Mumbai Court September 1987 Judgments
Ashraf Abdul Karim Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1987
Reported in: (1988)(34)ELT293Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the order bearing No. S/l4-4-132/Pint dated 30.9.1983 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay.2. The subject of challenge in this appeal is the order of absolute confiscation of the taxi bearing No. MRP 498 Under Section 115 of the Customs Act.3. The order of the Additional Collector runs into 7 pages. Out of this, 6 pages consist of the submissions and the factum of issue of show cause notice. The actual finding is in one para which runs into 10 lines. The finding reads : "The goods under seizure i.e. Radio Cassette Recorder etc. are of the type that are prohibited for import. At least their importation in trade quantity, as is the case is completely out of question. No wonder the parties concerned are absconding and no one has come forward to claim it. The provisions under Chapter IV-A have also been violated. The taxi MRP-498 has been used for carrying the smuggled goods knowingly. Looking at the nature of goods the...
Tag this Judgment!Natwarlal Jethalal Solanki and Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1987
Reported in: (1988)(34)ELT257Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Appeal CD(Bom) 530 of 83 arises out of and is directed against order-in-original No. 68/Addl. Collr./1982 dated 30.11.1982 passed by the Addl. Collector of Customs, Ahmedabad.2. The appeals CD(Bom) 562 of 83, 563 of 83, 564 of 83 and 654 of 83 arise out of and are directed against the Order-in-Original No.80/Addl. Collr./1982 dated 30.11.1982 passed by the Addl. Collector of Customs, Ahmedabad.3. As these appeals involve common questions of law and somewhat similar facts they were clubbed together, heard together and hence this common order. On information that Shri Jethalal Nanji Solanki of M/s. Jethalal Nanji & Co., Bhuj was exporting silver illegally out of India to Pakistan his residential and business premises were searched by the Customs Officers of Bhuj on 24.2.1982. From the residential premises 467 pieces of silver coins marked as "5 Koris" of Kutch State valued at Rs. 16,345/- and Indian currency worth Rs. 15,000/-were seized. The officers of the Customs also seized 2...
Tag this Judgment!Shamkumar Arjun Dalvi Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)BomCR131
S.C. Pratap, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith.Heard Counsel for the petitioner and Public Prosecutor for the State.2. Against the impugned externment order, the petitioner has preferred appeal to the State Government. Stay was, however, declined. Hence this petition.3. Now, when an appeal is provided by the statute and the same is filed, it is then, in a matter of externment, but just and fair that pending the appeal, the externment is stayed. Refusal in that behalf may, in a given case, as well render the appeal itself infructuous. We are informed that stay is not granted as a matter of policy. If that is so, it is rather unfortunate. It tends to defeat justice. The need for externment should be balance with the requirement to be just, fair and reasonable to the externee. If a life convict can be released on bail or a preventive detenue on parole or one accuse of serious economic offence granted even anticipatory bail, what is so extraordinary qua an externee that in no case he should b...
Tag this Judgment!National Textile Corporation (South Maharashtra) Vs. Rashtriya Mill Ma ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1987
Reported in: (1987)89BOMLR515; 1987MhLJ977
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. The common question raised in these writ petitions is referred to a Division Bench. It is this: Whether, upon the take-over of the management of the undertakings mentioned in the First Schedule to the Textile Undertakings (Taking Over of Management) Act, 1983, under the provisions of that Act, the workmen of these undertakings ceased to be such?2. We mention, illustratively, the facts of the first writ petition. It concerns two undertakings of the Kohinoor Mills Limited whose management was taken over under the Act. On January 14, 1982 the employees of all textile mills in Bombay went on strike in response to the call of a particular trade union. The strike was found to be illegal on February 8, 1982. On February 11, 1982 the Kohinoor Mills Ltd. published a notice in the newspapers calling upon its workmen to return to work. The Act was deemed to have come into force on October 18, 1983. On February 10, 1984 the undertakings of the Kohinoor Mills Ltd., whose managem...
Tag this Judgment!Mangalore Jewellery Works Vs. Collector of Customs (P)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-1987
Reported in: (1988)(34)ELT267Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The Revision application filed before the Central Government against the order No. 89/1981 dated 29.10.1981 passed by the Gold Control Administrator statutorily stood transferred to the Tribunal for being heard as an appeal.2. The facts necessary for the disposal of; this appeal lie in a small compass. On information, the officers of the Gold Control, Bombay searched the premises of M/s. Mangalore Jewellery Works (the appellants) on 25.4.1979. The search was carried out in the presence of one Shri K.A. Shanker Rao, one of the partners of the firm. During the search, the officers noticed that the statutory accounts registers were written upto 31.3.1979. During the search, primary gold, new gold ornaments, parts of ornaments and soverign articles totally weighing 3649.100 gms. of 22 Ct. purity valued at Rs. 3,20.000/- which were not accounted in the statutory registers were found inside room of the licensed premises. As the partners could not produce any documents, the said quantity ...
Tag this Judgment!Kisan Raoji Manjare Vs. Baban Kondiba Gade
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)BomCR126
S.N. Khatri, J.1. This is a defendant's second appeal.2. The facts which are no longer in dispute before me as having been either admitted in pleadings or having been concluded by findings of fact of the District Court are these: The plaintiff-respondents owned half undivided share in Survey Nos. 87/4-B, 87/5, 87/6 and 85/12 of village Manjarwadi. By a registered Sale-Deed dated 11th July, 1968 he sold away this undivided half share to the defendant-appellant. On the same day, the latter executed an Agreement to reconvey the lands to the former within 15 years meanwhile Consolidation Scheme under the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holding Act (hereafter 'the Act' for short) came into force in that village. The original four lands came to be formed into a Block bearing No. 355. In 1977, the plaintiff sued the defendant for specific performance of the contract of reconveyance. There are concurrent findings of fact of the two Courts below that the plaintiff is ent...
Tag this Judgment!Gayabai Wife of Lalji Lautkar and ors. Vs. Wamanrao Mahadeo Nikam and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-1987
Reported in: 1989(1)BomCR279
H.W. Dhabe, J.1. These are three writ petitions which can be conveniently disposed of by this common judgment. Various protractory proceeding have taken place between the parties in these writ petitions. However, the principal question which arises for consideration in these writ petitions is whether the respondent Mahadeo, who has died during the pendency of these writ petitions and is not represented by his legal representatives, was a tenant of the suit fields.2. Briefly the facts are that the fields Survey No. 188/2 and fields Survey No. 239, total area 3.48 arces of mouza Amgaon (Buti) Tahsil Gadchiroli originally belonged to one Murari. It is the case of Smt. Gayabai that by registered gift deed executed in the year 1954, the said fields were gifted to her and other three sisters by their father Murari. It also appears from the evidence of Bihari examined by Smt. Gayabai in her case that there was also a family arrangement made by Murari in the year 1954 by which he made certain ...
Tag this Judgment!Agro Exports Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-1987
Reported in: (1988)25ITD46(Mum.)
1. We are concerned in this appeal with the interpretation and application of Section 263, particularly Explanation to Sub-section (1) thereof and Section 80HHC of the IT Act, 1961.2. The assessee had claimed deduction under Section 80HHC for the export of rice, which the ITO had allowed under the directions of the Inspecting Asstt. Commissioner. However, the Commissioner took action under Section 263 and directed the ITO to recompute the total income of the assessee without granting any deduction under the said Section with reference to the export of rice by the assessee. The first objection taken by the assessee's counsel before the Tribunal was regarding this exercise of power by the Commissioner on the ground that the Commissioner could not exercise this power because the order was passed by the ITO under the direction of the IAC relying on the Special Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of East Coast Marine Products (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [1983] 4 ITD 73 (Hyd.). Further submissi...
Tag this Judgment!Dhirajlal Morarji (Huf) Vs. First Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-1987
Reported in: (1988)24ITD420(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee-Hindu undivided family against the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, G-Range, Bombay.2. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family and the appeal relates to the assessment year 1981-82. There was a partial partition by memorandum dated 19-10-1979 between the assessee-Hindu undivided family and Shri Vijay Dhirajlal Ajmera, one of the members of the assessee-HUF, whereby some of the assets of the assessee-HUF were transferred to the HUF of Vijay Dhirajlal Ajmera (hereinafter referred to as "the reduced-HUF"). It was claimed that the income arising out of the assets transferred on partial partition to the reduced-HUF cannot be included in the total income of the assessee-HUF. The Income-tax Officer, however, referred to Sub-section (9) of Section 171 wherein it had been laid down that any partial partition after 31-12-1978 shall not be accepted and the Hindu undivided family shall continue to be assessed as if no such pa...
Tag this Judgment!Kaushlyabai W/O. Ganpat Jadhav and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-1987
Reported in: (1994)IIILLJ53Bom
S.P. Kurdukar, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Joshi, A.G.P. waives notice on behalf) of Respondent No. 1 Mr. Talekar learned Advocate waives notice on behalf of Respondent No. 2. By consent of both the parties this writ petition called out of bearing.2. The Second Respondent filed a complaint bearing Complaint (ULP) No. 121 of 1987, before the Industrial Court, Aurangabad, alleging that some unfair labour practice has been committed by the first Respondent (Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV). The learned Member of the Tribunal, without notice to the other side, passed an ex parte interim order, which in our opinion is wholly unjustified. It is well settled that ordinarily before any such inter on order is made, the persons who are likely to be affected, be heard, and therefore, in such contingencies, the Court can always without granting the interim relief grant the Rule on such interim application and after hearing both the parties, pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. On t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »