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.
Popat Balu Vanjari Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)BomCR92
R.A. Jahagirdar, J.1. The appellant, hereinafter referred to as 'the accused,' has been convicted for an offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge of Jalgaon in Sessions Case No. 58 of 1983 by his judgment and order dated 30th of November, 1983. By the same order the accused has been sentenced to imprisonment for life.2. Facts leading to the prosecution must be briefly stated in order to understand the judgment of the Court below and the arguments advanced before this Court challenging the said order of conviction and sentence. The deceased was one Pandit Sukdev Pachonde of Village Tarkhede in Pachora Taluka of Jalgaon District. On 9th of May, 1983, the said Pandit Sukdev and the accused were seen together by at least three persons, two of whom have been examined as prosecution witnesses, in a field belonging to one Narayan Savaji. That field was situated in Village Galan Khurd, also in Pachora Taluka. Some enmity between the deceased a...
Madhukar Balkrishna Badiye and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-1987
Reported in: 1987(2)BomCR621; 1987MhLJ698
V.A. Mohta, J.1. The subject of imposition of taxes on machanically propelled vehicles is covered by Entry 57 of List II and Entry 35 of List III of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. Entries respectively read thus :'57. Taxes on vehicles, whether mechanically propelled or not, suitable for use on roads, including tramcars subject to the provisions of Entry 35 of List III.''35. Mechanically propelled vehicles including the principles on which taxes on such vehicles are to be levied.'Two enactments, (i) The Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 a Central Act, and (ii) The Bombay Motor Vehicle Tax Act 1958, a State Act, govern ownership and/or possession of 'motor vehicles' a term defined under section 2(1-B) of the Central Act and adopted by section 2(2-B) of the State Act. The Central Act has not laid down any principles on which taxes on motor vehicles are to be levied. The State Act is made to consolidate and amend the law relating to the taxation of motor vehicles in the State. S...
Omega Trading Agency and anr. Vs. J. Datta, the Collector of Customs a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-1987
Reported in: 1987(13)LC1177(Bombay)
H. Suresh, J.1. On 6th May 1975 there was a raid by the Customs authorities on the godown premises as also on the office premises of the petitioners. The petitioners carry on business in the name of M/s. Omega Trading Agency and carry on business in the manufacture and sale of pharmaceutical goods.2. In the said raid, the Customs authorities could seize number of items on the basis that they were all smuggled goods, most of the items being of foreign origin of various kinds of drugs. It is not necessary for me to detail all those items, inasmuch as most of the items have already been released, excepting the two items viz. stock of Vitamin B-1 and Krishna Mask.3. These two items have been ordered to be confiscated. In addition to the confiscation, petitioner No. 2 has been fined in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-.4. It is against this order of confiscation and penalty, the petitioners have filed the present petition.5. Mr. J.J. Thakkar, appearing for the petitioners, mainly contended that there...
Satellite Engineering Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1987
Reported in: 1988(19)LC33(Bombay); 1987(31)ELT356(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. The appeal assails the judgment and order of Pendse, J. dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants.2. The appellants manufacture fluorescent starter switches. Prior to 1961 a company called Permanand Maneklal & Company was in technical collaboration with M/s. Kupfer Ltd., U.K. (hereinafter referred to as 'Kupfer'). On 16th April, 1962 an agreement was entered into where under the business of Permanand Maneklal & Co. was transferred to the appellants. Later Permanand Maneklal & Co. went into voluntary liquidation.3. On 17th January, 1972 the appellants placed an order with Kupfer for 30 tonnes of lead glass tubing of a certain specification for fluorescent starter switches at the price of pounds 0.075 per pound C.I.F. Bombay (Lead glass tubing of that specification is now referred to as 'the said tubing'). The offer was accepted by Kupfer by its letter dated 22nd March, 1972. (The rate of pounds 0.075 per pound works out to pounds 0.15 per Kg.)4. On 11th March, ...
Gandhi and Co. Vs. Krishnan Glass Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-1987
Reported in: 1987MhLJ885
Shah, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the original plaintiffs against the judgement and order dt/- March 22, 1983, passed by the learned single Judge in suit No. 17 of 1973 (reported in 1983 Mh LJ 1036) dismissing the suit on the preliminary ground that the suit is not maintainable for non-compliance of the provisions of S. 69, sub-sec. (2) of the Partnership Act, 1932. The facts in so far as they are material are not in dispute. In the plaint the appellants are described as a partnership firm registered under the Partnership Act and carrying on business at 90/92, Kazi Syed Street, Bombay-3. In the plaint it is further averred that the plaintiffs are a partnership firm registered under the Patnership Act and that they carry on the business of supply of silica sand, dolomite limestone and other minerals. In para 7 of the plaint it is stated that there was a talk in relation to the suit contract between Rasiklal Narottam Gandhi, a partner of the plaintiff firm and one Dhirubhai Boda ...
Siemens Aktiengesellschaft Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-06-1987
Reported in: (1987)22ITD87(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal relating to the assessment year 1980-81 preferred by M/s Siemens Aktiengesellschaft, West Germany, hereinafter referred to as "the assessee".2. We will set out in broad terms the background in which the appeal has come to be heard by this Special Bench.3. The assessment made is in the status of a non-resident. The accounting period is from 1-10-1978 to 30-9-1979. The assessee had entered into various agreements with parties in India and in the present appeal the terms of 11 such agreements came up for consideration involving payments which could be grouped together under 14 items. Different nomenclature has been assigned to different items of payments. The descriptive break-up is as under :-- The details of the 14 different items giving reference to the grounds of appeal before the Tribunal, as also to the articles/clauses in the relevant agreements, and indicating wherever such agreements had been the subject of consideration in the assessment order for the year ...
Gujarat Electronics and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-06-1987
Reported in: 1988(15)ECC189; 1988(18)LC350(Bombay); 1988(36)ELT47(Bom)
1. The petitioners had imported 100 sets of autocoloured monitors and the respondents found that that was without proper import licence. Hence there were adjudication proceedings and an order was passed on 17th September, 1981, whereby the said sets were confiscated under Section 111 of the Customs Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') read with Section 3 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. However, an option was given to then petitioners to pay in lieu of such confiscation a fine of Rs. 50,000/- and on such fine being paid, the goods could be released to the petitioners. The petitioners availed of this option and got the goods released.2. However, soon thereafter on 15th December, an Appraiser of the Customs Department issued a memo and sought to seize 54 cartons of those very goods under Section 110(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioners protested against that on the ground that it is not possible for the Customs Authorities to seize the goods in question after...
The Special Land Acquisition Officer (i), Bombay and anr. Vs. the Muni ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-06-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Bom9; 1988(2)BomCR588
ORDER1. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, who are the applicants, have taken out this Chamber Summons dt. 17th June 1987 for being added as a party to this reference under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.2. The facts that give rise to this Chamber Summons are that the Special Land Acquisition Officer (I) issued notifications for acquisition of the land in question as the same was required for the benefit of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay. In pursuance of the notices served, India Hume Pipes Company Limited, who are the owners of the land and claimants in this reference appeared before the Special Land Acquisition Officer and were duly heard. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, however, served no notice on the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, perhaps because they had no proprietary interest in the land in question. Nonetheless, the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, the applicants appeared before him and made some submissions. The Special Land Acqu...
M.C. Desai and anr. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-1987
Reported in: (1988)(34)ELT277Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These four Revision applications to the Central Government under old Section 131(a) and (b) of the Customs Act have been transferred to the Tribunal in terms of Section 131-B ibid and these are to be treated as appeals to the Tribunal. These four appeals are filed by two appellants, Shri M.C. Desai and M/s. K. Hargovinddas & Co. against the two orders, viz., order-in-revision No. 2191-R, dated 18.12.1980 F.No.389/13/78-Cus.-2-A and Order No. 2243A-2244A of 1980 dated 18.12.1980 F.No. 381/75-76/78-Cus. A passed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs under old sections 130 and 128 respectively of the Customs Act.Since these appeals arise out of the same order No.SG-108/73-A/S/10-112/76 LS1IB dated 4.3.1978 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs (P) Bombay and since these appeals involve common facts and law points, these appeals were heard together at the request of the learned Advocate Shri S.D. Nankani and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The brief facts...
Extrusion Processes Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Union of India and Anothe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-1987
Reported in: 1988LC218(Bombay); 1987(31)ELT866(Bom)
ORDER1. Both these petitions can be disposed of by a common judgment. These two petitions were filed in the wake of various judgments that practically allowed post-manufacturing expenses of every sort, deductible from the excise duty and on the basis of that, deductions were sought on every conceivable item whether legally climable or not, as post manufacturing expenses. However, the legal position appears to have been set at rest by the judgment in the case of Union of India & Ors. etc. etc. v. Bombay Tyre International Ltd. etc. ect., reported on 1983 ELT 1896 (S.C.). Technically speaking, in view of this judgment of the Supreme Court, these two petitions cannot survive. However, it appears that the Supreme Court as also our High Court and perhaps certain other High Courts had passed orders which have been described by the Bar as 'Format Orders', whereby subject to certain directions given by the Court, all the items in respect of which the petitioners claimed deduction on the basis ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »