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.
Vasundharabai W/O Vasantrao Rupade and anr. Vs. Vasantrao S/O Dattopan ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-1988
Reported in: 1988(3)BomCR363
P.V. Nirgudkar, J.1. This criminal revision application by the wife is directed against the husband for maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Vasundharabai hereinafter called the applicant is the wife and Vasantrao hereinafter called the non-applicant is the husband. Applicant filed an application for maintenance against the non-applicant under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month.2. Pausing here it may be pointed out that Vasundharabai filed an application for a minor son Santosh and to whom maintenance at the rate of Rs. 100/- has been granted and that order is still in force and that order is not in dispute.3. Non-applicant Vasantrao filed Criminal Revision No. 116/85 as he has been aggrieved by the order of granting maintenance to applicant Vasundharabai. His revision has been allowed and maintenance order against Vasundharabai has been set aside.4. Dis-satisfied and di...
Sunflower Nursing Home Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1988
Reported in: (1988)(19)LC41Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against Order-in Original No. S/10-2661/86ACC (IV) dated 10.10.1986 passed by the Collector of Customs (Airport), Bombay. The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are few and simple. The sole proprletrix of the appellant imported a Microscope valued at Rs. 19.908/- and Incubator with attachment valued at Rs. 1,34,028/- and sought clearance against Serial No. 5 of Appendix 6 of Import Policy 1985-88. The Customs objected to the clearance on the ground that the importer is a private Nursing Home not recognised by State or Central Government and as such not entitled to import equipments and instruments. Since the importers waived written show cause notice, the Collector, who adjudged confiscation after affording personal hearing, ordered confiscation of both the items but allowed redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 6.000/- and Rs. 25,000/- respectively.2. Feeling aggrieved by the order, as stated earlier, the appellant has come up ...
Usha Spinning and Weaving Mills Limited Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1988
Reported in: 1988(17)LC147(Bombay); 1988(36)ELT292(Bom)
1. The petitioners, on 16th March, 1980, filed a claim for refund of customs duty paid in respect of import of viscose staple fibre cleared by them in 1979. The claim for refund was based on the ground that countervailing duty on the imported goods was without the authority of law. This, in turn, was based upon certain notifications.2. It is not necessary to go into the details because the authorities below rejected the applications filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 27 of the Customs Act on the ground that the applications had not been filed within the period of limitation prescribed by the said provision. The order of the Assistant Collector rejecting the applications was challenged by the petitioners in a review application which was also rejected by the Collector of Customs by his order dated 12th November 1981. The petitioners have now approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for refund of the amount which has been paid, as is obvious, unde...
Shivaji Ramchandra More and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1988
Reported in: AIR1988Bom315; 1988(4)BomCR37
Dharmadhikari, J.1. The petitioners Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 are members of the senate of Shivaji University, Kolhapur, elected from the registered graduates' constituency. The petitioner No. 4 is also a member of the senate elected from the Teachers' constituency. In this writ petition, petitioners have challenged the Maharashtra Ordinance No. 1 of 1988 issued by the Governor of Maharashtra, called the 'Maharashtra Universities (Amendment) Ordinance, 1988' which came into force on 12th Feb. 1988. This ordinance aims to prohibit persons who have already served for two terms or more or for 6 years in aggregate, whichever is less, from continuing as members and contesting the elections to various bodies of the concerned University. The said provision is challenged on the ground that it is violative of the petitioners' fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and is also issued in colourable and mala fide exercise of powers.2. Shri Agrawal, learne...
Pandey Mishra and Company Vs. Anil Upendra Pitale and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Bom72; 1989(2)BomCR45
Mookerjee, C.J.1. Mr. Savant appearing on behalf of the Respondents has raised a preliminary objection as regards the maintainability of this Appeal preferred against the order dt. 9th Mar., 1988 of Daud, J. allowing the Appeal under S. 104(I) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Preferred by the original Defendants 8 and 9 - Respondents 8 and 9 against the order under O.XXXIS, Rr. 1 and 2 of the Code passed by the learned Judge. City Civil Court, Bombay, upon the Plaintiffs'-Appellants' Notice of motion. In view of the Division Bench decision of this Court in Obedur Rehman v. Almedali Bharucha. : AIR1983Bom120 and the recent Divison Bench judgment in the case of Krishna Yeshwant Shirodkar v. Subhash Krishna Patil (Letters Patent Appeal No. 129 of 1987 disposed of on 10th Feb. 1988) reported in : AIR1989Bom68 ) sitting in appeal, we are bound to take the same view that the present Appeal is barred under S. 104(2) of the Civil P.C. and. Therefore, the Appeal is liable to fail without e...
M.P. JaIn Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-1988
Reported in: (1988)(19)LC108Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The Revision Application filed before the Central Government against the Order-in-Appeal bearing No. S/49-98/81-GC, dated 5-4-1982 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay statutorily stood transferred to the Tribunal.2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are : On 21-1-1981 during the personal search of the appellant Shri Manila! P.Jain gold in the form of crude kada weighing 126.000 grams was recovered from his pant pocket. In the statement immediately recorded by the Gold Control Officer Shri M.P. Jain, among other things, stated that he was doing the business as broker in gold and silver and the kada in question was given to him "by his mother when he had gone to his native place. During the investigation the mother corroborated the version of the son. After investigation, after issue of show cause notice, after receipt of reply and after affording personal hearing, the Deputy Collector (Preventive) Gold Control, Bombay ordered absolute confisca...
Mrs. Mohini Arjundas Mansukhani Vs. Collector of Customs and C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-1988
Reported in: (1988)(19)LC71Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the order-in original bearing No. VIII(Cus)10-27/Adj/83 dated 11-9-1984 passed by the Addl. Collector of Customs & Central Excise, Pune. On information that the applicant Mrs. Mohini A. Mansukhani had possessed and was selling contraband goods at her residence the officer of the Customs visited the said premises and carried out the search. The search yielded in the recovery of the contraband goods valued at Rs. 41,450/. After the seizure the appellant appeared to have stated that she was not keeping well and she would give her statement after 2 days. On 24.9.1983, the Suptd. of Central Excise(Prev.)Hdqrs. Pune recorded the appellant's statement. Among other things, she had stated that all the seized goods of foreign origin were imported by her and her family members on payment of duty and under free allowance as personal baggage from time to time and when they visited Singapore between 1979 to 1983. She had also produced xerox c...
Sealol Hindustan Limited Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-1988
Reported in: 1990(26)ECC50; 1988(17)LC186(Bombay); 1988(36)ELT283(Bom)
1. The petitioners manufacture mechanical seals which can be used only in Centrifugal pumps and compressors. For this purpose they have a collaboration agreement with M/s. E.G. & G. Sealol Incorporated of the United States of America. The petitioners import various parts which are required for the manufacture of such mechanical seals. These parts are :(a) Ceramic Rings, (b) Sealide Rings, (c) Springs, (d) Spring Retainer, (e) GFT insert, (f) Bellows Cores, (g) Carbon Blanks, (h) Rotary Head 670, (i) Teflon Bellows, (j) Grafoil Packing, (k) Set Screws, (l) 'O' Rings, (m) Carbon Seal Rings, (n) Mating Rings, (o) Seal Sub-Assembly, (p) Stationary Seal Assembly, (q) Rotary Assembly, (r) Seal Components, (s) Type 43 Components :- (i) Carbon Seal Face, (ii) Band, (iii) Shell, (iv) Friction Ring, (v) Spring, (vi) Spring holder, (vii) Ceramic Ring, (viii) Seat Gasket.The Commissioner of Industries, Gujarat State has issued a certificate dated 16th October, 1981 certifying that these parts are ...
Cosmos (India) Rubber Works Private Limited and Another Vs. Union of I ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-1988
Reported in: 1988(36)ELT102(Bom)
1. The first petitioner is a private limited company having a factory which manufactures rubber hose pipes. The second petitioner is the director and shareholder of the first petitioner. For the disposal of this petition the first petitioner will hereinafter be referred to as 'the petitioner'.2. The petitioner submitted a price list in proforma Part I showing the normal price. After examining the same the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bombay 'X' Division, issued a notice dated 29th October 1976 asking the petitioner to show cause why the petitioner should not be ordered to submit the price list in proforma Form IV. The petitioner sent a reply on 15th of December, 1976. Thereafter on 5th of April 1977 the Assistant Collector passed an order requiring the petitioner to submit the price list in proforma Part IV. This order was challenged by the petitioner in an appeal, which was allowed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise on 19th of July, 1977 and the matter was remanded...
The Bhandara District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. and ors. Vs. Stat ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-1988
Reported in: AIR1988Bom399; 1988(3)BomCR632; 1988MhLJ883
Mookerjee, C.J.1. Petitioner No. 1 Bhandara District Central Co-operative Bank which has been in existence since the year 1911 is a society falling within the categories of the co-operative societies mentioned in Sub-section (2) of Section 73A of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 at the relevant time were elected Directors on the Board of petitioner No. 1. Since the year 1975, petitioner No. 2 has been acting as the Chairman of petitioner No. 1 Bank. The petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are designated officers' within the meaning of Sub-section (1) of Section 73A of the said Act. By filing this writ petition the petitioners have impugned the constitutional validity of Section 73A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The said Section 73A was inserted along with Sections 73B to 73G in the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, by Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act. 1969 (Maharashtra Act XXVII of 1969). Different sub-se...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »