Mumbai Court July 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.
Salim Khan Muzaffar Khan Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1988
Reported in: 1989(40)ELT293(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. The Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department by order dated December 8, 1987 passed in exercise of powers under the sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 directed detention of the petitioner with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods. The order was served on February 2, 1988 and the grounds of detention were supplied.2. The grounds, interalia, recite that on July 9, 1987 the detenu arrived at Sahar Air Port from Dubai. The detenu was in possession of Indian passport. The detenu filed a baggage declaration to the tune of Rs. 6,370/-. The Customs officers suspected that the detenu was carrying contraband goods on his person and made enquiries. The detenu denied carrying of any contraband goods. The detenu was then asked to undertake a metal detector test and thereafter six gold bars concealed in rectum packed in two bundles were recovered. The detenu also took out two b...
Sujata Chandrakant Choura Vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1988
Reported in: 1988(3)BomCR669
Sujata Manohar, J.1. The petitioner is a student belonging to the scheduled caste community of Mahar. The petitioner was born and bought up in Bombay. She passed her 10th Standard examination from a school in Bombay. She passed her 11th standard examination also from a College in Bombay. She appeared for her H.S.C. Examination from Bombay for the academic year 1985-86. She could not pass the examination. For the academic year 1986-87 however the petitioner went to reside at Nasik since her father was transferred to Nasik in April, 1986. She appeared for the H.S.C. Examination from Nasik in the academic year 1986-87. Nasik is under Pune Divisional Board of the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education. The result of this examination was declared in June, 1987. The petitioner passed the examination and obtained 73.6% marks in Science subjects.2. In July, 1987 the petitioner applied for admission to the Municipal Medical Colleges run by the 1st respondents in Bom...
Reyon Roldon Vs. Secretary to the Govt. of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-1988
Reported in: 1989(39)ELT399(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. The Secretary (II) to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department, by order dated November 11, 1987, passed in exercise of the powers under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') directed detention of the petitioner with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods. The order of detention was served on December 5, 1987 and the grounds of detention were furnished.2. The grounds inter alia recite that on May 22, 1987, the detenu arrived at Sahar Airport by Cathay Pacific flight and made a declaration that foreign goods of the value of Rs. 4,200/- and which was liable to duty, was imported. The officers did not believe the statement and on search of the suit-case recovered three gold bars of ten tolas each, two gold bars of 100 grams and one gold bar of 50 grams totally valued at Rs. 1,66,444/-. The statement of the detenu was recorded and the detenu claim...
Bharat Barrel and Drum Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Hindusthan Petroleum Cor ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Bom170
Bharucha, J.1. The plaintiffs (appellants) and the 3rd defendants (3rd respondents) manufacture steel drums, inter alia for oil companies like the Ist defendants (Ist respondents ) and the 2nd defendants (2nd respondents) . the suit was not pressed in regard to the 2nd defendant so that in the appeal we are concerned with the facts that relate to the Ist and 3rd defendants.2. At the relevant time steel was controlled under the Iron and Steel Control Order, 1956, issued in exercise of powers conferred by S,3 of the Essential commodities Act , In or about Oct. 1987 there was a strike in the factory of the plaintiffs. On 25th Oct. 1967 an agreement was entered into between the plaintiffs and the Ist and 3rd defendants , It was in the from of a letter addressed by the Ist defendants to the plaintiffs and the 3rd defendants and it read thus:-' This has reference to the discussion we had this afternoon with regard to the supply of 18 gauge lube oil barrels to our Mazagaon installation. In vi...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Nand Kishore Durgaprasad Pardeshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-1988
Reported in: 1989(1)BomCR381
A.D. Tated, J.1. This State appeal is directed against the acquittal of the respondent of the offence punishable under section 7(v) read with 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune, in Criminal Case No. 1470 of 1981.2. The facts leading to the prosecution of the respondent are fully stated by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in his judgment and for decisions of this appeal it is not necessary to reproduce all those facts.3. On 7th May, 1981 the accused was found selling orange sarbat on his hand cart. The Food Inspector obtained the sample. It was sent to the Public Analyst. The Public Analyst found that it contained saccharin, a non-permitted artificial sweetener. Therefore, the accused was prosecuted for the aforesaid offence. The learned trial Magistrate found that the prosecution had failed to prove that the saccharin was used in the sarbat beyond the proportion allowed under Appendix 'B' to the Preven...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Bhalachandra Gangadhar Akul and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-1988
Reported in: 1988(3)BomCR169
A.D. Tated, J.1. Both these appeals by State are directed against the acquittal of the accused of the offence punishable under section 7(1)(v) read with section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. As both the appeals involve common question of law and facts, they are heard together and hence this judgement disposes of both those appeals.2. In Criminal Appeal No. 483 of 83 a sample of chilly powder was taken on 23rd November, 1978 by the Food Inspector Shri A.T. Sawashe. The Public Analyst reported that the sample contains 18.40.% ash and edible common salt 12.40% both by weight. The sample was also sent to Central Food Laboratory which also reported that the sample contains total ash 18.40% by weight and added sodium chloride (salt) 13.55% by weight. The Public Analyst at Solapur, Shri Manohar Purohit who had examined the sample was examined. He admitted during cross examination that the ash percentage includes the salt. He states that the percentage of ash increase...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Sahaji Gajanan Jadhav
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-1988
Reported in: 1988(3)BomCR190
S.C. Pratap, J.1. In this appeal against acquittal, arising out of prosecution under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter 'the Act'), it is not necessary to deal with the various other grounds on which the acquittal, is based because the appeal can be disposed of on one out of these grounds.2. The sample ice-cream was taken on 3rd March, 1982. One part thereof was sent to the Public Analyst on 4th March, 1982. The report of the Public Analyst was received by the Local Health Department on 21st April, 1982 i.e. after expiry of forty-five days. Under Rule 7 sub-Rule (3) of the Rules framed under the Act.'The Public Analyst shall, within a period of forty five days from the date of receipt of any sample for analysis, deliver to the Local (Health) Authority a report of the result of such analysis in Form III. 'Considering the mandate of this rule and its infraction in the instant case the learned trial Magistrate was right in directing acquittal only on this ground. The obj...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Satish Dattatraya Khatavkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-1988
Reported in: 1988(3)BomCR661
S.C. Pratap, J.1. This is an appeal against acquittal.2. In prosecution under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, (for short 'the Act') relating to ground-nut oil, the trial Magistrate convicted the accused for the offence under section 7(i) read with section 2(ia)(a) punishable under section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Act. Appeal of the accused there from was allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge, the impugned conviction and sentence was set aside and the accused was acquitted. Hence his appeal against acquittal.3. Going through the judgment of the two courts below which have taken of the evidence and the record differing views and hearing Mr. Phanse, Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. Throat, learned Advocate for the respondent-accused, we find this to be a case which does not warrant interference in an appeal against acquittal. Reappreciating the evidence we would perhaps have been inclined to prefer the reasoning and conclusion of the learned trial Magistrate to that of the A...
Roplas (India) Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-06-1988
Reported in: 1988(38)ELT27(Bom)
Sawant, J.1. The 1st Petitioners are a company engaged, inter alia, in the manufacture of Fibreglass Reinforced Plastic (F.R.P.) bodies for motor vehicles. According to them, the said F.R.P. bodies did not fall within any of the specific entries in the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and therefore, fell for classification under the residuary entry, namely, Item No. 68 of the Schedule which provides for all other goods.By Notification No. 118/75, dated April 30, 1975, the 1st Respondent - Union of India exempted goods falling under the said Item No. 68 manufactured in the factory and intended for use in the factory in which they were manufactured, from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon. Since the F.R.P. bodies manufactured by the Petitioners were fitted to motor vehicles within the premises of the Petitioners factory, although according to the Petitioners the said F.R.P. bodies fell under Item 68, they paid exc...
Roplas (India) Limited and anr. Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-06-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Bom183; 1989(2)BomCR237; (1988)90BOMLR570; 1989MhLJ920
Sawant, J.1. the 1st Petitioners are a company engaged, inter alia, in the manufacture of Fibreglass Reinforced Plastic (F.R.P.) bodies for motor vehicles,. According to them, the said F.R.P. bodies did not fall within any of the specific entries in the First Schedule to the Central excises and Salt Act , 1944 (hereinafter referred as the Act ) and therefore fell for classification under the residuary entry, namely, Item No. 68 of the Schedule which provides for all other goods. By Notification No. 118/75 dt. April 30, 1975, the 1st Respondent-Union of India exempted goods fallings under the said item No. 68 manufactured in the factory and intended for use in the factory in which they were manufactured, from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon. Since the F.R.P. bodies manufactured by the Petitioners were fitted to motor vehicles within the premises of the Petitioners factory, although according to the Petitioners the said F.R.P. bodies fell under item 68,they paid excise d...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »