Mumbai Court August 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.
Dharnidhar Rambhau Kathale and Others Vs. Second Labour Court and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-1988
Reported in: [1989(58)FLR355]; (1989)IILLJ140Bom
1. The petitioners are the employees of the respondent No. 2 (for short 'the respondent') and are working at the Thermal Power Station, Khaperkheda as Time-keepers. They moved the Labour Court under sub-section (2) of Section 33C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on 25th July 1984, contending that they are entitled to avail of the public holidays, local holidays, optional holidays and the holidays on account of 2nd and 4th Saturdays. They have essentially based their claim on the Circular No. ESTI III/Misc./6310 dated 22nd December, 1966 issued by the Bombay Head Office of the respondent. According to them, the respondent did not extend the benefits and privileges to them to which they are entitled in accordance with the circular, referred supra. The claim of the petitioners was contested by the respondent on various grounds, inter alia on the ground that the circular in question does not relate to the holidays. The respondent contended that th...
Chaudappa Parappa Aland Vs. Collector of C. Ex. and Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-1988
Reported in: (1989)(20)LC36Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the order in original bearing No. XVII (GC) 8-Adj/371/81 dated 9-2-1983 passed by the Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Pune.2. The subject of challenge in this appeal is the absolute confiscation of gold ornaments weighing 132.800 gms. and the penalty of Rs. 5000/-.3. Shri Solanki appearing for the appellant vehementally contended that the gold ornaments seized in this case cannot be confiscated under law since no offence had been committed in relation to the said gold and therefore Section 71 of the Gold (Control) Act will not be applicable.He submitted that the appellant was earlier dealing In gold in partnership with another. There was a dispute and he took the seized gold ornaments from the stock-in-trade of the partnership firm. The seized gold was not purchased by him. Shri Solanki submitted that the Supdt. during the cross-examination had clearly admitted that he was not in a position to state as to whether the seiz...
Asia Banu Laceo Ahmed Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-1988
Reported in: 1989(39)ELT199(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. The Joint Secretary to the Government of India by order dated April 28, 1988 passed in exercise of powers conferred by Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereafter referred to as 'Act') directed detention of Aslam Ahmed Zahir Ahmed Shaikh with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the argumentation of foreign exchange. The order of detention was served on June 2, 1988 and the grounds of detention were furnished. The grounds of detention recite that information was received by the Bombay Zonal Office of the Enforcement Directorate that the detenu was indulging in receiving and making payments in India on instructions of persons staying abroad. On the basis of information, the residential and the business premises of the detenu were searched under Section 37 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 on January 7, 1988. As a result of the search of the business premises, two bun...
Manakchand Sarupchand Lunavat and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Bom339; 1989(2)BomCR445
Dharmadhikari, J.1. Since all these writ petitions involve common questions of proceedings, they were heard together and ate being disposed of but this common judgment.2. A development plan for Nasik City was sanctioned by the State Government and brought into force in the year 1959. In this plan, the lands involved in these writ petitions were reserved for road widening. Thereafter in the year 1975, the said plan was sought to be revised and a revised draft plan was published which cane to be sanctioned on the year 1980 and came into force on 29th of November 1980. In this revised plan also the properties in question were reserved for road widening. On 19th of March 1980 by a request letter to the Collector in that behalf procedure for acquisition of lands was started by the then Administrator of the Municipal Council, Nasik. In its turn the said proposal came to be forwarded BY THE Collector to the Special land Acquisition Officer. Thereafter a notification dated 31st August 1981 cam...
Narsing Laxman Bahirwade Through Heirs Vs. Vishwanath Gopal Joshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-1988
Reported in: 1989(2)BomCR19
T.D. Sugla, J.1. Originally the defendant's father was the Vatandar in respect of the suit land. On the abolition of Watan on the passing of the Bombay Pargana and Kulkarni Watans (Abolition) Act, 1950 and on the payment of Nazarana in terms of section 4(1) of that Act, being the occupant, he became the owner of the suit land under the new tenure in terms of which the suit land was not transferable unless further requirements as laid down in section 4(2) of the said Act were satisfied. On 12th May, 1964, the defendant's farther made an application under section 4(2) of the Act for conversion of the suit land from new tenure to old tenure and paid the requisite amount i.e. Nazarana. However, before the application was allowed and the permission was granted converting the suit land from new tenure to old tenure, he conveyed the suit land to the plaintiff by a deed of conveyance executed and registered on 21st December, 1964 for a consideration of Rs. 900/- . On the basis of the above sal...
General Import Company (India) Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-1988
Reported in: (1989)(20)LC112Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the Order-in-Appeal bearing No. S/49-70/84L dated 23-8-1984 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay.2. The undisputed facts are : The appellants imported three consignments of Propylene Glycol valued at Rs. 38,969/-, Rs. 74,692/- and Rs. 74,692/- respectively and claimed clearance under Appendix 10 (1) for stock and sale. The Customs, however, objected to the clearance on the ground that the imported goods were covered by serial No. 63 of Part II of list 8 of Appendix 10 of the Policy AM 1984.3. Since the appellants waived written show cause notice, the Deputy Collector who held the enquiry after affording personal hearing ordered confiscation but allowed redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 4,000/-, Rs. 7,500/- and Rs. 7,500/- respectively.4. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the appellant preferred appeal before the Collector of Customs (Appeals) unsuccessfully. Hence this appeal .5. During the hearing of this-appeal, ...
State Bank of India Vs. the Podar Mills Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Bom215; [1989(59)FLR482]
ORDER1. This Chamber Summons is by Rajasthan Trade Union Kendra who represent the interest of the workers employed by the Defendant No. 1. They seek an order that they be joined as Defendants to the suit. They claim that they ought to be joined as Defendants as their presence before the Court necessary 'in order to enable the Court effectively and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit'.2. The plaintiff a bank, has instituted this suit against the Defendant No. 1 inter alia, for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 14,76,08,669.18 and interest. The Defendant No. 1 is a Company, the Defendant No.2 and Defendant No.3 are Directors, the Defendant No.4 and Defendant No. 5 are National Textile Corporation Ltd, and National Textile Corporation Ltd, and National Textile Corporation (South Maharashtra) Ltd, respectively. By the order dated 8th March, 1988 in the Notice of Motion No. 337 of 1987 taken out by the Plaintiffs this Court appointed Receiver of the im...
Khira Steel Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-1988
Reported in: (1990)LC547Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against Order No. V-2(94) 2247/87 dated 17th February, 1988 passed by Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.2. The appeal E/727/88 was not listed for hearing this day. During the hearing of the stay Application referred to in the cause title, it transpired that the Collector (Appeals) had rejected the appeal holding that it was barred by time. We therefore consider it necessary to take up the appeal itself. Accordingly, we heard arguments on the merits of the appeal.3. Shri Mehta submitted that the appellants herein on 20.4.1987 filed an appeal before the Collector (Appeals). They enclosed several documents including the order passed by the Asstt. Collector dated 10.2.1987. They requested the Collector (Appeals) to consider their appeal and to issue instructions to the Asstt. Collector. Shri Mehta further submitted since the appellant did not receive any communication from the Collector (Appeals), they went to the office of the Coll...
Apar Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-1988
Reported in: (1989)(39)ELT157Tri(Mum.)bai
1. To hear the applicants appeal on merit, they are required to deposit Rs. 11,51,770.24 the duty demanded from them. Shri Mehta appearing for the applicants submitted that this duty was demanded in respect of a product called "flare" which was considered in the 13 adjudication proceedings initiated by the Asstt. Collector as not a marketable goods and not chargeable to excise duty. This finding has been upheld by the Collector of Customs (Appeals). He, therefore, prayed that there may be unconditional stay.2. Shri Prabhu appearing for the Collector opposed the application and contended that "flare" is goods and is captively consumed and therefore are liable to duty.3. We have considered the submissions made on both the sides. Having regard to the decision of the Asstt. Collector and the Collector (Appeals), we consider it to be a fit case to grant an unconditional stay and accordingly we grant an unconditional stay as to the pre-deposit and recovery....
Vinod Mohanlal Desai Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-1988
Reported in: 1989(39)ELT208(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. The Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, by order dated March 8, 1988 passed in exercise of powers conferred by Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') directed detention of Sunil V. Desai with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods and abetting the smuggling of goods. The order of detention was served on May 2, 1988 and the grounds of detention were furnished.2. The grounds, inter alia, recites that a consignment consisting of 4 packages weighing 446 kgs. arrived at Cargo Terminal of Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, from Singapore on November 9, 1987. The goods were consigned to M/s. Charu International (P) Ltd., New Delhi. A Bill of Entry dated November 10, 1987 for clearance of the consignment in the name of M/s. Charu International (P) Ltd., alongwith delivery orders from the consignors with an invoice from Vijay Bank an...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »