Mumbai Court June 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.
Abdulla Kozukhal Assainar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-1987
Reported in: AIR1987Bom106; 1989(39)ELT47(Bom)
Mehta, J.1. The Petitioner, Abdulla Kozukhal Assainar, has filed this Criminal Writ Petition impugning the Order of Detention, dated 30-5-1986, passed against him by the Government of Maharashtra under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (Act LII of 1974), hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'.2. Shri Kotwal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Detenu, has canvassed only one submission before us challenging the Order of Detention. Shri Kotwal pointed out that, in the instant case, the Detenu was arrested on 3-1-1986 and soon thereafter the residential premises of the Detenu at his native place were searched by the Customs Authorities. However, nothing incriminating was recovered. According to Shri Kotwal this Panchanama, although it is termed as 'nil Panchanama', was a vital and material document which was likely to have affected the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority one way or the other. According to learned...
Vera Aranha Vs. Jacob Harlad Aranha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-1987
Reported in: (1987)89BOMLR402; 1987MhLJ849
Guttal, J. 1. This Appeal has been placed before us upon a reference made by Daud, J., made on 13th March, 1987, The facts giving rise to this reference are as under:--The appellant, who is the wife of the respondent to this appeal, instituted M.J. Petition No. 714 of 1977 for divorce on the grounds that the respondent husband was guilty of adultery and cruelty. The parties are Indian Christinas and are governed by the Indian Divorce Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). During the pendency of the M.J. Petition No. 714, the appellant made a petition viz., No. 77 of 1982 for alimoney pendente lite under S. 36 of the Act. On 25th January 1983, the Bombay City Civil court, lwhere M.J. Petition No,. 714 of 1977 was sent for trial and disposal , made an order awarding a sum of Rs.100/- to the appellant as interim alimony. On 28th January 1983, the same Court allowed a sum of Rs.750/- towards the expenses to prosecute the petition. On the same day, M.J. Petition No. 714 of 1977 was dis...
Mafatlal Group Staff Association and ors. Vs. Reg. Commi. Provident Fu ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-1987
Reported in: (1987)89BOMLR341; (1995)IIILLJ359Bom; 1987MhLJ648
ORDERH. Suresh, J.1. By Act of 16 of 1971 the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, was amended whereby the Central Government was empowered to frame a scheme to be called the Employees' Family Pension Scheme for the purpose of providing family pension and life assurance benefits to the employees of any establishment or class of establishments to which the said scheme applies. But, while introducing the said scheme the Government divided the employees into two classes, namely, the employees to whom the Act was applicable but who were in service prior to March 1, 1971 and the employees to whom the Act was applicable but who were in service from and after March 1, 1971. To the former class, an option was given to join the scheme or not to join, while to the latter class the scheme was made compulsorily applicable and they had to join. The petitioner's before me are the persons who have been compelled to join the said Family Pension Scheme and they say that thi...
Jyoti Lonkar Vs. Maharashtra Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Bom176
V.A. Mohta, J.1. This is a somewhat unusual matter. Not because the lis is between a teacher and a taught. We are by now used to this specie of litigation which even in the known past was very rare and far in between. It is often found that the result of examination is vitiated on account of unfair means adopted by the examinees. Unusualness of this matter lies in an examinee seeking to quash the result of her examination on account of motivated unfair assessment of her performance in a practical examination made by her teacher.2. Modern educational system in all advanced countries increasingly attaches considerable importance to the practicals, underlined idea being to bring the sutdents into direct personal contact with the tutor by forming smaller groups or otherwise so that personal attention can be given while coaching them and the education is more effective and the assessment of their merit can be made more real. With a view to encourage students to do continuous study throughou...
Patel Aluminium Private Limited and Another Vs. M.C. Thakur, Assistant ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1987
Reported in: 1988(36)ELT39(Bom)
ORDER1. To tax and to please is not known to the Central Excise Department, despite clear judgments and guidelines from the Courts. This is one such case.2. The petitioners were paying excise duty on aluminium dross and skimmings which were not even waste products. It appears, that by a judgment given by this High Court by Mr. Justice Lentin, in the matter of Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. and another v. A. K. Bandyopadhyay and others, reported in 1980 E.L.T. 146 (Bom.) it was clearly held that dross the skimmings are not goods and no excise duty can be levied on it. As soon as the petitioners came to know of this judgment, by a letter dated January 16, 1980 addressed to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, the petitioners requested the department to clarify the matter and also to refund the excise duty which the petitioners had paid on the same. There was no reply to this letter. A reminder was sent on February 14, 1981, and also in that letter the petitioners sought personal hearing...
Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi),
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1987
Reported in: 1988(15)LC258(Bombay)
ORDERH. Suresh, J.1. The petitioner herein thought of importing certain machines from abroad. Some time in 1971 they made enquiries with an Italian manufacturer who quoted the price at 38,250,000/- Italian Lire for the said machines. The petitioner accepted the said price and accordingly applied for an import licence for the said machines. The licence was issued on July 17, 1973. But in between on or about January 11, 1973, the Indian agents of the said Italian manufacturers informed the petitioner that the C.I.F. price of the said machinery would be 41,340,000/- Italian Lire. The petitioner pointed out that they were not agreeable for this higher price and, therefore, they requested the manufacturers to agree to the original price to which the Italian manufacturers had agreed. The Italian manufacturers agreed. However, they stated that they were agreeing on the basis that that was a special offer made to the petitioner for the package order of all those items and the same will be vali...
Polyolefins Industries Ltd. and Pro Packaging Works Vs. Kosmek Plastic ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-1987
Reported in: [1990]69CompCas527(Bom)
Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. The these two petitions are filed by creditors of the company, Kosmek Plastics Manufacturing Limited, for the purpose of winding up of the company on the ground that the company is unable to pay its debts. Company Petition No. 385 of 1986 has been fled by a creditor who had supplied form June 4, 1985, to August 13, 1985, various goods to the company. the company is liable to pay to the creditor in that petition a total sum of Rs. 1, 38,471.87. In Company Petition No. 44 of 1986, the petitioner had supplied raw materials to the company form time to time in respect of which the company has to pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 9,47,204 as on November 30, 1985, together with further interest on the principal amount. There is also a petition filed by the company itself for voluntary winding up, being company Petition No. 612 of 1985. there are, however, proceedings pending before the appellate Disputes Act which will be relevant in determination of Company Peti...
Union of India and Another Vs. Arebee and Company
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-1987
Reported in: 1987(31)ELT636(Bom)
Daud, J.1. This appeal takes exception to the making absolute of the rule quashing the penalty imposed under 5 orders issued under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962.2. The respondents, 'petitioners' in the writ petition, are Steamship Agents for Rajkumar Lines Limited, a shipping company, plying ships in India. That company's ship S. S. K. R. Ashok reached Bombay Port on June 6, 1967, the start being Calcutta. Its cargo was said to be less than that shown in the manifest submitted under the Customs Act. A person in charge of the ship satisfied the Customs authorities that the goods in the ship were not for export. The respondents, it is alleged, had passed a bond accepting their liability to pay the duty and penalty, if any. On 4th December 1973, the Customs authorities issued notices calling upon respondents to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed upon them under Section 116 of the Customs Act. The respondents sought adjournments from time to time, and, apparently som...
Ceat Tyres of India Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-1987
Reported in: 1987(3)BomCR485; 1989(22)ECC110; 1987(30)ELT857(Bom)
ORDER1. The petitioner, a company, has a factory in which it manufactures tyres, tubes and other rubber products. The process of manufacturing tyres, involves the making of what is known as a tyre carcass consisting of rubberised rayon and nylon cords. Such rayon and nylon cords are coated with a rubber compound, but before they are so coated, it is necessary to treat them another solution in order to achieve a good of rubber to such cords. The solution that is used in the tyre industry is generally described as a Resorcinol Formaldehyde Latex mix or dip solution which is a mixture of six substances known as resorcinol, formaldehyde caustic soda, styrene butadine latex, vinyl pyeidine latex and water. The question in this petition is as to whether this dip solution becomes liable for any excise duty and whether this item comes within item No. 15A of the Tariff.2. The petitioner says that this mixture has to be consumed within a few hours of its manufacture as after some time the same b...
Amarjit Singh Cheema Vs. State Through Public Prosecutor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)BomCR108
G.D. Kamat, J.1. The appellant has been convicted by the judgment and order dated 11th of March, 1987, in Sessions Case No. 67 of 86, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panaji, under section 20(b)(ii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, for short 'the Act' and sentenced to 10 years Rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rupees one lakh and, in default thereof, to undergo an imprisonment of 2 and half years.2. The prosecution case against the appellant is that on 28th September, 1986, at about 10.15 hours the appellant was found near the sign board showing Coco-Banana Bar and Restaurant. Calangute-Goa, in suspicious circumstances, with a polythene bag in his hand. S.D.P.O. Shri Dilip Kumar (P.W. 2), who is in charge of the Narcotic Squad, while on his patrolling duty at Calangute, apprehended the appellant near the beach and recovered 1.5 kgs. of charas, rolled sticks in different sizes. Foreign currency in American dollars of the value of 500 U.S. Dollars ($ 100 x ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »