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.
Sharma Goods Transport Vs. Vidarbha Weavers Central Co-operative Socy. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Bom269; 1988(4)BomCR154; 1987MhLJ1002
1. The only question raised in this second appeal is whether it was obligatory on the respondent-original plaintiff to give a notice as required under Section 10 of the Carriers Act, in the event of non-delivery of goods.2. On 18th August 1969 the respondent entrusted three bales of handloom saris to the appellant at Wardha for carrige and delivery to the respondent at Nagpur. The bales were worth Rs. 5273-35 p. and could have in normal course been delivered to the respondent within three days of the booking.The goods were never delivered and the respondent, therefore, filed a suit for compensation. The appellant inter alia contended that a notice as required under Section 10 of the Carriers Act, was necessary. Both the Courts below found that the appellant did not deliver the goods to the plaintiff, that the goods were worth Rs. 5273-35 p. and that the trial Court had jurisdiction to try the suit. They negatived the contention that a notice under Section 10 of the Carriers Act was nec...
Manohar Bodharam Motwani Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-1987
Reported in: (1988)90BOMLR137; 1987MhLJ1009
S.M. Daud, J.1. This petition from Jail takes exception to an order of detention dated February 19, 1987 under Section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers and Drug Offenders Act, 1981 (LV of 1981 -- hereinafter referred as 'the Act').2. The detenu was booked on three occasions viz. 17 November 1985, 1 December 1985 and 27 August 1986 for the alleged commission of offences punishable under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Drugs Act). In the background of these incidents the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay on February 19, 1987 passed an order of detention under Section 3(1) of the Act. The order and the grounds were served upon the detenu along with the relevant papers. From jail the detenu sent the petition assailing the detention order and Miss Joshi, appointed to prosecute the petition on his behalf, has canvassed three grounds which are discussed below.3. Learned Counsel firstly points out that the grou...
Gokalchand Rattanchand Woollen Mills Private Limited Vs. the Union of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-1987
Reported in: 1988(14)LC503(Bombay)
H. Suresh, J.1. Petitioner No. 1 is a 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 'sliver' comes into existence. The question is as to whether that item is liable for excise duty or not ?2. Till the year 1979, sliver obtained in the said process of manufacture of woollen yarn 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 sliver as liable to the levy of excise duty. The relevant portion of Tariff Item 43 after its amendment is as follows:43. The wool tops and carded and gilled sliver containing in either case, more than 50% by weight of wool calculated on its total fibre contents.3. After this amendment, the Department...
Sharma Goods Transport Vs. the Vidarbha Weavers Central Cooperative So ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-1987
Reported in: I(1988)ACC499
M.S. Deshpande, J.1. The only question raised in this second appeal is whether it was obligatory on the respondent-original plaintiff to give a notice as required under Section 10 of the Carriers Act, in the event of nondelivery of goods.2. On 18th August 1969 the respondent entrusted three bales of handloom saris to the appellant at Wardha for carriage and delivery to the respondent at Nagpur. The bales were worth Rs. 5273-35 p. and could have in normal course been delivered to the respondent within three days of the booking. The goods were never delivered and the respondent, therefore, filed a suit for compensation. The appellant inter alia contended that a notice as required under Section 10 of the Carriage Act, was necessary. Both the Courts below found that the appellant did not deliver the goods to the plaintiff, that the goods were worth Rs. 5273-35 p. and that the trial Court had jurisdiction to try the suit They negative the contention that a notice under Section 10 of the Car...
income-tax Officer Vs. Nenmany Investments Agencies
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1987
Reported in: (1988)27ITD228(Mum.)
1. This appeal by the department relates to the assessment year 1981-82.2. The assessee is a company. The gross dividend income was Rs. 6,76,599. Expenses attributable to dividend income were Rs. 38,561.Thus the net dividend income was Rs. 6,38,038. Deduction admissible under Section 80K was Rs. 42,311. The Income-tax Officer deducted Rs. 42,311 from Rs. 6,38,038 under Section 80M(2) of the Act and on the balance of Rs. 5,95,727 he calculated deduction allowable under section 80M(1) being 60 per cent of said amount. This came to Rs. 3,67,436. He allowed this deduction under Section 80M(1) of the Act. The assessee went in appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and pleaded that calculation of 60 per cent under Section 80M(1) should have been on Rs. 6,38,038 and not on Rs. 5,95,727 in view of the provisions of Section 80AA of the Act. The assessee relied on an earlier decision of the Tribunal in some other case. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) accepted the submis...
Air Corporation Employees Union and ors. Vs. Air India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1987
Reported in: 1987(3)BomCR207; (1995)IIILLJ356Bom; 1987MhLJ875
H.H. Kantharia, J. 1. Petitioner No. 2 joined the services of respondent No. 1-Air India as an Assistant Flight Purser from 4th Feb. 1956. He was confirmed in that post on 1st August, 1956. He was promoted to the post of Flight Purser with effect from 1st April, 1960 and was confirmed in said post on 1st April, 1961. His services came to be terminated by a letter dated 12/14th April, 1965. Therefore, an industrial dispute was raised on his behalf by the first petitioner- union under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for reinstatement with full back wages and other service benefits. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour Employment and Rehabilitation, by order dated 3rd June, 1975 referred the said dispute to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2 at Bombay (the second respondent) in the following terms:-'Whether the action of the management of Air India in terminating the services of Shri Aubrey De'Sylva, Flight Purser of Air India...
Pamla @ Ramesh Dhansukhlal Rana Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)BomCR157; 1987MhLJ975
S.M. Daud, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India question the proceedings culminating in, and inclusive, of an order externing the petitioner from the Districts of Dhule and Nasik for a period of 2 years.2. Mr. Agarwal appearing in support of the petitioner has raised a number of issues to assail the order. It is not necessary to go into these for the invalidity of the order is apparent from the material variation between the notices given to the petitioner and the order eventually passed against him. The first notice dated 2 January, 1985 called upon the petitioner to show cause against a proposed externment, the area of operation of his undesirable activities being the township of Taluka Navapur, District Dhule. Then came the second notice dated 15 April, 1985 in which the petitioner was called upon to show cause why as order externing him from the District Dhule should not be made. However, when it came to passing the order of externment, the petitioner w...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Trambak Ananda Mahajan and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1987
Reported in: 1987(3)BomCR360
Ashok Agarwal, J.1. This Appeal raises a question in regard to the interpretation of Clause 10 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944 and the same arises on the following facts of the present case. The respondent No. 1 who was serving as a Deputy Engineer, E.G.S. Sub-Division, Dhadgaon, Dist. Dhule, is alleged to have acquired properties and estates disproportionate to his known sources of income. As a prosecution under section 5(1)(c) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was in contemplation, the Appellant the State of Maharashtra on the 10th of September, 1984 obtained an order of authorisation under Clause 3 of the said Ordinance and filed on the 5th November, 1984 Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 615 of 1984 for an order of attachment of the properties of the respondent No. 1 and obtained on the 7th of November, 1984 an order of ad interim attachment under Clause 4 of that Ordinance. As no cognizance of the offence in question came to be taken a...
Poona Bottling Co. Limited and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and 3 ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1987
Reported in: 1988(14)LC591(Bombay)
ORDERSugla, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and respondents. There is no dispute that the petitioners have an alternative remedy by way of appeal under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (For Short 'Act'). It is, however, contended that the remedy by way of appeal in this case is not efficacious and since the show cause notice issued under Section 11A of the Act is without jurisdiction inasmuch as it was issued beyond the time limit applicable in this case, this Court can and should entertain the petitioners' petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In short the question involved, thus, is whether it is a prima facie case of issue of show cause notice under Section 11A of the Act without jurisdiction i.e. out of time limit applicable in this case or whether this question can be answered only after going through a long drawn process of investigation into the facts and law. Again there is no dispute that if the assessee's case falls within the purpo...
Blue Star Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-1987
Reported in: 1988(15)ECC72; 1993(66)ELT152(Bom)
ORDERSuresh, J.1. The petitioner No. 1 is a company carrying on business as manufacturers of refrigeration and air-conditioning appliances and machinery. The company buys electric motors and blades and assembles them in the refrigeration and air-conditioning appliances and machinery manufactured by them. The assembly of motors and blades were classified as 'electric motors' under Tariff Item 33(2) of the Central Excise Tariff. The petitioners contended that the motor and blade assembly would not constitute an electric fan as recognised in commercial and technical parlance. They further contended that they were merely components of refrigeration and air- conditioning machinery manufactured by them. They, therefore, contended that the same could not have been classified under Tariff Item 33(2), of Central Excise Tariff. This contention was negatived by all the authorities till the matter came before the Government in revision sometime in 1980. However, at the time of hearing of this matt...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »