Mumbai Court April 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.
Neptune Wires P. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-22-1988
Reported in: 1988(36)ELT388(Bom)
1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 4th September, 1980 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bombay Division 'P', on an application made by the petitioner company for refund of excise duty which, according to it, was wrongly paid by it. The petitioner is a private limited company engaged in the manufacture of copper rods, flats, bus bars, rectangular rods, all having thickness about 10 mm, hereinafter they are referred to as 'the said goods'. On 1st of March 1975, a new item, being Tariff Item No. 68 was introduced for the purpose of central excise. Immediately thereafter, the Superintendent of Central Excise wrote a letter to the petitioner company that it should classify its product under Tariff Item No. 68 which suggestion, however, was not accepted by the petitioner.2. On 20th of January 1976, rejecting the petitioner's contention that the said goods were classifiable under Item No. 26A, the Assistant Coll...
Dhulgonda Dada Patil and Etc. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer No. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-22-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Bom286
Mooketjee, C.J.1. In these writ petitions so also in number of other writ petitions filed in this Court, the vires of the Manarashtra Resettlement of Project Displaced Persons (amendment and Validation) Act 1985 (Maharashtra Act No. 13 of 1985) (hereinafter for brevity's sake called the Amendment and Validation) Act , 1985, has been challenged. Some of these writ petitions also involve other points which may have to be given separate consideration. In view of its importance we have first heard the learned Counsel on both sides regarding validity of the said Amendment any validation Act . 1985. We are grateful to the learned Counsel for both sides who have made arguments fairly and have given assistance to us in deciding the question in controversy. 2. The statement to the Maharashtra Ordinance No. 6 of 1985 which was later on replaced and re-enacted as Maharashtra Act 13 of 1985, contains background and circumstances under which the said Amendment and Validation Act , 1985 came to be e...
Det Norske Veritas Vs. Reserve Bank of India, Bombay and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-22-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Bom162; 1989MhLJ107
ORDER1. The petitioners are an international ship classification society and verification/certification authority founded in Norway in 1864. The petitioners have over 120 years expertise in the filed of classification of ships, safety of men and machinery and equipment both at sea and on shore. They are a non-profit foundation and their entire income is used for research relating to shipping as well as industries both marine and land-based . The petitioners have 235 sub-stations. They have two substation in India, one at Bombay and one at Calcutta. The benefit of research and development from Norway is made available to their centres in India by the petitioners. The petitioners employ in India only one foreign national as against 18 Indians. 2. In 1972 the petitioners established a separate branch in Bombay for classification and certification of ships. The branch was established pursuant to an authorization issued by the Director General of shipping. Bombay. By a letter dt. 26th July....
Vishwas Bhimrao Dhumal Vs. Kopargaon Nagarpalika and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-22-1988
Reported in: (1993)IIILLJ772Bom
Pendse, J.1. By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the order dated July 27, 1985, passed by the Labour Court, Ahmednagar, setting aside the order of termination served on the petitioner but declining re-instatement and directing payment of compensation of Rs. 3,000/-. The few facts which are not in dispute and gave rise to this petition are as follows:2. Kopargaon Nagarpalika appointed the petitioner as Pump Operator in February 21, 1979, for a duration of six months. The appointment Idler clearly recited that the petitioner should apply to the Stale Selection Board as and when the post would be advertised by the Board and in case he is not selected his services were liable to be terminated even before the expiry of period of six months. At the expiry of six months, the petitioner was continued by another appointment letter and with the same terms and conditions. The service of the petitioner came to an end on Marc...
Krushna Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-22-1988
Reported in: I(1990)DMC403
M.S. Ratnaparkhi, J.1. The accused-appellant is challenging the order of conviction and sentence imposed upon him by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati on 26-7-1985 in Sessions Trial No. 109 of 1984, convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years, fine of Rs. 100/- or in default further rigorous imprisonment for one month.2. The deceased Durga was the second wife of the accused-appellant. He has his first wife by name Mala. The deceased came to be married to the appellant about 10 years prior to the incident. After her marriage, she and her co-senior wife used to stay with the appellant. It is the prosecution case that there were some bickerings between these two co-wives. In the morning of the date of the incident i.e. 25-2-1984, there was an exchange of words between them on a cup of tea. As a result of that exchange the senior co-wife Mala left her martial house and went to s...
Narendra Mafatlal Mehta Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-1988
Reported in: 1988(37)ELT493(Bom)
Mrs. Sujata Manohar, J.1. The petitioner carries on business, inter alia, of importing rough diamonds and exporting cut and polished diamonds in the name and style of Messrs N. Mehta & Co. The petitioner entered into a contract dated 21-1-1981 with a foreign purchaser for export of cut and finished diamonds. This contract was registered with the Bank of Baroda on 26-2-1981 as per the provisions of the Import Policy for the period April, 1980 to March, 1981. During the currency of this period the petitioner had an Export House Certificate. This Certificate expired on 30-6-1982.2. The petitioner effected exports under the Registered contract in December, 1983. On 18-1-1984 the petitioner applied for REP Licence with a request that he should be given the benefit of Import Policy 1980-81. REP Licence was issued on the basis of registered contract to the petitioner on 26-3-1984. Since the licence did not contain an endorsement that it was based on the registered contract of 26-2-1981, the p...
Shioprasad and ors. Vs. Mohanabai and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Bom349
ORDER1. The order passed by the District Judge, Buldhana in Civil Appeal No. 256/80 on 20-10-1984 directing the plaint in Civil Suit No. 449/78 to be returned for presentation to the proper Court , has been challenged in this revision. By amendment application filed on 15-3-1988, the petitioner also sought an amendment to the prayer clause allowing him to challenge the order passed by the said Court on 3rd October 1984 allowing the amendment to the plaint. The revision memo is accordingly allowed to be amended.2. The respondents happened to be the legal representatives of one Bhairubakas. This Bhairabakas filed Regular Civil Suit No. 449/78 for possession of a field and for mandatory injunction directing the removal of the structure on the suit Land Acquisition Act and for prohibitary injunction prohibiting the defendants from raising any fresh construction thereon. As far as possession of the field is concerned, it was valued at 20 times the Land revenue. As the actual valuation was l...
Narendra Mafatlal Mehta Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-1988
Reported in: 1988(18)LC282(Bombay)
Sujata Manohar, J.1. The facts in this petition are similar to those in Writ Petition No. 1877 of 1984 except that in this case REP Licence was issued to the petitioner along with two endorsements. On 28.4.1986 the petitioner applied to the respondents for deletion of condition No. 2 of the licence. In answer the respondents have issued a show cause notice dated 5.6.1986 for deletion of both the endorsements. For reasons which are set out in my judgment delivered today in Writ Petition No. 1877 of 1984, since the petitioner has availed of the import licence on the basis of the first endorsement which is made long prior to the issue of the show cause notice, the respondents are now stopped from taking any steps against the petitioner for deletion of the first condition. In view, however, of the fact that exports made by the petitioner in the circumstances of the present case did not comply with paragraph 9(1) of Appendix 20 to the Import Policy of 1980-81 no further relief can be grante...
Vashdev Prakash Vs. Vimal Premchand Hinduja (Mrs) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-20-1988
Reported in: 1988(2)BomCR288
S.M. Daud, J.1. This appeal assails the dismissal of a Motion taken out by the plaintiff/Appellant for an injunction to restrain the Respondents/Defendants from interfering with his alleged possession and enjoyment over the part of the premises described in para 1 of the plaint.2. Plaintiff, which is described as a partnership registered under the Partnership Act, but is in reality partner 'Prakash Hinduja' instituted the suit out of which this appeal arises, on 28th November, 1984. Briefly, the case of the plaintiff was that it had its place of business at the suit premises where from was carried on business as an importer, Shroff and Financier. Defendants 1 and 2 were members of a co-operative Housing society which owned building 'Neelkanth'. They and defendants 3 to 5 also were carrying on the same business as the plaintiff in the suit premises. Plaintiff came on the scene in 1966 when the premises were owned by one S. Mathuradas. The licence fee was being paid by the plaintiff to a...
Shakti Metal Industries Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-20-1988
Reported in: 1988(18)LC641(Bombay)
R.A. Jahagirdar, J.1. A notice dated 3rd June, 1982 issued to the petitioners by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Range 11, Bombay Division 'R', requiring them to obtain Central Excise licence is challenged in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners' case is that under a notification issued under Rule 174A of the Central Excise Rules, they are exempted from taking a licence as required under Rule 174 read with Section 6 of the Central Excises and Salt Act. The foundation of this argument of the petitioners is a notification bearing No. 119/66-C.E. dated 16th July, 1966, as amended by subsequent notifications. This notification exempts from the whole of the duty of excise leviable on certain items mentioned therein, two of them being copper or copper alloys, if the same are manufactured out of the materials mentioned in the said notification. It is the petitioners' case that they are manufacturing copper casted wires which are embraced by the p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »