Mumbai Court February 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.
Collector of Customs and C. Ex. Vs. Pawar Trading Company
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-1988
Reported in: (1989)(23)LC608Tri(Mum.)bai
The Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Pune by his order F. No. V. (4)15-24/Adj/79 dated 16.4.1981 ordered confiscation of seized tobacco as well as snuff, but allowed redemption on payment of fine. He, however, released unconditionally 1402.300 kgs. of tobacco and 92 kgs. of roasted tobacco seized from M/s. Pawar Trading Co. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 2000/- on the firm M/s. Pawar Trading Co. and Rs. 2,000/- on Shri Bapu K. Pawar, and Rs. 1000/- each on S/Shri S.K. Pawar., H.K. Pawar, R.B. Pawar, T.B. Pawar, S.H. Pawar and C.B. Pawar. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 250/- each on Shri J.S. Lokare and Shri B.D. Lokare. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Collector, the firm M/s. Pawar Trading Co. as well as all the Pawars and Lokares filed seperate appeals before the Central Board of Excise & Customs. The Board clubbed all the appeals and by a common order bearing No. 191-200 of 1981 dated 12.10.81 allowed all the appeals and set aside the confiscation and the fin...
Pandurang Hari Kulkarni (Dr.) and ors. Vs. Manohar Gopal Vedalkar and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-1988
Reported in: 1988(1)BomCR648
C.S. Dharmadhikari, J.1. The litigation involved in this writ petition has a chequered history. The petitioners Rashtriya Shikshan Mandal, Pune run the Tilak Ayurved Mahavidyalaya, which is affiliated to the Pune University. The respondent Manohar Gopal Wadalkar was initially appointed as a Demonstrator in the said college in the year 1945. Then he was promoted as a Professor in the year 1955 and from 15th April, 1972 he was working as a principal. From 14th December, 1975 one Mr. Prabhugaonkar came to be appointed as the Principal. Thereafter respondent Wadalkar continued in service as a Professor and head of the department till he completed the age of 58 years on 25th March, 1980. It was his case that in view of the rules of the University, he was entitled to continue in service till he attains the age of 60 years. However, he came to be retired by an order dated 25th of March, 1980 on his attaining the age of 58 years. It was the case of the petitioners that since the salary of the ...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Godrej Soaps Ltd. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-1988
Reported in: 1989(20)LC71(Bombay)
Lentin, J.1. The respondents' Dettol soap is packed in a paper and thereafter with a softner which is covered by a wrapper. Admittedly, on these three entities the requisite duty has been paid by the respondents.2. However, what the appellants seek is that the respondents should also pay duty on the corrugated cardboard boxes which is used for transporting the Dettol Soaps already packed in the manner stated earlier. Such a contention is untenable.3. Reliance by the appellants' learned Counsel Mr. Rege on 27 E.L.T. 563: 1987 ECR 625 (S.C). can avail the appellants nothing as that decision is irrelevant to the facts of the present case....
Reliance Industries Limited Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-19-1988
Reported in: 1990(26)ECC335; 1988(36)ELT49(Bom)
Jahagirdar, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 19th of November, 1987 of Sujata Manohar, J. dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioners') summarily, though by speaking order.2. The petition challenges the legality of a notice dated 10th of February, 1987 issued by the Deputy Collector of Customs of Bombay, who has been joined as respondent No. 3 in the writ petition. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the Union of India and the Collector of Customs respectively. The show cause notice is of nearly 33 pages which gives a detailed history of the facts and circumstances under which the 1st petitioner company, namely, Reliance Industries Ltd., of which the 2nd petitioner is the Principal Officer and the shareholder, imported equipment under import licences issued to them for setting up plant for the manufacture of polyester filament yarn (PFY). The facts leading the petition have been, with respect, ably summarised by t...
Union Bank of India and Others Vs. Arphi Incorporated
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-19-1988
Reported in: 1989(40)ELT311(Bom)
ORDERLentin, J.1. The appellant seek condonation of a delay of 28 days in filling the appeal.2. The proper cases we have in past condoned such delays. However we do not think this is a proper case where we should think do so.3. The affidavit-in-support of motion is one of those mass produced affidavits containing blanks which are routinely filled in ink as the occasion arises. What is worse, in the present affidavit one blank has not even been filed in. Preparing stereotyped affidavits and filling blanks is a practice we have in the past repeatedly deprecated, but alas, in vain.4. Even we merits, this affidavit conceals more than it reveals. One department passing on the blame to another department is no ground for the condonation.5. Mr. Rele however seeks to explain away the delay on the ground of 'inter department steps'. However Mr. Rele, with his habitual fairness is not in a position to enlighten us about the blithe and delightfully vague reason advanced by him across the Bar, des...
Yeshwant Gajanan Joshi and ors. Vs. the Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-19-1988
Reported in: AIR1988Bom408; 1988(2)BomCR494
Jahagirdar, J.1. These petitions involve common questions of law and fact and are therefore, being disposed of by this common judgment.2. First we will narrate the facts in Writ Petition No. 269 of 1985. The petitioners in this petition contend that two awards were made in Compensation Cases Nos. 22 of 1984 and 23 of 1984 by the Competent Authority under the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. These awards, which were made on 18th of July, 1984 and 10th of July, 1984 respectively, directed payment of certain sums as compensation to the petitioners, but the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., which is respondent No. 1, is not paying compensation as per the said awards. Hence this petition, asking for a writ of mandamus requiring respondent No. 1, hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation', to pay to the petitioners the amounts of compensation as per the awards. Respondent No. 2 in this petition is t...
Tulsidas V. Nagvekar and anr. Vs. Kadamba Transport Corporation Ltd. a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-1988
Reported in: 1988(3)BomCR611; [1989(58)FLR438]
G.F. Couto, J.1. The challenge in this writ petition is against the decision taken by the Government and communicated to the petitioners by letter dated 19 the September, 1986, that the Government has considered the Industrial Dispute raised by the petitioner Nagvekar as not fit to be referred to the Industrial Tribunal.2. The first petitioner Nagvekar had been appointed as Conductor in the first respondent's Corporation on daily wages, by an order dated 25th December, 1982. On 23rd June, 1985 an order of suspension signed by one V.V. Kunkoliekar was served on the petitioner, suspending him from duties with effect from 24th June, 1985, and further stating that he would be entitled for subsistence allowance as per the Certified standing orders of the Corporation during the period of suspension. An enquiry was, thereafter, held on some misconducts alleged to have been committed by the said petitioner . Ultimately, the petitioner was given a notice to show cause why he should not be dismi...
Mohammad Ismailkhan Mohd. Yenuskhan Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-1988
Reported in: 1988(4)BomCR545
H.W. Dhabe, J.1. This is a writ petition arising out of the proceedings under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Ceiling Act'). On a return being filed by the petitioner under section 12 of the Ceiling Act, a ceiling case was opened in his case. The field survey No 1/1, area 18 acres 11 gunthas of village Bramhi (Bk) was held by him as a tenant. The petitioner submitted before the Surplus Lands Determination Tribunal (for short, 'the S.L.D.T.' that he had lost possession of the said field in the tenancy proceedings for resumption of land, initiated by the respondents 2 to 4 landlords. It is, however, not clear from the order of the learned S.L.D.T. whether the said field was included in the total holding of the petitioner or not. But, since the S.L.D.T. has ultimately held that there is no surplus land belonging to the petitioner it would appear that this field survey No. 1/1 is excluded by it from the total holding of the petitioner.2. ...
Umar Mohammed Malbari Vs. K.P. Gaikwad and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1988
Reported in: 1988(2)BomCR724; (1988)90BOMLR584
Ashok Agarwal, J.1. The order of externment dated the 18th August, 1986 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-II, Thane is impugned in this petition. By this order which has been passed under section 56(a) and (b) of the Bombay Police Act, the petitioner has been externed out of the limits of Thane Commissionerate, Greater Bombay, Raigad and Nasik Districts. Prior to the passing of the said order of externment a show cause notice under section 59 of that Act was served upon the petitioner. That notice called upon the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be externed from Greater Bombay, Thane and Nasik Districts for a period of two years. That notice alleged that the petitioner was unemployed, was in the habit of moving about at odd hours in the Company of associates having criminal tendencies. The petitioner by threatening at the point of a pistol was extorting monies from the citizens. On account of the threats yielded by the petitioner, people were afraid to c...
Shri Ranjan Das Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1988
Reported in: 1988(3)BomCR302
G.F. Couto, J.1. The appellant is a businessman running a Hotel and Restaurant under the name and style 'Sea Wolf', at Calangute. He has been convicted for an offence punishable under section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and sentenced to undergo 10 years of Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of One lakh of Rupees and, in default of payment, to undergo a further period of 1 year of Rigorous Imprisonment.2. The facts that led to the above conviction and sentence are simple and may be stated: On an alleged information, the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Mapusa, Shri Dilip Kumar, proceeded with a police party to Calangute in order to lay a trap to the appellant herein, who according to the said information, was trafficking in narcotics. This happened on 26th July, 1986, at about 4.00 P.M. On reaching the police station of Calangute, the P.S.I. Tari, was directed to bring two panchas. On compliance with this direction, two panchas, namely, one Go...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »