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.
Ruby Mills Limited and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-1987
Reported in: 1987(31)ELT904(Bom)
ORDER1. The petitioners manufacture two kinds of spun years; one with 48% terene and 52% viscose and the other with 85% viscose and 15% polyester. The first one becomes chargeable under Tariff Item No. 18-III(ii) and the latter one becomes chargeable under Tariff Item No. 18-III(i). They pay duty on these two kinds of spun yarn. What they do is that they double these two yarns by a process. The doubling of the said yarn is carried out merely as a preparatory process to weaving the same into fibres in the Weaving Department of the First petitioners' Mills and is done with a view to providing an earior feed of yarn into the body of the fabric on the looms of the Weaving Department. The advantage of using doubled yarn in the body of the cloth on the looms is that the use of additional shuttles on the looms can be dispensed with. The doubling of yarn does not change the nature of character of the said two types of blended yarn produced by the First petitioners nor does it result in a new o...
Parvati Kevalram Moorjani Vs. Madanlal Anraj Porwal and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Bom354; 1987MhLJ917
ORDER1. These two Writ Petitions arise under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as 'the Bombay Rent Act').2. The Writ Petition No. 228 of 1980 is filed by the Defendant-Tenant against the decree for eviction passed by the Joint Judge, Pune, on the ground that she has been guilty of conduct which is a nuisance or annoyance to the adjoining occupiers. The Writ Petition No. 1166 of 1980 is filed by the plaintiffs-landlords which is in the nature of cross petition praying for a decree on the ground of bona fide personal requirement and also on the ground that the tenant has erected a permanent structure without the landlord's written consent. For the sake of convenience the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 228 of 1980 is referred to as 'the Tenant' while the Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 1166 of 1980 are referred to as 'the Landlords'.3. The Landlords are five brothers and they are owners of a bungalow at 4, Napier Road, at Pune. The t...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Nandiram Badildas Ahuja
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)BomCR68
V.S. Kotwal, J.1. It is not only surprising but equally unfortunate the an incident that is alleged to have occurred in the year 1978 has given rise to a proceeding which till this day has remained undecided. The respondent accused was prosecuted before the learned trial Magistrate for an offence under section 7(i)(v) read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. It was alleged that he runs an Ice Candy Factory at Kolhapur. On 19-4-1978 the complainant Food Inspector visited the said factory along with two panchas. The respondent was present. Two types of ice candies were found in the factory, one red coloured and the other yellow coloured. This proceeding relates to red coloured candy since the proceeding pertaining to yellow coloured ice candy has finally terminated in the acquittal of the accused. After following the procedural formalities the sample of ice candy was purchased and after adding the formalin the same came to be sealed and ultimately forwarded to the...
Indian Lead Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.-i ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-1987
Reported in: 1988(16)ECC160
ORDERH. Suresh, J.1. The question involved in this petition is directly covered by two judgments; one of the Supreme Court being the case of Khandalwal Metal & Engineering Works v. Union of India, reported in : 1985(20)ELT222(SC) , and the other being the judgment delivered by Bharucha, J. on March 3, 1987 in Writ Petition No. 2755 of 1982 [1988] 16 ECC 157. Following the observations of the Supreme Court the learned Judge has dismissed the said writ petition.2. Briefly, the question was that the petitioners were not liable to pay an additional duty as contemplated under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, whereby any article which is imported into India shall, in addition, be liable to a duty equal to the excise duty for the time being leviable on a like article if produced or manufactured in India and if such excise duty on a like article is leviable at any percentage of its value, the additional duty to which the imported article shall be so liable, shall be calculated at tha...
Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd., Bombay Vs. Union of India and Other ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-1987
Reported in: (1987)89BOMLR309; 1989(22)ECC204; 1988(36)ELT94(Bom); 1987MhLJ765
1. This petition relates to the classification of the goods, namely 'starter armatures' under the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The question is whether the goods are to be classified under Item 34A of the First Schedule to the Act as parts of motor vehicles, or whether the said goods are to be classified under Item 30(4) of the First Schedule of the Act, as parts of the electric motors. It is well settled that the classification of the products must be done in the sense in which they are understood in the trade by the dealers and the consumers and not on the basis of any technical or dictionary meaning of the products (see : Indian Aluminium Cables v. Union of India, reported in : 1985(21)ELT3(SC) . Mr. Rana appearing for the petitioners pointed out that if you go to Lohar Chawl in Bombay, where electrical goods are sold, you would not get 'starter armatures', for that you have to go to Opera House where automobile spare parts are sold. I thi...
Managing Director, Panchganga Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs. Babasa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-1987
Reported in: (1994)IIILLJ679Bom; 1987MhLJ925
S.W. Puranik, J. 1. This petition relates to the. proceedings under Section 78 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 initiated by the respondent vide application (BIR) No. 23 of 1982 in the Labour Court at Kolhapur claiming reinstatement and back wages 2. Brief facts pertaining to these proceedings may be stated as follows:- (i) The petitioner Shri Panchganga Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. isa co-operative society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. The saidsociety deals with manufacture of sugar and establishment of schemes for providing water tosugarcane growers. (ii) The respondent was in the employment of the petitioner society as an accountant and was a workman within the meaning of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act. In September 1978 he was deputed to work on one of the water supply schemes started by the society. Later on it transpired that the respondent had misappropriated certain funds from the water scheme to the extent of about Rs. 15,000/-....
Gopibai Wd/O H.S. Mahtani Vs. Asnew Drums Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-1987
Reported in: (1987)89BOMLR314; 1987MhLJ630
S.M. Daud, J.1. This appeal takes exception to the quashing by a single Judge of an award made by the Registrar's Nominee upon a reference made to him under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, (MCS Act).2. The question that arises for determination in this appeal requires enumeration of the background and it may be stated thus:- A builder took up for construction a building at 50, Altamount Road, Bombay-26 sometime in the year 1962. One of the flats therein was taken up by deceased Mahtani. After construction the building came to be known as Olympus Apartments. The owners of the flats comprising the building were to form a co-operative housing society and steps were taken to get the society registered. Prior thereto negotiations took place between Mahtani on the one hand and M/s. Asnew Drums Ltd. on the other hand. The concern wanted Mahtani's flat for the use and occupation of its director Mr. Brahma Paul. The discussion culminated in an agreement described...
Dena Bank Vs. Gautam Ratilal Shah and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-15-1987
Reported in: [1990]69CompCas734(Bom)
Desai, A.C.J.1. This appeal is preferred against the decision given by the single judge on Plaintiffs' Chamber Summons No. 571 of 1982 taken out by them in suit No. 683 of 1975 for amendment of the plaint. By a brief order, the learned single judge came to observe that since the amendment sought for on the chamber summons sought to introduce a cause of action or causes of action different from the ones to be found in the plaint, amendment ought not to be allowed. Accordingly, the chamber summons was directed to stand dismissed but with no order as to costs. In order to appreciate the controversy between the parties, a few facts may be briefly stated.2. In 1975, the appellants who are a nationalised bank and who will hereinafter be referred to as 'the plaintiffs' filed a suit against the four respondents, who will hereinafter be referred to as 'the defendants' on promissory notes executed on January 31, 1973, by the defendants. The suit was one under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Pr...
Madhusudan Mills Limited Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-15-1987
Reported in: 1988(15)ECC187; 1988(36)ELT45(Bom)
1. The petitioners are engaged inter alia in the manufacture of textiles. They have for the last several years been importing a product known as polynosic staple fibre. The said fibre is used in the manufacture of cloth. The Central Government has from time to time issued notifications under Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 exempting the said fibre from the payment of the whole of the import duty.2. It appears that a certain consignment of the said fibre was imported by the petitioners and was being brought by a vessel and the vessel entered the territorial waters of India on 19th December, 1978. There is no dispute about it. The steamer, however, entered inwards on 1st January, 1979. It is the contention of the respondents that the notification exempting payment of the duty was in force upto 31st December 1978 only. Since the steamer entered inwards on the 1st of January, 1979, the respondents thought that the petitioners were not entitled to the benefit of the notification exempti...
The Maharashtra State Financial Corporation Vs. Esther D. Gama
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-15-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Bom61; (1987)89BOMLR626; 1987MhLJ731
ORDER1. The petitioner, the Maha-rashtra State Financial Corporation, having filed the above petition as against the respondent, obtained an order on Oct. 21, 1974, the relevant portion of the order as passed on Oct. 21, 1974 is as follows :'This Court doth order that the right, title and interest in the monthly tenancy of the respondent in the premises at No. 1181-C Parel Tank Road, bearing C.S. No. 429 (part) of Parel/Sewree Division in the City and Registration Sub-District Bombay together with the plant and machinery and equipment and accessories mentioned in the First and Second Schedules to Exhibit 'A' to the petition and also in the First and Second Schedules hereunder written or brought in and kept at the factory premises along with its goodwill be sold by the Commissioner of this Hon'bleCourt for taking Accounts by public auction and this Court doth further order that the net sale proceeds of such sale or so much thereof as may be sufficient, be paid to the petitioners for app...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »