. The department claimed that duty was evaded for the period c...
Piramal Spg. and Wvg. Mills Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-1987
Reported in: 1988(15)ECC382; 1988(36)ELT236(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. This is an appeal preferred against the judgment dated November 22, 1985 delivered by Mr. Justice Bharucha on Writ Petition No. 1829 of 1981. The learned Judge dismissed the petition in view of the earlier judgment dated October 31, 1985 delivered by Mrs. Justice Manohar in Writ Petition No. 1420 of 1981 [reported as Kamala Mills Ltd. v. Union of India and Others : 1986(25)ELT24(Bom) . The points raised before Mr. Justice Bharucha were identical as those raised before Mrs. Justice Manohar.2. Against the judgment delivered by Mrs. Justice Manohar in Write Petition No. 1420 of 1981, Appeal No. 5 of 1981 was filed before the Division Bench of this Court, but the appeal was dismissed by judgment dated October, 13, 1987 : 1988(34)ELT539(Bom) and the order of Mrs. Justice Manohar was upheld. In view of the judgment, the controversy in this appeal also stands concluded.3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants raised one additional contention which was not rais...
Vaman Ganpatrao Trilokekar and ors. Vs. Malati Ramchandra Raut and ors ... Overruled
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Bom321; 1988(2)BomCR615; (1988)90BOMLR45
Bharucha, J.1. This appeal assails the order dt. 10th Sept. 1985 passed in a partition suit. The learned single Judge thereby directed that a valuation of the share of the plaintiffs in the two immoveable properties in suit should be made as of July 1972 and the suit was adjourned for the purpose.2. On 16th April 1885 Dr. Sakharam Arjun Raut died leaving property at Khotachi Wadi, which is one of the two immovable properties in suit He left behind him a widow, Jayantibai, and three sons, Vasantrao, Yeshwantrao and Raghunathrao. On 10th Jan. 1904 Jayantibai died leaving a will whereunder she bequeathed the property at French Bridge, which is the other immovable property in suit, to the three sons. On 4th Nov. 1904 probate of her will was obtained. On 12th Oct. 1936 Yeshwantrao died leaving a will Whereby he bequeathed his estate to his widow Rewabai. Rewabai died intestate on 28th Oct. 1939 leaving Narayan (the original 1st plaintiff) as her only heir. On 24th Dec. 1972 Narayan died lea...
Gyandas Dama Lade (Since Deceased) by Lrs. Vs. State of Maharashtra an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-1987
Reported in: 1989(2)BomCR10
M.S. Deshpande, J.1. This petition by the non-tribal transferee is directed against the order dated 30th June, 1985, passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal affirming the order passed by the Additional Tahsildar, Sakoli, on 15th October, 1983, reviewing his own earlier order, dated 23rd September, 1980 by which possession of only half of the land was restored to the respondent No. 2 and directed, on review, to restore the entire land of one-acre to the respondent No. 2 who was a tribal as he belonged to the Gond tribe.2. Though several challenges were raised to the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, the only point urged by Shri Badiye the learned Counsel for the petitioners, was that once having passed the order, dated 23rd September, 1980, the Additional Tahsildar, Sakoli, could not have reviewed his own order and passed the order dated 15th October, 1983, restoring the whole of the land, which had transferred by the respondent No. 2 to the petitioner by the sale-dee...
United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Zumibai (Smt.) W/O Vasaram and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-1987
Reported in: 1988(2)BomCR1
Sharad Manohar, J.1. I am little unhappy about the fact that I am required to allow both these appeals filed by the Insurance Company disowning its liability towards the applicants under the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. The two appeals arise out of the two applications filed by the heirs of the two victims, who died in an accident which took place on 14th June, 1980. Admittedly, the vehicle was a good vehicle, hired by the Government of India. Original Opponent No. 1 was the owner of the vehicle. The United India Insurance Company was the original Opponent No. 2. The vehicle was taken on hire by the Government for carrying of goods. It appears that since some work was being carried on near the Aner Dam, some person clambered into the truck. It is a finding recorded by the Court below, incapable of being interfered with having regard to the nature of the evidence, that all these persons were gratuitous passengers. The truck driver allowed them to clamber into the truck. Some of them sat in th...
Mehboob Ahmad Sayyad and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)BomCR328
V.P. Tipnis, J.1. By this application, the petitioners are challenging the legality and correctness of the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 21st Court, Bandra, Bombay, dated 7th November, 1987 remanding the petitioners and three others into police custody till 20th November, 1987.2. The Inspector of Police, Kandivli Police Station, made a report dated 7th November, 1987, to the learned Metropolitan Magistrate under section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the marginally noted persons therein were arrested on 7th November, 1987. The report stated that the accused persons are adversely known on the record of the Police Station and that they are mischief mongers, opportunists and are with bad record. Some of them were also involved in serious offences. Taking into consideration the present law and order situation, the said persons are likely to take chance of the present situation and may get themselves involved in the commission of cognizable offences thereby distu...
Piramal Spg. and Wvg. Mills Ltd. and V. Ranganathan Vs. the Union of I ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-1987
Reported in: 1988(14)LC339(Bombay)
Pendse, J.1. This is an appeal preferred against the judgment dated November 22, 1985 delivered by Mr. Justice Bharucha on Writ Petition No. 1829 of 1981. The learned Judge dismissed the petition in view of the earlier judgment dated October 31, 1985 delivered by Mrs. Justice Manohar in Writ Petition No. 1420 of 1981. The points raised before Mr. Justice Bharucha were identical as those raised before Mrs. Justice Manohar.2. Against the judgment delivered by Mrs. Justice Manohar in Writ Petition No. 1420 of 1981, Appeal No. 5 of 1981 was filed before the Division Bench of this Court, but that appeal was dismissed by judgment dated October 13, 1987 and the order of Mrs. Justice Manohar was upheld. In view of the judgment, the controversy in this appeal also stands concluded.3. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants raised one additional contention which was not raised before the learned Single Judge or irrespect of which no ground has been taken in the Appeal Memo. The...
Metal Distributors Ltd., Bombay and Another Vs. Union of India and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1987
Reported in: 1988(15)ECC165; 1988(33)ELT321(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. These are two cross-appeals preferred against judgment dated July 6, 1983 delivered by Mr. Justice Bharucha in Writ Petition No. 622 of 1983 and both the appeals can be conveniently disposed of by common judgment.2. The facts which gave rise to filing of the petition, are as follows :M/s. Metal Distributors Ltd., imported 764 metric tonnes of alloy steel scrap between October 15, 1979 and May 7, 1980. In respect of the import 26 bills of entries were presented to the Customs authorities seeking clearance for home consumption. In March and April 1980 the goods were initially inspected by the Customs authorities and reports of inspection were endorsed on the original bills of entries. Subsequently, the importer made representation to the Collector of Customs and thereafter between June 1981 to August 1981 the imported goods were reinspected in accordance with the directions of the Collector. According to the importer the goods were liable to be assessed under Tariff Item No....
Unichem Laboratories Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Bom134; 1988(1)BomCR134
1. This petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution impugns the notification dated 22nd November, 1985, whereby the use of Anabolic Steroid with other drugs has been completely prohibited in purported exercise of the power conferred upon the Central Government by Section 26-A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (Act No.. 23 of 1940), hereinafter referred to as 'the Drug Act'.2. Petitioners are a pharmaceutical company engaged in the manufacture of a variety of drugs and pharmaceutical products. One of the products manufactured by them is a drug known as 'Trinergic'. The product is brought out in two forms, viz. capsules and injections. Trinergic is a combination of Anabolic Steroid known as Methandienone and Vitamins B1, B6 and B12. M/s. Ciba Geigy of Basle, Switzerland took a decision to withdraw their Anabolic Steroid, a preparation of Methandienone being marketed under the brand name 'Dianabol' from the world market. Their Indian subsidiary informed the Director General of Health S...
Metal Distributors Ltd. and anr. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and the ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1987
Reported in: 1988(14)LC383(Bombay)
Pendse, J.1. These are two cross-appeals preferred against judgment dated July 6,1983 delivered by Mr, justice bharucha in writ Petition No. 622 of 1983 and both the appeals can be conveniently disposed of by common judgment.2. The facts which gave rise to filing of the petition, are as follows:M/s. Metal Distributors Ltd imported 764 metric tonnes of alloy steel scrap between October 15, 1979 and May 7, 1980. In respect of the import 26 bills of entries were presented to the Customs authorities seeking clearance for home consumption. In March and April 1980 the goods were initially inspected by the Customs authorities and reports of inspection were endorsed on the original bills of entries. Subsequently, the importer made representation to the Collector of Customs and thereafter between June 1981 to August, 1981 the imported good were reinspected in accordance with the directions of the Collector. According to the importer the goods were liable to be assessed under Tariff Item No. 73....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »