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.
Universal Autocrafts Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1987
Reported in: 1990(26)ECC180; 1987(31)ELT912(Bom)
S.C. Pratap, J.1. The petitioner is a private limited company and a small scale industry carrying on business as manufactures of corrugated boards and boxes. For such manufacture the petitioner uses as raw material craft paper which it purchases from the manufacturers thereof.2. Under Notification No. 46 of 1971, dated 24th April 1971 the Central Government exempted corrugated boards of the description given in column 2 of the table to the said notification falling under sub-item (2) of Item No. 17 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon as was in excess of the duty leviable at the rates specified in the corresponding entry in column 3 of the said table which here was 5 per cent. ad valorem. On 24th January 1978 the Central Government, by its Notification No. 14 of 1978, amended the above Notification No. 46 of 1971 by inserting therein a new proviso after the existing proviso. The said new inserted proviso was...
Annubai Ganapati Nalugade and anr. Vs. Dnyanu Tuka Nalugade and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Bom149
1. The question involved in this second appeal is fully covered by the two judgments of the Supreme Court. The first one reported in : [1982]3SCR341 Nagesh Bisto Desai v. Khando Tirmal Desai and : [1984]3SCR484 Anant Kibe v. Purushottam Rao. In fact both these judgments approve and affirm the judgment of Full Bench of this Court reported in : AIR1977Bom350 Laxmibai Sadashiv Date v. Ganesh Shankar Date.2. It is unnecessary to state the facts of the case in detail because they have been set out quite sufficiently in the judgment of both the Courts below. They may be very briefly stated here in order to formulate the question involved here. The suit lands were the original sanadi inam lands. The original vatandar in whose favour the inam was given by the relevant vathukums had (sic) within the suit lands of impartible character, inheritable only by the leneal primogeniture. It appears that the plaintiff was in possession of the lands by virtue of the rule of primogeniture.Later on the ina...
Gautam Ramanlal Diwan Vs. Madhukar Raghunath Kalewar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1987
Reported in: (1987)89BOMLR414; 1987MhLJ1052
S.N. Khatri, J.1. In 1966 the respondents brought two suits against the defendants-petitioners for possession of two separate premises on the allegation that they are owners and the latter were mere trespassers. All the 6 plaintiffs are real brothers. It appears that the first two plaintiffs Madhukar and Madan died a number of years ago. Admittedly the surviving plaintiffs did not take out any proceedings in the lower Court for bringing legal representatives of the deceased plaintiffs on record. Thereupon the defendants took out two Notices of Motion for an order that both suits should be disposed of as having abated. The lower Court dismissed these Motions. The defendants preferred two separate appeals to this Court from the lower Court's order. As the impugned order is not appealable, at the request of the appellants' learned advocate, they were converted into civil revision applications. This order disposes of both these revisions.2. The learned Judge has held that on the death of t...
Goregaon Malayalee Samaj (Regd.) Vs. Popatlal Prabhudas and Sons and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)BomCR358
Ashok Agarwal, J.1. This petitioner seeks to challenge the concurrent decrees passed by the trial Court and the Appellate Court awarding a decree for possession in favour of the respondent No. 1 under section 13(1)(i) of the Bombay Rent Act. The premises in disputes in the present proceedings is an open plot of land admeasuring about 250 sq.ft. forming part property at Byramjee Jeejeebhoy Road, Goregaon (west), Bombay 400 062. The said premises were initially let in favour of one V.O. Michael who was the original defendant No. 1 who in turn constructed a structure thereon and indicate the petitioner who are in Goregaon Malayalee Samaj which is a trust registered under the Bombay Trust Act. respondent No. 1 filed the present suit and 25 other suit claiming possession of different portions of land in occupation in different tenants. Possession was claimed inter alia, under section 12(1) i.e. where the premises are land, such is reasonably and bona fide required by landlord for erection o...
S.D. Sakpal and anr. Vs. Collector of Customs (P)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-1987
Reported in: (1987)(33)ELT181Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These two Reference Applications under Section 130(1) of the Customs Act are by the two appellants in Appeals CD(BOM)744 and CD(BOM)745/84 respectively and they arise out of the common order bearing No.591-593/86-WRB dated 14th May, 1986. By these two applications, the applicants require the Tribunal to draw a statement of the case and refer to the Honourable High Court of Bombay the following six questions which according to the applicants are questions of law and that they do arise from the order dated 14th May, 1986. (1) Whether under law the Applicant can be penalised under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the basis of his retracted conessions. (2) Whether under law the Application can be penalised under Section 12 of the Customs Act on the basis of alleged confessions of his alleged accomplice or co-accused. (3) Whether in the proceeding for penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 can retracted confessions of the Applicant be corroborated by the confessional ...
Abdul Razak Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-1987
Reported in: 1987(3)BomCR467; (1987)89BOMLR408; 1987MhLJ863
ORDERTated, J.1. The appellant has been convicted for the offence of murder of his brother under S. 302 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, in Sessions Case No. 102 of 1983, decided on 19th August, 1983.2. The prosecution case was that the deceased Shaikh Ibrahim Shaikh Ismail and the accused along with their mother and other relations previously resided in the same house at Ulhasnagar. Due to household difficulties Abdul Razak, the accused, started living separately in the same compound but in a different house. The deceased was working as a taxi driver. The accused was employed in a Burner factory at Ulhasnagar at a distance of about 2 Km. from the house. The prosecution alleged that there used to be quarrels between the accused and deceased and also between the deceased and the wife of the accused. On 25th October, 1982 at about 12 noon there was a quarrel between the deceased and the wife of the accused. The wife of ...
Ramchand Santumal Bhatia Vs. Tarun Roy and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-1987
Reported in: 1987(3)BomCR399
Daud, J.1. A short, but important question of jurisdiction in habeas corpus matters, arises in this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.2. The Directorate of Intelligence Officers based at Calcutta acting on information on 9 April 1986 intercepted certain persons disembarking at Calcutta from a Thai Airways Plane being flight No. TG-313. One of the disembarkees was the petitioner's wife Smt. Durga Ramchand Bhatia. Being carried on her ticket were two pieces of registered baggage and a hand bag on her person. But there was something suspicious about her movements and therefore she was taken in for a personal search and interrogation. This search led to the recovery of gold in the form of biscuits of the value of Rs. 1,03,750/- from the lady's private parts. Detailed investigation showed that Smt. Durga was part of a syndicate of Bombay based ladies engaged in smuggling through the Calcutta and Madras Airports, though they left for foreign countries from the Bombay Airpo...
Devidas Baburao Hajare and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-1987
Reported in: 1987MhLJ801
H.H. Kantharia, J.1. A common question which we are called upon to consider in these two writ petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution is the controversy concerning the caste claim made by the petitioners. Petitioner 1. Devidas Baburao Hajare, is the father of petitioner 2 Sanagita, in Writ Petition No. 261 of 1987, and petitioner 2 Kavita, in Writ Petition No.887 of 1987. Petitioners claim that they belong to Gadi-Lohar community which is included in the list of the Nomadic Tribes. Respondents 1 and 2 both the writ petitions cotrovert the petitioner's claim.2. The core and conscience of the Constitution is to ensure justice, social, economic and political to the people of this vast and great country among whom millions and millions are the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes who are the ligitimate beneficiaries of an elaborate system of 'compensatory discrmination' which given them special and preferential treatment, among other things, in the field of education so that they...
Bhagwanrao S/O Jijaba Auti Vs. Ganpatrao S/O Mugaji Raut and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-1987
Reported in: 1987(3)BomCR258
B.G. Deo, J.1. In view of the conflict of decisions by this Court, resulting in uncertainly of law and consequent confusion in the minds of the litigants, mostly agriculturists, a question of far-reaching importance has been referred to the Division Bench of this Court for decision by the Honourable the Acting Chief Justice, at the instance of Pratap. J., of this Court.2. The question referred is as under :---'In a suit simpliciter for a permanent injunction, is it necessary to frame an issue of tenancy either of the plaintiff or of the defendant?'3. This reference arose out of Regular Civil Suit No. 71 of 1979 filed by plaintiff-Bhagwanrao in the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bevarai, District Beed, for a permanent injunction simpliciter for restraining the defendant No. 1---Ganpatrao and defendant No. 2---Mrs.. Kamlabai from disturbing his possession over the suit field being a portion of survey No. 260, situated at Umapur. Bhagwanrao contends that he is a tenant in pos...
Excel Industries Ltd. and AshwIn Champraj Shroff Vs. the Central Insec ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-1987
Reported in: 1988(14)LC669(Bombay)
Bharucha, J.1. The appellants are manufacturers of a powerful fumigant called 'Celphos' containing Aluminium Phosphide. It is available in tablets or pellets which decompose and release phosphine gas. On 16th April/11th May 1984 the 1st & 2nd respondents informed the appellants that it had been found that they were selling 'Celphos' tablets through dealers and retailers in and around Udaipur despite their knowledge that Aluminium Phosphide was only to be sold to Govt. and Government undertakings or organisations and that its use had to be under strict Govt. expert supervision. The letter stated that the 2nd respondent had decided to admonish the appellants and warn them against the continuation of such sales. The appellants wrote to the 1st and 2nd respondents making a representation that they should be allowed to sell their Aluminium Phosphide tablets without such restriction. On 7th May 1984 the 1st and 2nd respondents informed the appellants that the 2nd respondent had decided that ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »