Mumbai Court June 1988 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Sethi Motor Corporation Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-1988
Reported in: (1989)(20)LC252Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. S/49-7/82SIIB, dated 3-1-1983 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombbay. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are: The appellants imported 80 pieces of Crank Shaft valued at Rs. 53,659.76 c.i.f. and sought clearance under O.G.L.' under Appx. 10 Item 58(4) of the Policy A.M. 1982. The Customs, however, objected to the clearance on the ground that the Crank Shaft imported are not new but they are old and used.2. In the adjudication held by the Deputy Collector, he ordered confiscation but allowed redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 1,30,000/-. Being aggrieved by this order, the appellants preferred an appeal before the Collector (Appeals) unsuccessfully. Hence this appeal.3. During the hearing of this appeal, Shri Balani made the following submissions : The Deputy Collector committed an error in holding that the goods are old and used and not new goods. The initial burden of es...
indira Jasing Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Bom25; 1989(2)BomCR101; 1988MhLJ745
ORDER1. The petitioner is an Advocate and solicitor practising in this High Court and the Supreme Court of India. She edits a monthly magazine called 'The Lawyers' Collective'. She is also the Secretary of an organisation known as 'The Lawyers' Collective' which conducts legal literacy campaigns and provides legal aid. The petitioner had been invited to address meetings. She has presented papers and articles at seminars and fought cases challenging discrimination against women.2. in the last week of Feb., 1986 the petitioner was invited to give an interview on Television in a programme called 'Sach Ki Parchaian' to be telecast over the national net-work. The topic which was to be discussed in this programme was 'Laws relating to Women'. The petitioner accepted the invitation. Her interview was recorded in the studios of the Bombay Doordarshan on 1st Mar.1986. The petitioner was informed at the studio that she could speak on any aspect of laws relating to women. In the interview, the pe...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Hiralal Maganlal Doshi and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-1988
Reported in: 1988(3)BomCR205
S.C. Pratap, J.1. This appeal arises out of an order of acquittal recorded in favour of the accused by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jaduj, in Criminal Case No. 65 of 1979, lodged against the accused under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (fort short 'the Act').2. The accused have been acquitted on the only ground that the article or the sample involved was 'Ajawan' which the Trial Magistrate held to be not an article of food and not covered by the Act. We are surprised at the finding of the trial Magistrate that 'Ajawan' is not an article of food. The very definition of 'food' under the Act must include within its sweep 'Ajawan'. Still further, Appendix B of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules categorically includes under A. 05.23. 'Ajawan' which has been clarified to mean dried ripe seeds of Trechyspermum ammi (Linn) Sprague. Mr. Chitnis, learned Advocate for the accused persons, appearing before us has frankly stated that he cannot support the finding of the tri...
N.D. Sutar, Food Inspector, Local Health Authority Vs. Chabulal Mahadu ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-1988
Reported in: 1988(3)BomCR631
S.C. Pratap, J.1. This acquittal appeal arising out of prosecution under the provisions of the Prevention of food Adulteration Act (hereafter 'the Act'), can be disposed of on the short ground of want of service of notice on the accused as a mandatory requirement under section 13(2) of the Act. It is needless to relate the facts and circumstances leading to the prosecution case as the same have been succinctly set out in his judgement by the learned Judicial Magistrate.2. On section 13(2) of the Act, it has been found that notice the under was not served on the accused. The accused has been consistently signing Even when the impugned sample was taken, he put his signature on the relevant document. He has signed several documents. The alleged acknowledgement of notice under section 13(2) of the Act is the solitary document which purports to bear the thumb impression of the accused. The accused has denied having received any such notice. He has also denied having put his thumb impression...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Tarachand Nathalal Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-1988
Reported in: 1988(4)BomCR23
S.C. Pratap, J.1. There is no merit is this acquittal appeal arising out of prosecution under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short 'the Act'). It is unnecessary to relate the facts and circumstances leading to the prosecution case as the same have been succinctly set out in his judgment by the learned trial Magistrate.2. Going through the evidence as also the detail judgment of the trial Court, we find ourselves in agreement with the reasoning and the conclusion of the learned trial Magistrate. In the first instance, there is no satisfactory proof that the article in question catachu edible, sample whereof was taken by the Food Inspector was kept by the accused in his shop for the purpose of sale. The evidence casts considerable doubt on this basic aspect. Evidence indicates that sample of the said article was obtained from the house of the accused who was residing nearby to his shop. Still further, both the panchas examined by the prosecution have turne...
Shobha Suryavanshi Shivappa (Kum.) Through Her Guardian Vs. State of G ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-1988
Reported in: 1988(3)BomCR720
G.D. Kamat, J.1. This petition raises a short point but somewhat of importance in the academic field in the matter of reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes. Kum. Shobha Suryavanshi Shivappa, a student, minor in age has instituted this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India through her legal and natural guardian-cum-father, Shri Shivappa J. Suryavanshi challenging the refusal of admission to the first Year M.B.B.S. in Goa Medical College.2. To appreciate the challenge involved in this petition the undisputed facts be recorded.Petitioner's father along with his family moved down to Goa sometime in the year 1985 and he took up a permanent job in the town of Vasco-da-Gama and alongwith that a permanent residence. Petitioner Shobha was born on 18th August, 1970 and since birth is residing with her parents. She did her primary education at Naval K.G. School, Vasco-da-Gama. Thereafter she did her High School (Secondary) Education and passed her Xth Standard in 1985 from K...
Prakash Fabricators and Vs. Collector of C.E. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-1988
Reported in: (1988)(18)LC179Tri(Mum.)bai
1. To hear the applicants' appeal on merits they are required to deposit Rs. 85,171.23 the duty demanded from them.2. Shri Christian firstly submitted that the Appellate Collector's order is prima facie bad. He urged that the interpretation of the Board's order that the appellants themselves should have been the purchasers of the inputs, is erroneous. He submitted that the appellants are the processors to whom the inputs are supplied by the customers. The appellants pay duty on the finished goods after setting up the modvat credit. The above apart, Shri Christian contended that the Asstt. Collector's order is passed in violation of the rules of natural justice. The appellants had not been heard at all. No opportunity was given to dispute the demand. The Collector (Appeals), had not adverted to this aspect and on this ground also the Collector (Appeals) order is bad in law. As regards the financial position, Shri Christian submitted that the appellants are only the processors. They are...
G.K. International and anr. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-1988
Reported in: (1989)(19)ECC113
1. Appearing for the applicants Shri Patil submitted that the two orders passed by the Collector (Appeals) are prima facie bad. He contended that the Collector (Appeals) in his order had categorically stated that the two decisions of the Bombay High Court; one reported in 1987 (28) ELT 193 (BOM) and Anr. reported in 1986 (25) ELT 966 (BOM) are in favour of the appellants. His further observation that the department was aggrieved with the judgments and therefore it had filed an appeal which was admitted by the Court, cannot be ascertained because the Collector (Appeals) does not mention in which Court the appeal was filed and what was the appeal number. He further submitted-that at the time of clearance of the goods the Customs were satisfied as to the end use of the goods. Therefore, the Customs cannot now call upon the applicants to deposit the duty.2. Shri Mondal appearing for the Collector opposed this application and contended that it is the function of the Customs to verify the e...
Kasam HusaIn Thaim Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-1988
Reported in: 1988(36)ELT527(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. The Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department, by order dated March 24, 1988 passed in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'COFEPOSA'), directed detention of the petitioner with a view to preventing him from smuggling or abetting smuggling of goods. The order was served on the detenu on March 29, 1988 and the grounds of detention were furnished.2. The grounds of detention supplied to the detenu make wonderful reading. It is difficult to appreciate whether the Detaining Authority understands what should be written while furnishing grounds of detention. We are not reciting the facts set out in the grounds of detention, because in our judgment the order of detention is required to be quashed for basic defaults.3. Shri Karmali, learned counsel appearing for the detenu, pointed out that the order recites that the detention is necessa...
Bharat Laxman Cavankar Vs. the Vice Chancellor, University of Bombay a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Bom321
ORDER1. The petitioner appeared for M.D. (Obst, & Gynace ) Examination of the Bombay University in June `987. The result of this examination was declared in Sept. 1987. The petitioner was declared unsuccessful. 2. As per rules framed for assessment of theory papers. Practical orals (inter alia ) at the M.D. Examination by the University of Bombay a points systems has been laid down. Under the points system-Point O is equivalent Very poor' 1 ' ' ' Poor' 2 ' ' ' Below Average' 3 ' ' ' Average' 4 ' ' ' Good' 5 ' ' ' Very good' 6 ' ' ' Out standingRules as originally framed provided that the above ' ' Points Scale' should strictly adhered to and points in fractions should not be assigned.3. Under the rules, for the purpose of passing (A) Theory papers as a whole constitute a sub-head: (B) Practical from an independent head of passing. The Long Cases/Experiments will from a sub-head. , while Short case experiments will constitute another sub-head: and (C) Orals constitute a separate head of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »