Mumbai Court August 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.
Century Textiles and Industries Ltd., Bombay Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-1987
Reported in: 1987(3)BomCR449; 1988(15)ECC63; 1988(19)LC373(Bombay); 1988(37)ELT524(Bom)
ORDER1. What is the correct classification of Cotton Linters Pulp under Indian Tariff Act, 1934, is the question that is to be decided in this petition. The relevant entries are entry No. 43(1) and entry No. 44 which are set out below :'43(1) 'Pulp (other than wood pulp) from vegetable fibres such as bamboo, grasses, reeds and agricultural residues, including pulp of rags, and mixtures of such pulp'. 44 'Paper, all sorts, not otherwise specifies.'The petitioners say that the item falls under entry No. 43(1) while the department contends that it falls under entry 44.2. The petitioners as manufacturers of textile fabrics imported various consignments of Cotton Linters Pulp. The consignments were all imported in the form of continuous rolls which is one of the forms in which the pulp is shipped internationally. On August 11, 1972 the petitioners imported seventeen rolls of Cotton Linter Pulp and filed their bill of entry No. 828 on October 13, 1972. In the bill of entry the petitioners cl...
impact Containers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M. R. Nadkarni, Supdt. of Central Exci ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-1987
Reported in: 1988(18)ECC58; 1987(31)ELT879(Bom)
1. The petitioners manufacture collapsible aluminium tubes. They are also carrying on the process of capping of collapsible aluminium tubes within the company's licensed factory premises.2. In writ petition No. 1249 of 1980 this Court, after admitting this petition challenging the claim of the revenue with regard to excise duty on the caps and capping charges, granted interim relief by an order dated October 22, 1980 permitting the petitioners to clear the said tubes without including the assessable value thereof the various post-extrusion and post-manufacturing expenses including, in particular, the said caps and capping charges, Pursuant to this interim order, the petitioners made an application to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise on August, 30, 1984 to the effect that the petitioners would be clearing aluminium collapsible tubes (metal containers) without caps from their factory premises. They further informed that such tubes without caps would be cleared on payment of duty...
Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-1987
Reported in: 1988(16)ECC150; 1987(31)ELT874(Bom)
1. The petitioners are the manufacturers of refrigerating and air-conditioning machinery and appliance. Between May, 1979 and November 1980, the petitioners imported various consignments of components parts of refrigeration and air-conditioning compressors. It is the case of the petitioners that the items imported by them were not covered by Notification No. 80/62 issued under Item No. 29A(3) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, though falling under Item No. 29A and hence no additional duty under Section 3A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 was leviable on the goods either under Item No. 29A or under Item No. 68. This appears to be an admitted position. However, without realising this, the petitioners had paid duty. When they realised their mistake, they made an application for refund on July 1, 1980. The Assistant Collector of Customs by his order dated March 19, 1981 rejected this application for refund mainly on the ground that the application was preferred after the expiry of six months ...
Sharad Hari Deshpande Vs. India Security Press and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-1987
Reported in: 1987(3)BomCR498; (1988)ILLJ297Bom; 1987MhLJ810
H.H. Kantharia, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as an Office Peon in an existing vacancy, by the first respondent, vide appointment letter dated 24th October 1975, on probation for two years in the first instance, on usual scale of pay admissible under the rules as wound be in force from time to time, with effect from 20th October, 1975 F.N. The probation period came to an end on 28th October, 1977 but the petitioner was continued in the employment. However, he received an order dated 18th September, 1978 informing him that his services were terminated and that he shall be paid a sum equivalent to the sum of pay and allowances for the period of one month (in lieu of the period of notice) calculated at the same rate at which he was drawing the salary immediately before the date on which the said order was served on him. Being aggrieved, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the Commissioner of Labour (Central). Conciliation proceeding were commenced but since no settlemen...
Radhabai W/O Govinda Bhise Vs. Govinda S/O Totiji Bhise and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)BomCR178
G.G. Loney, J.1. Applicant Radhabai, a deserted woman of about 50 years age, has approached this Court invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under section, 482, Cri.P.C. claiming maintenance. Her application for maintenance from her husband non-applicant under section 125 Cri.P.C. was rejected by the learned Magistrate and her revision before the Sessions Court, Akola, was also rejected. It is a very unusual case where an old wife is claiming the maintenance against her husband who is having the first wife living with him. In order to appreciate the rival contentions in this case it is necessary to know the relevant facts.2. The applicant Radhabai was the second wife of the non-applicant Govinda. He had earlier married with Gangubai but since she was a minor he married the petitioner Radhabai. During the cohabitation of the applicant and non-applicant she gave birth to a daughter. After some years the first wife Gangubai attained puberty and came to reside with the non-appli...
Gullam Nabi Gullam Shabir Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)BomCR102; 1988MhLJ108
S.M. Daud, J.1. Petitioner/detenu invokes Article 226 of the Constitution to assail an order of detention made by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, on 9th October, 1986 under the National Security Act, 1980 (NSA).2. The detenu is said to have participated in two crimes which took place on 5 August, 1985 and 26 June, 1986 respectively. The first incident occurred in Ishwar Nagar, L.B.S. Marg, Bhandup (West), Bombay, at 9.00 p.m. The locale was the Liberty Gas Services where the Cashier was writing accounts just preparatory to the closing of the shop. At that time, the detenu is said to have rushed into the shop with his associates Stanley who was armed with a knife and Jokim armed with a revolver. The fourth person from this quartet, Joseph Fernandes tagged along without an arm. As soon as the four had effected an entry, the shutter of the shop was pulled down from inside. The cashier Shridhar Ramayya Shetty was then present along with a servant Babu Sampat Pagare. Stanley flo...
Chandrapur Zilla Cement Kamgar Sangh and Vs. Manikgarh Cement
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)BomCR72
M.M. Qazi, J.1. Both the petitions are being disposed of by this judgment since the point involved is common.2. The petitioner is a Union of workers registered under the provisions of the Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926, and the respondent, is a Company duly incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act. 1950. It is an industry which is engaged in manufacture of cement. According to the petitioner, since the respondent did not implement the Award, dispute arose and notice dated 20th April, 1987, of the strike was given. The strike was to commence from 8-5-1987. The respondent made a reference under section 25 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act. 1971. (for short the Act) before the 4th Labour Court, Nagpur on 4-5-1987 for a declaration that the strike resorted to by the petitioner Union was illegal. There is no dispute that the reference is still pending.2-A. The respondent filed complaint (ULPN) No. 305 of 1987 bef...
Anuradha Krishna Gujarati and anr. Vs. Waman Govind Modak by His Heirs ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-1987
Reported in: 1987(3)BomCR481
A.D. Tated, J.1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23rd April, 1982 passed by the learned II Extra Assistant Judge, Pune, in Civil Appeal No. 279 of 1980 whereby he confirmed the decree for eviction passed by the learned Additional Small Cause Judge, Pune in Regular Civil Suit No. 2353 of 1975 decided on 18th January, 19802. The only point for consideration in this petition is whether the courts below erred in finding that the petitioners-defendants failed to comply with the provisions of section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as 'the Bombay Rent Act').3. The relevant facts for the decision of the above point are that the suit premises are owned by the respondents-plaintiff and they are the landlords of the petitioner No. 1-defendant No. 1. The petitioner No. 2 defendant No. 2 is the husband of the petitioner N...
Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi), the As ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-1987
Reported in: 1988(14)LC499(Bombay)
H. Suresh, J.1. The petitioners are the manufacturers of refrigerating and air-conditioning machinery and appliances. Between May 1979 and November 1980, the petitioners imported various consignments of component parts of refrigeration and air-conditioning compressors. It is the case of the petitioners that the items imported by them were not covered by Notification No. 80/62-CE issued under item No. 29A (3) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, though falling under item No. 29A and hence no additional duty under Section 3A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 was leviable on the goods either under item No. 29A or under item No. 68. This appears to be an admitted position. However, without realising this, the petitioners had paid duty. When they realised their mistake, they made an application for refund on July 1, 1980. The Assistant Collector of Customs by his order dated March 19, 1981 rejected this application for refund mainly on the ground that the application was preferred after the expir...
Gokalchand Rattanchand Woollen Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. U.O.i.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-1987
Reported in: 1988(15)ECC45; 1987(13)LC921(Bombay); 1992(61)ELT566(Bom)
H. Suresh, J.1. Petitioner No. 1 is company manufacturing woollen yarn. In the petition the petitioners have set out the process for the manufacture of woollen yarn. During the process of the manufacture of the woollen yarn, an intermediate product known as 'silver' comes into existence. The question is as to whether that items is liable for excise duty or not ?2. Till the year 1979, silver obtained in the said process of manufacture of woollen yearn was not at all liable to the levy of excise duty. However, by the Finance Act of 1979, the Tariff Item 43, which originally made woollen tops alone excisable, was sought to be amended, and after the said amendment the said tariff item included silver as liable to the levy of the excise duty. The relevant portion of Tariff Item 43 after its amendment is as follows :-'43. The wool tops and carded and gilled slivers containing in either case, more than 50% by weight of wool calculated on its total fibre contents.'3. After this amendment, the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »