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.
Dena Bank Vs. Gautam Ratilal Shah and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-15-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Bom1; 1988(1)BomCR508; (1987)89BOMLR293; 1987MhLJ829
Desai, Ag. 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 31st January, 1973 by the Defendants. The suit was one under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Pr...
N. Manseta and Bros. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-12-1987
Reported in: (1987)(12)LC720Tri(Mum.)bai
1. As these two applications are by one and the same applicant and the subject matter being, identical they are taken up together for consideration.2. Their prayer in one of the applications is for dispensation with the pre-deposit of Rs. 16,234.05, the Less Charge demanded from them. The prayer in the other application is for dispensation with the pre-deposit of Rs. 9,286.62, the Less Charge demanded.3. Appearing for the applicants, Shri Punwani submitted that the Customs Department had adopted a tactics of high-handedness. He urged that eventhough the Stay Applications have been filed within the prescribed time and they were pending for orders of the Tribunal, the Customs authorities resorted to detain the goods belonging to the third party and thereby compelling the applicants to deposit the less charge demands which the applicants had challenged in the appeals filed by them. He submitted that under compulsion, the applicants paid the amounts in order to save embarrassment to the t...
Queens Chemists Vs. B.K. Agarwal, Collector of Central Excise and Cust ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-12-1987
Reported in: 1987(31)ELT889(Bom)
ORDER1. The petitioners are the manufacturers of medicinal or pharmaceutical products or preparations and they have their factory at 386, Veer Savarkar Marg, Prabhadevi, Bombay - 400 025. The products of the petitioners are ordinarily sold by the petitioners in the course of wholesale trade at fixed prices to the petitioners' sole selling agents by name Messrs Bhogilal Premchand & Co. (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Agents') - The said Agents sold the said products after adding to the prices for the said products charged by the petitioners to the said Agents, various other things including their profits etc.2. It appears that earlier the petitioners had to file certain writ petitions with regard to the assessment of their products under the provisions of Section 3 and 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') read with Item No. 14-E of the first schedule to the said Act. In that it has been held that the petitioners have made bona fid...
Queens Chemists Vs. B.K. Agarwal, Collector of Central Excise and Cust ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-12-1987
Reported in: 1988(14)LC649(Bombay)
ORDERH. Suresh, J.1. The petitioners are the manufacturers of medicinal or pharmaceutical products or preparations and they have their factory at 386, Veer Savarkar Marg, Prabhadevi, Bombay-400 025. The products of the petitioners are ordinarily sold by the petitioners in the course of wholesale trade at fixed prices to the petitioners' sole selling agents by name Messrs. Bhogilal Premchand & Co. (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Agents')-The said Agents sold the said products after adding to the prices for the said products charged by the petitioners to the said Agents, various other things including their profits etc.2. It appears that earlier the petitioners had to file certain writ petitions with regard to the assessment of their products under the provisions of Section 3 and 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') read with Item No. 14-E of the first schedule to the said Act. In that it has been held that the petitioners have mad...
Smt. Paru Mrugesh Jaikrishna Vs. Assistant Collector of Customs, Preve ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-11-1987
Reported in: (1987)89BOMLR318; 1988(15)ECC172; 1989(40)ELT23(Bom); 1987MhLJ683
ORDER1. This is an application filed by the original accused 4 under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing of process issued by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bombay in Case No. 28/CW of 1986 whereunder the petitioner along with six others are sought to be prosecuted under Section 120-B of the Penal Code read with S. 135 of the Customs Act.2. The facts leading to the filing of the present application can be enumerated as under :-On the 19th March, 1985 the original accused 2 and 3 were apprehended at the Sahar Air-port by the Customs Intelligence Officer when they were found to be carrying foreign exchange. On their statements being recorded by the Customs Intelligence Officer, the original accused 1 who is the husband of the petitioner was apprehended at the domestic air-port and his statement was recorded separately. During the course of investigation the statements of accused 5 and 6 were recorded whereby it was revealed that the petitioner/original accused 4 was also concerne...
Slm Maneklal Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-11-1987
Reported in: 1988(15)ECC336; 1988(36)ELT545(Bom)
ORDER1. The petitioners imported certain materials. It appears that the ship bringing these materials arrived on 10th February 1975. The consignment was unloaded on 21st February 1975. On 3rd April 1975, the petitioners paid the Customs duty on the entire consignment.2. The said consignment consisted of three cases of various components. After they paid the duty on the same day i.e. on 3rd April, 1975 the Clearing Agents of the petitioners suspected that one of the cases was damaged and some of the contents of the said cases appeared to be missing. They, therefore, requested the Insurance Agents to arrange for a preliminary survey of the said consignment. The Surveyors carried out the survey. But it is an admitted position that at that time no officers of the Customs Department was present. The report of the survey carried out on 4th April, 1975 is at Exhibit 'A' to the petition. The report says that the Clearing Agents' representative requested the Surveyors to carry out the survey on...
Paru Mrugesh Jaikrishna Vs. Asst. Collector of Customs
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-11-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)BomCR428
1. This is an application filed by the original accused No. 4 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of process issued by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bombay in Case No. 28/CW of 1986 whereunder the petitioner along with six others are sought to be prosecuted under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 135 of the Customs Act.2. The facts leading to the filing of the present application can be enumerated as under :-On the 19th of March, 1985 the original accused Nos. 2 and 3 were apprehended at the Sahar Airport by the Customs Intelligence Officer when they were found to be carrying foreign exchange. On their statements being recorded by the Customs Intelligence Officer, the original accused No. 1 who is the husband of the petitioner was apprehended at the domestic airport and his statement was recorded separately. During the course of investigation the statement of accused Nos. 5 and 6 were recorded whereby it was revealed that the peti...
Metal Extruders India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-11-1987
Reported in: 1994(69)ELT477(Bom)
H. Suresh, J.1. The petitioners are engaged in the manufacture of copper alloys pipes and tubes, in which copper alloy is used which has approximately 65% copper content and 35% zinc content. The said tubes and pipes manufactured by the petitioners are subject to excise duty under Item 26A of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. By a Notification No. 213 of 1963 as amended from time to time and issued under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Government had exempted pipes and tubes of copper and copper alloys falling under sub-item (3) i.e. pipes and tubes of Item 26A of the Schedule to the said Act in the manufacture of which duty-paid copper and/or copper alloys in any crude form or manufactures thereof are used. The relevant portion of the said Notification as amended from time to time is as follows :'In exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government hereby exempts pipes and tubes of copper o...
Rajesh K. Bhansali Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-10-1987
Reported in: (1988)(38)ELT208Tri(Mum.)bai
1. All these 4 appeals are against the same Order No. A/14-7-2/84 Pint dated 2.8.1984 passed by the Addl. Collector of Customs (P), Bombay under which he confiscated 856.85 carats of Cut and Polished diamonds valued at Rs. 5,54,416.90 seized from the residence of Shri Mohd.Farooq U. Memon on 27.2.1984. The brief facts of the case are that in pursuance to the seizure of 1000 tolas of gold from a German National Mr. Fischer at Sahar Airport on 5.2.1984. The Customs officers conducted investigations and found that the local contact of Mr.Fischer was with an Iranian National Mr. Col Charity Djabar who had stayed in Shelley's Hotel at Colaba. Investigations further revealed that from this hotel a telephone call had been made to telephone in 91043 which was installed at 55 Embassy Apartments, 291, Boman Behran Marg, Bombay. Further inquiries from the telephone department revealed that from this telephone number some overseas calls had been made in October, 1983. In view of these circumstanc...
Techno Products Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-10-1987
Reported in: (1988)(15)ECC17
1. The prayer in this application is for dispensation with the pre-deposit of Rs. 4,00,551.50 ps. the duty demanded and Rs. 1,00,000/- the penalty imposed on the applicants. Appearing for the applicants Shri Hidayuttallah firstly urged that the show cause notice in this case was issued by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-Ill on 10-2-1986. Prior to this date, certain amendments were carried out to Section 11 A. One of the amendment was that the show cause notice in respect of recovery of an amount which would fall within the proviso to Section 11A has to be issued by the Collector.Therefore, subsequent to 28-12-1985, on which date this amendment came into force, the Assistant Collector has no jurisdiction or power to issue the show cause notice in question. As this show cause notice itself was bad in law, the order passed in pursuance to such a show cause notice was also bad in law. On this ground alone the applicants are entitled to an unconditional stay. Shri Hidayut...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »