Mumbai Court July 1988 Judgments
Jayanthilal Maneklal Soni Vs. Collector of Central Excise and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1988
Reported in: (1990)(46)ELT338Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the Order-in-Original bearing No. 3/Gold/Collr./87 (File No.XIII/7-7/86-G(I)) dated 6-2-1987 passed by the Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Ahmedabad. The appellant was holding a gold dealers licence. He made an application for renewal of licence for the period ending with 31-12-1988. Instead of granting renewal a show cause notice was issued to the appellant requiring him to show cause as to why his request for renewal of his gold dealers licence for the years 1986-88 should not be rejected and why it should not be cancelled. In the show cause notice it was alleged that during the proceeding 36 months his average turnover fall short of the minimum prescribed under Rule 3 (ee) and further that the appellants has been proved to have contravened the provisions of Section 8 of the Gold (Control) Act in the adjudication order dated 1-7-1985 and also contravention of the provision of the Customs Act in the adjudication order of 2...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjiv P. Jathan Vs. Larsen and Toubro Ltd. Bombay and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1988
Reported in: [1989(58)FLR522]; (1989)IILLJ194Bom
1. By this petition under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-workman (hereinafter referred to as : 'the workman') challenges the judgment and order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, First Labour Court, Bombay, in complaint (ULP) No. 231 of 1977 dismissing the same on 29th July, 1981.2. The relevant facts giving rise to this writ petition are as under :The workman joined the services of the first respondent-company (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company') on July 17, 1961 and at the relevant time when his services were terminated by an order dated November 26, 1977 he was working as Assistant Store Keeper. It was his case that since 1975 he was working as Joint Secretary of the Larsen & Toubro Group of Companies Employees' Union which was recognised by the company on January 20, 1976 as a representative union representing the majority of the workmen. He also contended that there was another union called Bharatiya Kamgar Sena which was...
Tag this Judgment!Jagjivan Hiralal Doshi and Others Vs. Registrar of Companies
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-1988
Reported in: [1989]65CompCas553(Bom)
G.H. Guttal, J.1. The directors of Amar Dye-Chem. Ltd. (in liquidation) have filed these petitions for an order that they be relieved from any criminal proceedings that might be brought against them for default, negligence, misfeasance, etc., in compliance with the provisions of section 58A of the Companies Act and the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975. The applications are made under section 633 of the Companies Act. The Companies Act, 1956, and the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975, are hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' and 'the Rules', respectively.2. J H Doshi and H J Doshi, who are, respectively, the petitioners in Company Petitions Nos. 502 of 1984 and 506 of 1984 were, at the relevant time, full time directors of the company. The former was the chairman of the company. The petitioners in Company Petitions Nos. 528 of 1984, 529 of 1984 and 530 of 1984, were appointed as directors of the company on January 11, 1984. They were not directors of the compa...
Tag this Judgment!Association of Engineering Workers Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-1988
Reported in: (1989)91BOMLR32; (1995)IIILLJ805Bom; 1988MhLJ714
Lentin, J.1. An order rejecting a reference for adjudication under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 must reflect, albeit briefly,' the material on which the finding is based. It must be a speaking Order. Such is the ratio of this judgment.2. The facts:- (A) On 29th September 1982, six of the 4th respondent's workmen belonging to the appellant-Union were charge-sheeted regarding certain incidents that took place between 4th March 1982 and 10th June 1982 in the 4th respondent's factory. A departmental enquiry was held. It is said that six workmen did not take part in the enquiry. It proceeded ex parte. On 30th December 1982 an order of dismissal was passed against the six workmen. (B) On 8th February 1983, they approached the Deputy Commissioner of Labour for conciliation and reference for adjudication. It was refused on 10th August 1983, on the ground that the employer's action in terminating the services of the six workmen after holding a departmental enquiry and following the princip...
Tag this Judgment!Mayur Chemicals Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1988
Reported in: (1989)(22)LC186Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the Order-in-Appeal bearing No. 400/88-BOM (File No. S/49-397/87L) dated 12.1.1988 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay.2. The Appeal No. 580 of 88 was not listed for hearing to-day. During the hear ing of the stay application, which was listed for hearing, we found it expedient to take up the appeal itself and to dispose of the same.4. In an adjudication proceedings the Deputy Collector, while ordering confis cation of the imported goods, also imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- under Section 112 of the Customs Act. The appellants herein had challenged the confiscation, the fine levied in lieu of confiscation as well as the penalty before the Collector (Appeals).They had also made an application for dispensation with the prior deposit of the penalty amount. It appears that the application for dispensation came up for consideration on 7.12.1987but the appellants herein were not represented on that day. Therefore, the ...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. Dhrangadhra Chemical Works (P.)
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1988
Reported in: (1989)28ITD499(Mum.)
1. These two misc. applications have been filed by the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle XVI, Bombay (now designated as Asstt.Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Cir. XVI), against the order of the Tribunal dated 14-9-1987, by which the Tribunal has set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-II, dated 7-4-1984.2. In the first misc. application (M.A. No. 321/Bom/1987), it is pointed out that the assessee had filed a settlement application under Section 245C(1) of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1979-80 which was admitted by the Settlement Commission by their order dated 26-11-1984 under Section 245D(1). It is claimed in terms of Section 245F(2) of the IT Act that the Settlement Commission has exclusive jurisdiction in regard to this matter to exercise powers and perform functions of the Income-tax authorities under the Act. No authority has any jurisdiction to deal with the matter. The Tribunal, therefore, could not have during the pendency of the matter...
Tag this Judgment!D. Shanalal and Etc. Etc. Vs. Bank of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Bom150; 1988(3)BomCR114; 1988MhLJ956
Mookerjee, C.J. 1. The Bank of Maharashtra which is the Respondent in all twenty-two Appeals before us had instituted suits against the Appellants in the respective Appeals under O.XXXVII of the Civil P.C., 1908, seeking to recover moneys payable by the Defendants-Appellants upon bills of exchange. After summonses of the suits were served upon them, the Defendants-Appellants had entered appearances whereupon the Plaintiff-Respondent Bank had served upon each set of Defendants summonses of judgment under O.XXXVII, R. 3(2) of the Code. Thereupon the Defendants-Appellants had applied before the learned single Judge for leave to defendant the respective suits against them. The learned single Judge had granted them such leave upon condition of depositing the amounts mentioned in the orders. Being aggrieved by the said conditional orders granting leave, the Defendants-Appellants had preferred Appeals before the Division Bench. The Division Bench had up held the learned single Judge's orders ...
Tag this Judgment!Mahadu Bala Garade, Since Deceased, by His Heirs and anr. Vs. Vijay Sh ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1988
Reported in: 1988(3)BomCR658
Sharad Manohar, J.1. This is another illustration how the Court's process is being made a mockery.2. The present petitioner has not an infinitesimal justification for holding fast to the land as regards which order for possession has been passed in favour of the respondent -landlord as early as on 7th March, 1975 in an application filed as early as on 3rd January, 1963 by the certificated landlord in whose favour the order for Exemption Certificate under section 88 was passed on 31st August, 1962. For a full period of 16 years, the landlord is being driven from pillar to post to get the certificated land. He does not know till this date the fate of the proceeding instituted by him on 3-1-1963. The delay of the last 5 years is the result of pendency of this writ petition for that period of 5 years in this Court.3. The facts are very simple. The suit land admittedly belongs to the respondent -landlord, which was held by the deceased-present petitioner as a tenant. The landlord made appli...
Tag this Judgment!Thukral Anjali Dookumar (Dr.) Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1988
Reported in: 1988(4)BomCR209
P.B. Sawant, J.1. In view of the urgency, the petitions are admitted and the Rules are made returnable forthwith. The main contesting parties, viz. the Bombay Municipal Corporation, the State Government and the University of Bombay waive service and appear. The Corporation has also filed its affidavit-in-reply to the petition. Since the interests of both the sets of students, namely, those who support the petitions and those who oppose, are fairly and effectively represented by the contesting parties, it is not necessary to hear all the students. Nor is it possible to do so. Some of the students who are joined as parties to some of the petitions are present in Court to instruct the respective Counsel. One of them, i.e. respondent No. 16 in Writ Petition No. 3264 of 1988 has also filed an affidavit-in-reply. However, the appearances of all the students have not been recorded. We will treat those students who are not served as deleted. It may be mentioned that by our interim orders we ha...
Tag this Judgment!Santosh Bhaurao Raut Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-1988
Reported in: 1989(1)BomCR119; 1989MhLJ162
ORDER1. Applicant seeking bail after having been unsuccessful before the Sessions Court at Thane has come to this Court invoking Sections 439 and/or 482 of the Crl.P.C. 1973.2. The application gives rise to questions which have to be considered in the following background :A Temple and Shrine at Vajreshwari in the District of Thane attracts a number of pilgrims. Two such pilgrims headed for Vajreshwari were (A) and her husband (B). They came to the Vasai Railway Station on June 25, 1988 at about 10-45 p.m. From the Railway Station the couple went to the Navghar Bus Station. This was with a view to get a bus for Vajreshwari. While the couple were standing at the bus stand a person unknown to them approached and gave out that they were wanted by his D.S.P. who it was said was in an auto-rickshaw parked some distance away. The person's speech and manner gave the impression of his being from the Police department. (A) and (B) went with the messenger to the auto-rickshaw. Inside the ricksha...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »