Mumbai Court March 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.
S.A.N. Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. Vs. Gujarat State Financial ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-28-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Bom236
1. FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS - STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION - SALE OF MORTGAGED PROPERTY - POWERS OF COURT - PROVISIONS OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE APPLICABLE - COURT HAS POWER NOT ONLY OF ATTACHMENT, SALE AND CONFIRMATION OF SALE OF MORTGAGED PROPERTY, BUT ALSO TO DELIVER POSSESSION OF PROPERTY TO AUCTION - PURCHASERS - STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1951, SS. 31, 32(8).2. This revision is directed against the order dated December 28, 1984, passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Silvessa (Mr. R. G. Sindhakar), dismissing the application of the petitioners-auction purchasers for delivery of possession of the property which was purchased by them in the auction sale held on June 12, 1984 ( under the order of the learned District Judge) and it has been confirmed on July 23, 1984.3. Respondent No. 1. - corporation/decree-holder filed an application under section 31 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, against respondent No. 2, partnership firm/ju...
Grentex and Company and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-28-1988
Reported in: 1988(36)ELT11(Bom)
1. The 1st petitioner in this petition is a partnership firm, while the 2nd petitioner is one of the partners of the said firm. However, for the sake of convenience, I will refer only to the 1st petitioner as 'the petitioner'. The petitioner firm purchased, by an agreement of 25th of March, 1982, 800 spindles wool spinning plant from a private limited company known as Gokulchand Rattanchand Wollen Mills Private Ltd. The petitioner firm is utilising the said machinery for the purpose of manufacturing woollen yarn in the same manner in which the said Gokulchand Rattanchand Woollen Mills Pvt. Ltd. was doing. On 25th of May, 1982, which is the culmination of the correspondence between the petitioner and the Excise Authorities, the Superintendent of Central Excise, who is the 4th respondent in this petition called upon the petitioner to file two separate classification lists - one for wool tops and the other for carded gilled sliver under Tariff Item No. 43. It is the petitioner's case that...
S.A.N. Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. Vs. Gujarat State, Financia ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-28-1988
Reported in: [1989]66CompCas811(Bom)
ORDER1. This revision is directed against the order dt. 28th Dec. 1984, passed by the learned District and Seessions Judge, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Silvassa (Mr. R. G. Sindhakar), dismissing the application of the petitioners auction purchasers for delivery of possession of the property which was purchased by them in the auction sale held on 12th June 1984 (under the orders of the learned District Judge) and it has been confirmed on 23rd July 1984.2. The respondent No. 1 Corporation/Decree-Holder filed an application under S.31 of the State Financial Corporation Act , 1951, against the respondent No.2 partnership firm/judgment-debtor for sale of the mortgaged property. The learned District Judge granted the application and sold the property by public auction on 12th June 1984. The petitioners action purchasers purchased the said property in the auction for the amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-. The learned District Judge-confirmed the auction sale on 23rd July 1984 and issued sale certificate i...
Applied Electronics Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-28-1988
Reported in: 1988(18)LC268(Bombay)
Sujata Manohar, J.1. The petitioners manufactured and supplied different items of electronic equipment to respondents Nos. 4 and 5 for the Indian National Satellite Project Section 1 (INSAT-I) under a contract between the parties during the period 1979 to 1982. The petitioners paid excise duty on the various items so supplied from 9.8.1979 to 20.7.1982 as per particulars annexed as Exhibit 'A' to the petition. This was in ignorance of an exemption Notification No. 138/78 dated 8.7.1978 under which purchases meant for INSAT-I were exempt from payment of Excise duty. The respondents 4 and 5 informed the petitioners about this exemption by their letter dated 8th December, 1982. Thereupon on or about 10th January, 1983 the petitioners applied to the Assistant Collector, Central Excise for refund of total amount of Rs. 9,36,926.56 being the excise duty paid under a mistake of law.2. Under the orders which have been passed by the Collectorate of Central Excise, petitioners have received some...
Capt. A.L. Kapoor Vs. First Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-1988
Reported in: (1989)28ITD296(Mum.)
1. We are concerned in this appeal with the question whether the salary earned by an Indian citizen working on a ship registered in India outside the territorial waters of India can be taxed.2. The assessee was a captain of a ship registered in India. For the period relevant to the assessment year in question, he was on the main land of India only for 6 days, while for the remaining period, he was on board the ship registered in India. The assessee's contention was that he was a non-resident and so the salary income was not taxable.The ITO however held that since the assessee was an employee of the Indian company, his income was taxable. He has noted that although the assessee had claimed that the Maritime Union had approached the Central Board of Direct Taxes, no exemption certificate was produced before him. Before the Commissioner, the assessee relied upon the interpretation of Section 2(25A) which defines 'India' and does not include ship registered in India. He also contended tha...
Orkay Silk Mills P. Ltd. Vs. Government of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-1988
Reported in: 1988(36)ELT399(Bom)
1. Some facts must necessarily be stated before appreciating the point urged by Mr. Jagtiani, the learned Advocate who appears in support of the petition. The petitioners were, at the relevant time, a private limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing, exporting and processing of art silk and synthetic fabrics. The petitioners were also manufacturing readymade garments. In the Import Policy for the year 1978-79, several articles were put on the Open General Licence, hereinafter for brevity's sake referred to as 'OGL'. The list of the capital goods allowed to be imported under the said licence was mentioned in Appendix 2 of the said Import Policy. In Part 'A' of this Appendix at clause (6) thereof, there is one item called Transfer Printing Machine at serial No. 63.2. The petitioners purported to import this item, namely transfer printing machine, but after examining the item the Collector of Customs issued a show cause notice to the petitioners on 19th of November 1979 po...
Supply Commissioner's Office Employees (Class Iii) Union Vs. State of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-1988
Reported in: 1988(3)BomCR83
Sujata Manohar, J.1. This petition is filed on behalf of 32 employees in the Supply Commissioner's Office. The names of these employees are set out in paragraph 2 of the petition.2. The office of the Supply Commissioner was set up under a Government Resolution dated 30-6-1960, being Resolution No. EST-1059/31729-S-IV of Agriculture and Forests Department. The resolutions stated that the work relating to Food and other Civil Supplies matters such as purchases of foodgrains in this State as well as in other States, their despatches to the destinations in this State, movements of sugar after allotment orders are issued etc., has increased considerably in volume and in complications. Government therefore considers it necessary to set up an organisation to deal with the day to-day executive type of work in various Civil Supplies matters and has decided to create a separate office viz. Office of the Supply Commissioner. The work from the Agriculture and Forests Department was transferred to ...
Ashok Asandas Baherwani Vs. Ishwar Prakash Chopra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-1988
Reported in: 1988(3)BomCR47; 1988MhLJ373
ORDER1. This revision is directed against the order dt. 17-2-1988 passed by Shri K. J. Rohi, Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagpur (In-charge Judge of the Small Causes Court, Nagpur) on Exh. 1 in Small Cause Darkhast No. 103 of 1988, whereby the learned Judge directed the issue of warrant of possession.2. The facts giving rise to this revision are rather unusual. The applicant is a tenant of house situated on plot No. 3, Shirkey Layout, Chhaoni, Nagpur, since the month of April, 1985 on monthly rent of Rs. 1800/-. The non-applicant is the owner of the said premises and hence the landlord of the applicant. Since the applicant was not paying the rent regularly, the non-applicant applied for distress warrant before the Court of Small Causes, Nagpur, vide Application No. 14 of 1986 and the moveables belonging to the applicant came to be attached. At the relevant time the rent of Rs. 16,200/- was outstanding against him. Even thereafter the applicant failed to pay the rent and further outstandin...
Sang Fasteners (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-1988
Reported in: 1988(17)LC315(Bombay); 1988(36)ELT591(Bom)
1. The petitioners are manufacturers of products known as nuts bolts and screws which are covered by Tariff Item No. 52 of the Central Excises and Salt Act. Between the period from 1st April, 1975 to 31st March 1976, the value of their total production did not exceed Rs. 5 lakhs. In terms of the notification dated 26-7-1971 (issued on 26th of July, 1971), bolts, nuts and screws, were not liable to any excise duty if the total production of the said items for home consumption did not exceed the value of Rs. 5 lakhs. The petitioners were, therefore, not liable to pay excise duty. However, they did pay excise duty to the extent of Rs. 47,792,52 without realising, when they paid the said amount, that the total value of their production for the year in question would not exceed Rs. 5 lakhs. That the value of the petitioners' total production did not exceed Rs. 5 lakhs is an admitted position because it has been mentioned in the petition that an officer of the Excise Department has certified...
Tradex Industries and Another Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-1988
Reported in: 1988(36)ELT83(Bom)
1. The petitioners are engaged in the manufacture of fibre glass and for that purpose they import glass earn of Asahi fibre from Japan. They imported certain quantity of this product between 9th May, 1978 and 17th January, 1981. The petitioners were forced by the Customs authorities to pay countervailing duty on the said product to the extent of Rs. 1,76,421.62, details of which are given in Exhibit 'C' annexed to this petition. The petitioners contended that by notification dated 16th March, 1976 the manufacture of the said product, namely glass yarn, which is spun out of fibre, is totally exempted from payment of countervailing duty. The respondents refused to accept this contention forcing the petitioners to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for claiming refund of the amount paid by them under protest.2. Mr. Thakkar, the learned Advocate appearing in support of this petition, has pointed out of these facts which are mentioned on affidavit in the peti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »