Mumbai Court October 1988 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.
The Bombay Telephone Canteen Employees' Association Vs. the Mahanagar ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-1988
Reported in: [1989(58)FLR161]; (1995)IIILLJ15Bom
ORDERSawant, J. 1. The common question as to which is the 'appropriate Government' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Central act) and the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade : Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Maharashtra Act') arises in both these appeals and therefore they are being disposed of by this common judgment. In Appeal No. 958 of 1987, the relevant facts are as follows:Prior to coming into existence of the 1st Respondent the Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Nigam') on April 1, 1986, all the functions of the 1st respondent were admittedly carried on by the Department of Telecommunications, Ministry of Communications, Government of India. At its establishment at Cooperage, Bombay, a canteen for the benefit of its staff was being run by a Cooperative Society called the Bombay Telephone Cooperative Canteen Society Limited which is the 5th Respondent to ...
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Film Federation of India and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-1988
Reported in: 1989(3)BomCR377; (1988)90BOMLR594
I.G. Shah, J.1. This appeal was heard by a Division Bench consisting of Lentin and Ashok Agarwal, JJ. The two learned Judges differed and, therefore, they referred the matter to the learned Chief Justice for being placed before the third Judge. The learned Chief Justice for being placed before the third Judge. The learned Chief Justice placed this appeal before me for hearing and disposal.2. The two main points that arise for consideration are these. (1) Whether the authorities were justified in refusing certification to the film, 'Pati Parmeshwar' on the ground that it violates Guideline 2(iv-a) of the Guidelines issued by the Central Government for certification of films. (2) Whether Guideline 2(iv-a) is beyond the scope of section 5-B(2) of Cinematograph Act, 1952, and ultra vires Article 19 of the Constitution.3. The facts giving rise to this appeal in a nut-shell are as under. The second respondent one S.K. Nayyar is the producer of cinematograph film called 'Pati Parmeshwar'. The...
Chunilal Pranjivandas and Co. Vs. Second Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-1988
Reported in: (1989)29ITD289(Mum.)
1. The only ground of appeal in this case is, that the CIT(A) was in error in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 2,23,267 being the amount paid by way of interest on delayed payment of sales-tax by the assessee.2. It is contended on behalf of the assessee that the payment was under Section 47(4A) of the Gujarat Sales Act for delayed payment of sales-tax. The assessee was facing extreme financial difficulties and the assessee had" approached the Asstt. Commissioner of Sales Tax to allow it to pay the sales Tax in installments and the prayer of the assessee was granted by the Asstt. Commissioner of Sales Tax. The payment made having regard to the provisions of Section 47(4A) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act was in the nature of a compensatory payment and there was no infraction of law, and the same should have been allowed by the CIT(A) as admissible deduction. The Tribunal in the case of Bisleri India (P.) Ltd. 1 SOT 673 (sic) has held that such payments were compensatory in nature and, th...
Atlas Exporters and Another Vs. K.V. Irniraya, Accie.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-1988
Reported in: 1989(25)LC57(Bombay); 1989(40)ELT3(Bom)
1. This petition seeks to challenge the order dated the 27th July 1987 passed by the respondent No. 1, the Additional Chief Controller of Imports & Exports. By that order the respondent No. 1 reviewed the order dated the 25th November 1986 passed by the respondent No. 3, the Export Commissioner passed in the appeal filed by the petitioners. By the appellate order, the decision of the respondent No. 4, the Director of the Appeal Export Promotion Council deregistering the petitioners as exporters of readymade garments was set aside. By the impugned order dated the 27th July 1987, the order of the respondent No. 4 deregistering the petitioners was restored.2. The petitioner No. 1 firm was registered as merchant exporters with the Apparel Export Promotion Council, the respondent No. 4. For the year 1984 the petitioner No. 1 was allotted certain quota under the 1984 Export Policy. The petitioners under that policy were required to export readymade garments of the prescribed value on or befo...
Sou. Malan Vs. Balasaheb Bhimrao Gawade and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-1988
Reported in: 1988(3)BomCR666; 1988MhLJ1135
1. The petitioner filed criminal miscellaneous application No. 62 of 1982 in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate. First Class, Jaysingpur, under S. 125 of the Cr.P.C. 1973, for maintenance against the first respondent. Her case was that the first respondent married her on 16th June, 1977 which was a love marriage but the said marriage was not approved by the parents of the first respondent and, therefore, right from the first day of the marriage, the first respondent failed and refused to maintain her. She claimed that the first respondent was having irrigated land and earned about Rs. 5,000/- to 6,000/- per year and, therefore, she should be granted Rs. 300/- per month as separate maintenance for herself.2. The application was resisted by the first respondent. It was his case that on 16th June, 1977 when he was proceeding towards a temple called 'Muchundi Daryappa' he was accosted by some of the relations of the petitioner and was caught hold of and forcibly got married again...
Ballarpur Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-1988
Reported in: 1991(51)ELT13(Bom)
Dhabe, J.1. The claim of the petitioner company in the instant writ petition is that it is entitled to the benefit of a concessional rate in respect of sale of white printing paper manufactured by it as per the notification of the Central Government issued in exercise of the powers conferred upon it under sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (for short, 'the Rules') framed under the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (for short, 'the Act'). The petitioners have, therefore, prayed for quashing of the orders passed by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Division Chandrapur, having his office at Nagpur referred to in Exhibit 'M' to the petition and also have asked for a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction against him from proceeding with the show-cause notices mentioned in the said Exhibit 'M' to the petition.2. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner No. 1 is a private limited company registered under the pro...
Kondappa Sadashiv Kore Vs. Arvind Tulshiram Kamble
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-1988
Reported in: (1988)90BOMLR661
K.N. Patil, J.1. This is an election petition calling in question election of the Respondent to Parliament on the ground specified under Sub-section (1)(c) of Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). Petitioner prays for a declaration that the election of respondent is void on the ground that the nomination paper of the petitioner was improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.2. The election petition was originally filed by Advocate Shri Shivajirao Rangrao Chede, as an elector, Mr. Scindia, learned Counsel for the petitioner Chede, informed the Court that the petitioner was not in a position to prosecute the petition in view of his mental deranged condition. The Court, therefore, directed to publish a notice in the Government Gazette requiring some-one from the constituency to come forward to proceed with the petition. Accordingly, the present petitioner Kondappa Sadashiv Kore, who was a candidate in the election, filed an applica...
Rollatainers Ltd. Vs. Collector of Cus. and C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1988
Reported in: (1990)(45)ELT623Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the Order-in-Appeal bearing No. S/49-1293/87-MCD (Ahd.) dated 31- 12-1987 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay. The undisputed facts are the appellants imported waste papers the quantity of which had been shown in the Bill of Lading as well as the manifest as 304 bales weighing 199.910 M/Tons. It appears even though the destination was the Port of Bombay due to strike the vessel was diverted to Porbandar. After the vessel discharged the cargo at the instance of the importers, a survey was held by M/s. J. B. Boda Marine & General Survey Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Porbandar and during the survey the actual weight was found to be 169.755 M/Ts as against 199.910 M/T. Thus there was a shortage of 30.155 M/Ts. Since the waste papers were exempt from payment of duty they were released on execution of a Bond which stipulated production of End Use Certificate. It appears the appellant produced End Use Certificate in respect of 1...
Rajkumar Shantilal Gandhi (Dr.) Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1988
Reported in: 1988(4)BomCR67
G.H. Guttal, J.1. Dr. Gandhi, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3130 of 1988 and Dr. Prani, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3684 of 1988 seek registration for the course of M.S. (General Surgery) at the Government Medical College, Miraj, affiliated to the Shivaji University. The State of Maharashtra, respondent No. 1 runs the medical college. The Director of Medical Education and Research, the respondent No. 2 supervises and manages the various medical colleges run by the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 3 is the Dean of Miraj Medical College. Dr. Gandhi, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3130 of 1988 contends that the deduction of 20 marks from the marks secured by him in the subject of surgery at the M.B.B.S. examination made under the rules for the selection of candidates for admission to the post-graduate course, is illegal. Consequently, therefore he claims that he is entitled to a seat for registration for the post graduation course in surgery. Dr. Prani, the petition...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Elpro International Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-1988
Reported in: (1988)74CTR(Bom)27; [1989]177ITR20(Bom)
Desai, J.1. Four questions have been referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Bombay Bench 'B', under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The reference was made at the instance of the Revenue and the assessee had not filed a reference application. This fact is important when we consider question No. (3) referred to us.2. The four questions referred to us are as under:'(1) Whether depreciation can be granted on the cost of construction of roads on the footing that roads are part of the factory building ?(2) If the answer to question No. (1) is in the negative, then whether depreciation is allowable on the cost of roads on the footing that the roads constitute 'plant' ?(3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the following items were not includible in the capital for the purpose of relief/deduction under section 84/80J for the assessment year1967-68 ?Machinery in transit Rs. 17,139Work-in-progress Rs. 65,497Unallocated capital expenditure Rs. 9,2...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »