Mumbai Court June 1988 Judgments
Dodsal Private Ltd. and anr. Vs. Narmada Seaways Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Bom96; 1988(3)BomCR482; 1988MhLJ723
ORDER1. This is a Notice of Motion taken out by the 5th defendants dismissal of the suit as against them for absolute want of cause of action against them and in the alternative for stay of the suit under S. 34 of the Arbitration Act .2. The material fact in nutshell are these.: the two plaintiffs and each of the defendants Nos 1 to 5 are Companies registered under the Indian Companies Act . the 6th defendants are the Oil & Natural Gas Commission, In or about May 1983 the 6th defendants had invited tenders for laying of land line pipes from Umrat to Hazira in the state of Gujarat. The said tender was ultimately awarded by them to the 1st plaintiffs. The 2nd plaintiffs are Insurers of the 1st plaintiffs We are here concerned with the 1st plaintiffs alone. I shall refer to them as 'plaintiff' . the terms and conditions of the work are recorded in an Agreement dt. 21st Aug 1984. It appears that the work. Interalia. Involved the transpiration pf coal tar enamel and Reinforced Concrete Coas...
Tag this Judgment!Sos. Pushpabai Anandji Gala and anr. Vs. Sukumar Jinnappa Bhare
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-1988
Reported in: 1988(3)BomCR316
P.S. Shah, J.1. In our opinion, this Letters Patent Appeal must be rejected as not maintainable. The appellants filed a civil suit against the respondent in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sangli, for possession of the suit premises under section 13(1)(hh) of the Bombay Rent Act. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. The appeal preferred by the appellants in the District Court was allowed and the appellants suit for possession was decreed. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision in appeal, the respondent filed a writ petition in this Court purportedly under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned Single Judge by his judgment and order dated 24/25th February, 1987, allowed the writ petition, set aside the decree for possession passed by the District Court and restored the order of dismissal of the suit passed by the trial Court. The appellants have filed this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act challenging the decision of the learned Single Judge.2. In ...
Tag this Judgment!R.B. Chemicals Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-1988
Reported in: 1988(3)BomCR675; 1988(18)ECC31; 1988(18)LC452(Bombay); 1988(37)ELT173(Bom)
Sujata Manohar, J.1. The petitioners imported 50-U metric tonnes of P.V.C. (Poly Vinyl Chloride) from Kores. The goods arrived by vessel s.s. 'Morning Park,' in October 1982. The petitioners presented 15 bills of entry for home consumption, all dated 26th October, 1982. The Customs Authorities purported to levy, what was then known as countervailing duty (now called additional duty) at the rate of 5% on the countervailing duty of 35% payable on these goods. The countervailing duty of 35% ad valorem was charged in view of a similar rate of duty payable on these goods under the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with an Exemption Notification of 28-2-1982.2. Under the Exemption Notification bearing no. 55/82 and dated 28-2-1982, it is provided as follows:'Partial, exemption to artificial or synthetic resins and plastic materials and cellulose esters and others. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and in supersession of the Notific...
Tag this Judgment!New Subhash Pictures Private Ltd. Vs. Balkrishna Wamanrao Dande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-1988
Reported in: 1988(4)BomCR493
M.S. Ratnaparkhi, J.1. The order passed by the 14th Civil Judge, Junior Division, Amravati on 23.9.1985 in Regular Civil Suit No. 429 of 1984 rejecting the defendant's application under section 34 of the Arbitration Act and the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Amravati on 15th February, 1988 in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 124 of 1985, dismissing the appeal and confirming the order passed by the trial Court are agitated in this revision.2. Facts are more or less undisputed. The respondent instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 429 of 1984 against the petitioner for eviction and other allied reliefs. As is evident from the record, the summons of the suit was served on the defendant's company on 7-8-1985 by substituted service. This summons came to be served at the office of the company at about 11.30 A.M. It is also to be noted that according to this summons the defendant was required to file its written statement on that very day before the Court. It is also the averment tha...
Tag this Judgment!State of Maharashtra Vs. Prakash Kalgya Kale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-1988
Reported in: 1988(2)BomCR693
Tated, J.1. The State preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dt. 6th December, 1980 passed by the Additional Session Judge, Ahmednagar, in Session Case No. 95 of 1980 whereby he acquitted the respondent-accused of the charge of rape punishable under 376, I.P.C. and the charge of robbery punishable under S. 392, I.P.C.2. The prosecution case in brief is that the complainant Mrs. Deubai Rupchand Chavan (P.W. 8), a lady belonging to the nomadic tribe Laman, resided at Waghluj in Tehsil Ashti of Beed district. She and her husband worked as labourers at various places. About two days prior to the date of incident, namely, 22nd November 1978, her husband went to Kolsewadi, near Kalyan, District Thane, for work and asked the complainant to follow him after some days after keeping the household articles in the house of her brother at Waghluj. Accordingly the complainant kept her belongings in the house of her brother and on her way to Kolsewadi she went to Ahmednagar by a State T...
Tag this Judgment!Ricardson Hindustan Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-1988
Reported in: 1988(3)BomCR95; 1989(24)ECC275; 1988(18)LC486(Bombay); 1988(37)ELT496(Bom)
Sujata Manohar, J.1. Petitioners M/s. Richardson Hindustan Limited are engaged in the manufacture of various bulk drugs, Ayurvedic and other pharmaceutical formulations. The petitioners manufacture amongst other pharmaceutical products 'Vicks Herbal throat drops' which contain medicinal properties having therapeutic value. These throat drops have been certified by the Food and Drug Administration, Maharashtra State as Ayurvedic medicine. For the purpose of excise duty the throat drops are classified under Medicaments used in Ayurvedic systems. The throat drops, therefore, have medicinal properties and are not sweets or confectionery.2. The petitioners wanted to import a High Speed Automatic Wrapping Machine for wrapping these throat drops. Under Import/Export Policy for April 1985 to March 1988 capital goods which may be imported by eligible actual users under open General Licence subject to conditions applicable thereto, are listed in Appendix 1 Part B. Item 18(18) of Part B of Append...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-1988
Reported in: 1988(4)BomCR3; 1988MhLJ998
Sujata Manohar, J.1. Bharat Petroleum Corporation, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, Indian Oil Corporation and I.B.P. Co. Limited, who are petitioners 1 to 4 manufacture and sell inter alia, petroleum products. They also have dealers who run retail outlets in Bombay City. The retail outlets are operated by the dealers of the petitioners 1 to 4 under agreements executed by them with the petitioners concerned. This petition has been filed on behalf of the dealers of petitioners 1 to 4. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay is the respondent.2. Under section 394 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the licence granted by the Commissioner no person shall keep or suffer or allow to be kept, in or upon any premises, any article, inter alia, specified in Part II of Schedule M, in excess of the quantity, therein specified as a maximum quantity, without a licence. Petrol and High Speed diesel form part of Schedule M...
Tag this Judgment!Zahid Ali Imdadali Vs. Fahmida Begum (Smt.) D/O Akbar Ali and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-1988
Reported in: 1988(4)BomCR366; 1989MhLJ109
G.G. Loney, J.1. An important point which falls for determination in this revision is whether a Muslim wife who accrued a vested right to recover the amount of maintenance determined by a Court under section 125 Criminal Procedure Code stands affected by virtue of section 7 of the Muslim Women, (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 hereinafter referred to as 'the 1986 Act' if she is subsequently divorced ?. The facts and circumstances which are relevant for the just decision of this case are given in the following paras.2. There are some admitted facts in this case. They are as under, Applicant Zahid Ali and Shrimati Fahmida Begum were married according to Mohammedan Law. Kumari Rizwana is their daughter born out of the wedlock. That on 14th July, 1986, the parties are divorced under the Mohammedan Law. The marriage was solemnised in the year 1973. The wife applied for maintenance under section 125 Criminal Procedure Code for herself and her minor daughter Rizwana. The proceeding...
Tag this Judgment!Shirjee Sales Corporation Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-1988
Reported in: (1989)(23)LC578Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against order-in-original bearing No. S/10-154/82D dated 24-11-1982 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are : The appellants M/s. Shirjee Sales Corporation, Bombay as letter of authority holder of the Export House M/s. Garden Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd., imported six consignments of High Impact Polystrene Resin Grade HI 425 totally valued at Rs. 4,82,454/- and sought clearance against the Additional Licence No. N/L 2890623, dated 6-8-1981 issued to M/s. Garden Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. during the Policy April 1981 - March 1982 (for short AM 82). The Additional licence had the endorsement "NOT TRANSFERABLE". The actual import took place during the Policy A.M. 1983 (date of shipment 23 September 1982 Bills of Entry entered on 11th October, 1982.).2. The Customs objected to the clearance on the ground that the letter of authority had been issued to the appellants on 10-9-1982 and...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Sambhaji Shinde Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-1988
Reported in: 1988(4)BomCR435; 1989MhLJ833
B.N. Deshmukh, J.1. A Complaint was field against three persons by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative societies, Aurangabad, on 21-3-1974 in the Kirana chawdi Police Station, Aurangabad, for offences of misappropriation, preparing false records, etc. Pursuant to the complaint filed charge sheet came to be field in the Court against the petitioner and four others, alleging to have committed offences under sections 409, 420, 477, 477-A, 201 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner who was the Auditor working with the Co-operation department of the Government of Maharashtra, was made accused No. 3, on the allegation that though the petitioner was not authorised to do the audit of the society, has done the audit of the society, to help the other accused persons Further, even though there was an order for attachment of the record, the petitioner, being the auditor flouted those orders and did the audit work and submitted false report intentionally. So also the petitioner, as al...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »