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.
Gulabrai D. Parekh Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-1988
Reported in: 1988(17)LC207(Bombay); 1988(36)ELT48(Bom)
1. This writ petition is filed to seek directions to the respondents to allow clearance of 5843 ball bearing imported from Romania under 5 bills of entry between August and October 1986 on the basis of the invoice price. The petition states that clearance was not permitted because the respondents alleged that the invoice price was not correct price and threatened to load it. The basis for such loading was not given nor was any documentary evidence in that behalf disclosed. No query memo or show cause notice was issued. Even provisional assessment was not made. There is no affidavit in reply to the petition and it is not disputed that this was the reason why clearance was not permitted.2. In an identical matter concerning ball bearings of Romanian origin, the Customs authorities had not accepted the invoice value and had loaded it. An appeal from the order in that behalf was preferred to the Collector of Customs. By his order dated 20th March, 1987 the Collector, after considering the m...
The Citizens' Action Committee, Nagpur and Ors. Vs. the Central Board ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Bom178; 1989(1)BomCR299
H.W. Dhabe, J.1. At the stage of notice before admission, we have heard this matter at length fully as It was an urgent matter. Hence rule. Heard forthwith.2. This is a writ petition in which the petitioners have claimed a writ against the respondents and particularly, the respondent 1 i.e. the Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi, for creating a Centre at Nagpur for all-India Pre-Medical/Pre Dental Entrance Examination, 1988, scheduled to be held on 22nd May 1988. 3. Briefly the facts are that for implementing the directions of the Supreme Court in the case of Pradeep Jain v. Union of India : (1984)IILLJ481SC a as modified by the first decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Dineshkumar v. Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad AIR 1985 SC 1095 which was its off-shoot, it was directed by the Supreme Court that the Central Government, the Medical Council of India and Dental Council of India should frame a proper scheme for holding All India Entrance Examination fo...
Abdeali Shaikh Tayebali Zaidy and anr. Vs. Bombay Housing and Area Dev ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-1988
Reported in: 1988(3)BomCR457
Sujata Manohar, J.1. The petitioners own a building known as Aamer House at 4 Henry Road, Bombay 400 009. This is an old building consisting of ground, three upper storeys, plus a half floor and a terrace on the 4th floor. The rear portion consists of five storeys.2. In the year 1972-73 the petitioners obtained a 'no objection' certificate from the Bombay Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board to carry out extensive repairs to the building including its near portion. By its letter of 30th October, 1973 the Bombay Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board gave to the petitioners an extension of time upto 31st March, 1974 for completion of the repair work. The repair work was accordingly completed by the petitioners. There is some dispute about the date of completion of the repair work which is not material. I will assume for the sake of this petition that the repair work was completed by 31st March, 1973. In respect of the repair work the petitioners have been reimbursed to the exten...
The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Rajendra Ratanlal Bhutada
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-1988
Reported in: 2(1988)ACC128
Shah, J.1. Heard Mr. Singh for the appellant and Mrs. Surana for the respondent. The only point to be considered is whether the appellant has proved that the certificate of insurance of the motor vehicle in question was fraudulently obtained by the respondent, after the accident took place. The trial court after careful consideration of the evidence has held that the appellants have failed to prove their case. The evidence shows that the cover note for the insurance was issued by the agent to the respondent on August 17,1985. We do not find any reason to differ from the view taken by the trial court on this issue. The trial court has rightly discarded the testimony of the witness, A.I. Sabarwal. The mere coincidence that the accident took place on the next day cannot be a ground for presuming that a fraud must have been committed by the respondent in collusion with the agent of the appellants. Reliance, however, was placed by the learned Counsel for the appellants about the absence of ...
Collector of Customs (Prev.) Vs. Manoharlal Ghanshyamdas
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-06-1988
Reported in: (1989)(19)ECC115
1. This appeal by the Collector of Customs (Preventive), Bombay is directed against Order-in-Appeal bearing No. S/49-109/87 GC dated 10-4-1987 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay.2. The undisputed facts are that the Respondents M/s. Manoharlal Ghanshyamdas Jewellers, Bombay are the holders of Gold Dealer's Licence. In the year 1986, they made an application for the renewal of their licence for a period of three years ending with 31-12-1989. It appears that in the year 1983, 491.500 grams of gold valued at Rs. 68,277/- was seized from the firm's premises and in an adjudication proceeding, a penalty of Rs. 5100/- under the Gold (Control) Act and Rs. 100/- under the Customs Act were imposed in an order dated 31-5-1984. It further appears that a quantity of 1690.300 grams of gold valued at Rs. 2,48,400/- was seized on 21-03-1985 from the licensed premises and in an adjudication proceeding, the seized gold was ordered to be confiscated but allowed release on payment of red...
Asst. Coll. of Customs Vs. Mudambi Parthasarathy Narayan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-06-1988
Reported in: 1989(25)LC86(Bombay); 1990(47)ELT237(Bom)
D.N. Mehta, J.1. The Assistant Collector of Customs has filed this Criminal Appeal for enhancement of sentence on the Respondent Mudambi Parthasarathy Narayan. The Assistant Collector has impugned the sentence imposed on the Respondent, who will hereinafter be referred to as 'the Accused', of 1 day's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 75,000/- or in default, to suffer six months' rigorous imprisonment on each of the charges under Section 135(1)(a)(i), and Section 135(1)(b)(i) of the Customs Act, and section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947.2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that on 2-1-1987 the Accused arrived at the Bombay International Airport accompanied by his wife and son from New York by PANAM flight. On a search of the baggage carried by the Accused, it was found that the Accused had brought gold valued at Rs. 5,95,200/-. The gold was seized by the Customs under a Panchanama Exhibit P-2.3. In the Adjudication proceedings the contraband gold brought by...
Mcdermott International Inc. (No. 1) Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-06-1988
Reported in: (1988)70CTR(Bom)481; [1988]173ITR155(Bom)
Mrs. Sujata Manohar, J.1. The petitioner is a company established under the laws of the Republic of Panama. It carries on the business of designing, fabrication, construction of platform jackets, decks and piles, bridges, pipelines and similar construction work on-shore and off-shore. At the relevant time, the petitioner was engaged in the activity of installing platform jackets, decks and laying pipelines at the Bombay High off-shore area. This area is at a distance of about 100 nautical miles from the Indian coastline.2. The Territorial Waters, Continental Shelf, Exclusive Economic Zone and Other Maritime Zones Act, 1976, under section 3(2), prescribes the limit of territorial waters at 12 nautical miles from the nearest point of the appropriate baseline. Section 3(1) states that the sovereignty of India extends and has always extended to the territorial waters of India.3. Under section 6(1), the continental shelf of India extends to a distance of 200 nautical miles from the baseline...
Antifriction Bearings Corp. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-06-1988
Reported in: 1988(36)ELT243(Bom)
1. The petitioners are a limited company engaged in the manufacture of products known as roller bearings. They are more popularly known as 'Single Row Tapered Roller Bearings'. In the manufacture of the said products they are required to use rings of various sizes. Since they have to import the same, they are importing them under an import licence issued by the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports. It has been mentioned in the petition that they are importing the same in a rough form and that is why they are known as rough forged rings, which are made ready for being in the products manufactured by the petitioners by subjecting the same to several processes such as turning, stamping, heating, grinding and super finishing.2. According to the petitioners, the said item, namely rough forged rings, fall under Tariff Item No. 73.15(1) were as the department has contended that it falls under Tariff Item No. 84.62(3). This dispute was agitated earlier and the department's view was ch...
Kalavati Sakharam Ingulkar Vs. Mahindra Ugine Steel Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-06-1988
Reported in: (1993)IIILLJ768Bom
Sugla, J.1. The appellant (original petitioner/applicant) is the widow of the deceased workman who met with an accident and sustained injury on his right loin with contusion on the right of the back near kidney region. This was on the night of 25th and early morning of 26th January 1978. The accident admittedly took place in the course of and arising out of the employment.The respondent (original opponents) for short referred to as the 'employers' have a small dispensary in its factory. The workman was immediately given first-aid treatment by the employer's Medical Officer who referred the workman to Lonawala Hospital for taking X-rays to exclude bone injury of hip and spine. He was admitted to Lonawala Hospital on 26lh January 1978 itself where Dr. Ranade examined him. Next day the workman passed some blood through urine. He was given treatment to avoid infection and relieve pain. He responded well to the treatment and improved considerably in the next few days. X-rays taken indicated...
Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-1988
Reported in: 1988(18)LC636(Bombay); 1993(64)ELT201(Bom)
Sujata Manohar, J.1. The petitioners had imported textile machineries under two import licences granted in March and April 1960 under the import trade control policy then in force. In respect of these imports the petitioners had executed a bond to export cloth processed on the impugned machinery equivalent to three times the value of the machinery imported within a period of three years of the machinery going into production. This condition was fulfilled by the petitioners and the bonds were duly redeemed. This obligation was completed by the end of December 1962.2. Apart from this export of cloth the petitioners also exported cloth of a large value during the material period. In respect of the exports the petitioners became entitled to import replenishment licences and/or import entitlement for registered exporters in terms of the relevant Export Promotion Scheme in force from time to time. The Petitioners submit that these import entitlements and/or import replenishment licences agai...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »