Mumbai Court July 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.
Indian Lead Private Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1987
Reported in: 1988(16)ECC162; 1987(31)ELT688(Bom)
ORDER1. The petitioners imported, between December 1981 and February 1982, certain items of drained battery scrap and battery plate scrap all being lead scrap. The petitioners had to pay an additional duty under Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act and that has been challenged on two grounds.2. The first ground is that the lead scrap which the petitioners had imported here could not be said to be manufactured in India and, therefore no countervailing duty could have been charged. This contention has been expressly negatived by the Supreme Court in the case of Khandelwal Metal & Engg. Works v. Union of India, reported in : 1985(20)ELT222(SC) . Having regard to this judgment, obviously, this contention that the lead scrap imported by them is not producted or manufactured in India and that, therefore, no duty could have been charged on that, is not sustainable at all.3. The other contention is that at the material time there was an exemption notification issued under Rule 8(1) of the Ce...
V. Venkatesh Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1987
Reported in: (1987)89BOMLR325; (1988)ILLJ87Bom; 1987MhLJ738
Bharucha. J.1. The appeal assails the judgment and order dismissing the Appellant's writ petition.2. The Appellant joined the service of the third Respondent as a Stenographer on 3rd May 1965. At that time the third Respondent employed only about 10 persons. On 4th October 1967 the third Respondent was leased from Alfa Rubber Company a factory wherein rubber products were manufactured and about 24 persons were employed. On 29th December 1967 an Inspector of the Employees' Provident Fund called upon the third Respondent and required its registration under the provisions of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). Pursuant thereto the third Respondent was registered under the Act.3. A report made in connection with an employee of the third Respondent, which is annexed to the petition, shows the name of the establishment to be that of the third Respondent. It notes its office address, whereat the Appellant worked, and of the fact...
Sheikh Muntijim S/O Sheikh Dilawar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1987
Reported in: 1988(3)BomCR99
M.S. Ratnaparkhi, J.1. The appellant who was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Extra Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati in Sessions Trial No. 120/83 on a charge under section 302 of Indian Penal Code has come up in appeal against that order of conviction and sentence. Initially three accused were charge-sheeted for the charge under section 302 read with section 34 Indian Penal Code. Apart from the present appellant (the original accused No. 1), the order two accused were his brother Mujim and father Dilawar. Both of them have been acquitted b the trial Court. The State has not preferred any appeal against that acquittal.2. The case of the prosecution in brief runs as follows :-Sk. Ajim (P.W. I.) along with his sons and wife was staying in Balapeth at Shendurjanaghat in Amravavi District. The deceased Sheikh Babbu was his son. The accused also were staying in the same locality and their house was situated about 200 feet away from the house of Sk. Ajim. It is the case ...
Himatlal Purshottam Shah Vs. Supadu Pavanu Hadge and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1987
Reported in: 1987(3)BomCR330
Sharad Manohar, J.1. The plaintiff's honest suit for specific performance has been dismissed by the lower Appellate Court on a ground involving hyper technicality, least warranted by any of the provisions of law.2. The facts are as follows :---The land in question (hereafter, the suit plot of land), S. No. 196/7, admeasures only 7 Ares, that is to say about 7 Gunthas. But it is situate within the municipal limits of Savda, Taluka, Raver. At the relevant time, it belonged to defendant No. 1 and original defendant No. 2 Topulu (who died pending this litigation). I will refer to both these persons as defendant Nos. 1 & 2 respectively. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 executed a registered lease dated 6th July, 1962 in favour of the plaintiff. The period of the lease fixed was 10 years. There was an option to have a further renewal of the lease in favour of the plaintiff. But what is important, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had also agreed that if they wanted to sell the particular plot of land to anyone ...
Mrs. B. Vs. Mr. V.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1987
Reported in: (1987)89BOMLR448
Sharad Manohar, J.1. This appeal arises out of a petition for divorce filed by the appellant-wife on the ground of cruelty. The petition has been dismissed by the trial court.2. The parties are living away from each other for the last about 14 years. The respondent-husband is in fact not living in Bombay. He is staying at Nagpur. The appellant-wife is serving with the Bombay Telephones. Just for a period of one and half month, the husband and wife lived together in Nagpur. The petitioner-wife, thereafter came to Bombay and has been eking out her livelihood all by her own. It is evident that the marriage has gone on the rocks.3. No doubt the petition for divorce filed by the petitioner on the ground of cruelty was contested by the respondent-husband and it is also true that the trial court was not persuaded to accept the evidence of the petitioner so far as her plea of cruelty practised by her husband upon her was concerned. But the appeal filed by her against that decree is admitted by...
Indian Lead Private Ltd. and anr. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and the ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1987
Reported in: 1988(14)LC258(Bombay)
ORDERH. Suresh, J.1. The petitioners imported, between December, 1981 and February 1982, certain items of drained battery scrap and battery plate scrap all being lead scrap. The petitioners had to pay an additional duty under Section 3 (1) of the Customs Tariff Act and that has been challenged on two grounds.2. The first ground is that the lead scrap which the petitioners bad imported here could not be said to be manufactured in India and, therefore no countervailing duty could have been charged. This contention has been expressly negatived by the Supreme Court in the case of Khandelwal Metal and Engg. Works v. Union of India, reported in : 1985(20)ELT222(SC) . Having regard to this judgment, obviously, this contention that the lead scrap imported by them is not produced or manufactured in India and that, therefore, no duty could have been charged on that, is not sustainable at all.3. The other contention is that at the material time there was an exemption notification issued under Rul...
Extrusion Processes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector of C.E.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-1987
Reported in: 1987(3)BomCR673; 1988(36)ELT531(Bom)
1. In Extrusion Process Pvt. Ltd. v. N. R. Jadhav, Superintendent of Central Excise, reported in 1979 ELT (380), in which the present petitioners were themselves the petitioners, a Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat, while considering the question whether printing and lacquering of extruded shapes and sections or tubes and pipes of aluminium is liable to payment of duty under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act' for the sake of brevity), came to the conclusion that 'printing and lacquering do not involve the process of forming a tube from a metal slug or dump which extrusion means. It is therefore clear that since printing and lacquering of plain extruded tubes do not require application of any further process of extrusion, it cannot be covered by sub-item (c) of item 27.' Thereafter after posing a question; is the process of printing and lacquering them incidental or ancillary to the completion of manufacture of such a tube the Div...
Vishal Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-1987
Reported in: 1988(15)ECC190; 1988(36)ELT38(Bom)
1. The Petitioners had imported lenses for the close circuit television cameras. It appears that the said senses were classified under the Heading 90.02 read with Heading 85.15(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tariff Act'). However, the countervailing duty was levied on the lenses under Item 23A of the First Schedule of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 by classifying the said lenses as an item of 'Glass and Glassware'. The rate of duty leviable under the said item was at 35 per cent.2. Since the levy of countervailing duty at the rate applicable to the 'Glass and Glassware' did not appear to be in order, the petitioners to ok up the matter with the Customs Authorities. The petitioners explained to the Department that the Tariff Item 23A covers 'Glass and Glassware' of the types specified under the said Item, while the items imported by the petitioners were 'lenses' which are used in highly sophisticated appliances like closed circuit television ...
Vasudeo Ambre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-1987
Reported in: (1988)ILLJ464Bom
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. The appeal impugns the order of summary dismisal of the Appellant's writ petition with the single word 'Rejected.'2. The Appellant was employed by the Mill Mazdoor Sabha (the second respondent herein) which is a trade union registered under the Trade Union Act, 1926. The Appellant's services were terminated. It was the Appellant's contention in conciliation proceedings which he initiated that his dismissal was actuated by malafide considerations. A failure report was filed in the conciliation proceedings. Thereafter, by an order dated 31st May 1982, the State of Maharashtra (the first respondent) denied to refer the dispute for adjudication since 'the disputant Shri Vasudeo Ambre is not a workman within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act vide Section 2(s)'.3. The Appellant filed the writ petition to assail the refusal to refer upon this ground. The learned single Judge, as aforesaid, rejected the writ petition.4. It would appear that the refusal to refer was...
Dagadu Bapu Shinde Vs. Vasant Shankar Nimbalkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Bom22; 1987(3)BomCR543; 1988MhLJ71
1. This Second Appeal has got to be allowed on the two narrow grounds that--(a) the learned Judge has dismissed the plaintiff's application for quite a formal amendment when the defendant had specifically agreed to the amendment subject to the payment of costs; and(b) on merits and evidence the defendant had not a leg to stand upon.2. The facts are very simple.The suit land admittedly belonged to theplaintiff, who entered into an Agreement for sale of the same to the defendant on 29-11-1980. According to him, he was in need of a sum of Rs. 800/-. Hence, he executed a deed of sale of the suit land (Gat No. 815 (old Survey No. 308)) at villageTathavade, Taluka Phaltan, admeasuring 6 Acres 18 Gunthas for the said sum of Rs. 800/- in favour of the defendant. On the same date, an Agreement of reconveyance was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to reconvey the said land to the plaintiff upon the plaintiff repaying the said amount of, Rs. 800/- within a period of 5 ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »