Mumbai Court November 1989 Judgments
Antifriction Bearing Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Collector Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-1989
Reported in: (1990)(26)LC439Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Being aggrieved by the Order-in-Original F. No. V(Gen)l8-64/88/2732 dated 5-6.4.1988 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Pune I Division Pune rejecting the refund claim of Rs. 27,815.76 being inadmissible, M/s. The Antifriction Bearings Corporation Ltd., Lonevla - 410401 have filed this appeal.2. The appellants have stated in their appeal petition that cardboard cartons and cellophane wrapping is considered as the essential packing for the Ball and Roller Bearings. Whenever the bearings have to be despatched to distant places, cartons are further packed into wooden crates for the sole purpose of facilitating of the transport and also to protect the bearings from damage in the course of transportation. In their case, the issue stands settled by the Order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) vide his Order-in-Original No. H.N. 605 PN-154/86 dated the 9.1.1987, wherein he has categorically held that the impugned secondary packing is not includible in the asses...
Tag this Judgment!Arumugam Chelliah Paul (Since Deceased by Lrs.) and Others Vs. Life In ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-1989
Reported in: 1990ACJ949; AIR1990Bom255; 1990(1)BomCR237; (1989)91BOMLR544; [1991]70CompCas567(Bom)
1. Arumugam Chelliah Paul, the original plaintiff, took a Life Insurance Policy on February 21, 1955, with the then existing National Insurance Company Limited, having its office at Calcutta..At that time the plaintiff was having a business in Ceylone and a policy was taken in connection with this business. The sum assured under the said policy was Rs. 1,00,000/- in Indian currency. The date of commencement of the policy was October 1, 1954 and the date if maturity was October 1, 1974. On payment of the entire premium the policy had matured into a claim on October 1, 1974.2. Under the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 the assets and liabilities of the said National Insurance Company Limited was taken over by the Life Insurance Corporation of India, the defendants. On maturity of the said policy the said Paul requested the defendants to pay the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-together with bonus, in Indian currency, in India. The defendants would not agree and raised several objections. It appe...
Tag this Judgment!Nimesh K. Thakkar and Others Vs. Official Liquidator and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)BomCR639; (1989)91BOMLR395; [1991]70CompCas257(Bom)
Sujata Manohar, J. 1. This judge's summoned is taken out by 28 applicants against the official liquidator of Sreeniwas Cotton Mills Ltd. in liquidation. 2. A company petition for winding up of sreeniwas Cotton Mills Ltd. was presented in this court on October 24, 1983. During the pendency of this petition on February 9, 1984, the company entered into tenancy agreements with each of the applicants, giving to the applicants on tencancy basis various portions of a godown belonging to the company and situated at Lower Parel on terms and conditions set out in the agreements to tenancy all dated February 9, 1984. The total area so let out by the company to the applicants taken together admeasures around 20,000 sq.ft. Under the agreements, an extremely low monthly rent was fixed. Each of the tenants was, however, required to give a substantial security deposit. The company agreed to return the scrutiny deposit without interest to the tenant concerned on the tenant handing over vacant and peac...
Tag this Judgment!Tanaji Shantaram Koli Vs. V.K. Saraf, Commissioner of Police, Greater ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ2607
Mehta, J.1. The Petitioner herein, Shri Tanaji Shantaram Koli, has impugned in this Criminal Writ Petition the order of detention dated 15-6-1989 passed against him by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (Act No. 65 of 1980).2. Shri Chitnis, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the detenu, has challenged the order of detention only on one issue. Shri Chitnis pointed out that a representation made by the detenu to the Central Government on 6-7-1989 had not been considered and disposed of expeditiously, but the same had been disposed of after a delay of about a month. Shri Chitnis pointed out that the explanation proffered by the Respondents was not at all satisfactory and that would render the continued detention of the detenu illegal.3. Now, in order to appreciate the submission made by Shri Chitnis, it will be pertinent to set out certain facts. The detenu made a representation to the detaining authority a...
Tag this Judgment!State of Maharashtra Vs. Anil Bhagchand Jain
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-1989
Reported in: 1990(47)ELT250(Bom)
1. This Revision Application has been filed on behalf of the Customs Department for quashing the order of discharge of the Respondent-accused for the offences under Section 135(1)(a) and 135(1)(b) read with Section 135(1)(i) of the Customs Act, and Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 32nd Court, Esplanade, Bombay, in case No. 150/CW of 1984 dated 31-10-1985.2. A complaint was filed by the Assistant Collector of Customs before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate against the Respondent-accused alleging that he has committed the offences mentioned above in respect of goods which he did not declare and which he had brought while coming to India. The case of the prosecution was that the Respondent arrived at Bombay International Air Port at Sahar, during the night intervening 14th-15th April 1984 by Air India Flight. At the red channel in the Customs enclosure the Respondent declared goods on which duty wa...
Tag this Judgment!Mohan Rupa Ghegad Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)BomCR210
V.S. Kotwal, J.1. This bunch of four petitions which contains the identical question can well be disposed of by a common judgment and which is acceptable to both the sides. We are tempted to observe even at the threshold that the impugned order in all the petitions is almost shockingly un-sustainable by any yardstick. The factual structure in all the petitions is practically identical and the nature of contentions is also the same.2. All the petitioners have been working as Police Constables in State Police Force and were posted at different places. There are two avenues open for the promotional post of Sub-Inspector, one from the Department and one from the Channel of Public Service Commission. All the petitioners have staked their claim through the Channel of Departmental promotion. This pertained to the batch for 1988. At that time 120 posts were declared for being filled in through this channel from the Departmental promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector. Out of those 98 posts were...
Tag this Judgment!Mannappa Rana Patil Vs. Narsingrao Ganpatrao Dalavi and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)BomCR501
B.N. Deshmukh, J.1. The petitioner who was a member of the Armed Forces preferred an application for restoration of land from Survey No. 208/1 and Survey No. 209/1 situated at village Hadalage, taluka Gandhinglaj of Kolapur District under the provisions of sections 43-1A and 43-1B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. Writ Petition No. 3268 of 1980 relates to the restoration of land from Survey No. 209/1 while Writ Petition No. 208/1. As the parties are the same and the points involved being common, both the writ petitions shall stand disposed of by this judgement.2. The land was a Patil Vatan land and after the abolition the said Vatan was regranted in favour of the petitioner on 25-6-1969. The petitioner paid the occupancy price on 29-1-1967.3. The Assistant Collector, Gandhinglaj, allowed the applications of the petitioner partially. The petitioner was allowed to resume land to the extent of his share in the joint family property. He was further directed to get his...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Customs and Central Vs. S. Vallabhbhai Patel Khand Udyog
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-28-1989
Reported in: (1990)LC485Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal brought forth by the department Collector of Customs & Central Excise, Rajkot against the respondents, M/s. Shri Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel Khand Udyog Co. against the order of the Collector of Customs & C. Ex. (Appeals) Bombay bearing No.V-2(18)955/87, dated 20-9-1988. The brief facts for the purpose of disposal of the appeal can be stated as below: The respondents are the manufacturers of sugar. They filed the refund claim in respect of excess production during the sugar year 1982 for a sum of Rs. 3,70,667.50 in terms of Notification No. 132/82, dated 21-4-1982 as amended by Notification No. 193/82-C.e., dated 11-6-1982.The refund claim was filed on 7-3-1983. The show cause notice was issued on 20-9-1985 holding that the claim for refund has been filed beyond a period of six months and on that basis the Assistant Collector adjudicated and passed on order on 5-2-1987 rejecting the respondents claim as time barred. The respondents thereupon, preferred an app...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Kacher Vaity Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-28-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ2167
Mehta, J.1. In this Criminal Writ Petition, the Petitioner, Suresh Kacher Vaity, has challenged the order of detention passed against him by the Commissioner of Police, Thane as the detaining authority under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (Act No. 65 of 1980).2. Shri. Lonkar, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the detenu, has impugned the order of detention on numerous grounds. We shall briefly deal with each one of those submissions. The first submission made by Shri Lonkar was that the detaining authority had placed reliance on certain grouds of detention which had been prepared for an earlier order of detention passed against the detenu. Shri Lonkar pointed out that an order of detention had been passed against his client on 20-1-1985. Shri Lonkar contended that whilst passing the present order of detention, the detaining authority had relied on instances which had been mentioned in the history-sheet and which instances formed part of the pr...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Sunita Divecha Vs. Tenth Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-1989
Reported in: (1990)32ITD531(Mum.)
1. The only ground raised by the assessee in this appeal under the Income-tax Act for assessment year 1980-81 is that the income earned by a trust, of which the sole beneficiary was the assessee's son, Master Yash Bharat Divecha, should not have been taxed in the hands of the assessee.2. Briefly to state the facts, after the assessment of the assessee, Mrs. Sunita Divecha, was framed, the same came to be reopened under Section 263. The ITO reframed the assessment and while doing so, added a sum of Rs. 38,000 earned by Yash Trust, the trustees of which were the assessee and Himanshu Bharat Divecha. The beneficiary was Shri Yash Bharat Divecha. The said commission of Rs. 38,000 was assessed in the hands of the assessee.3. When the matter came before the Dy. CIT(A), he confirmed the finding of the ITO adding the income of Rs. 38,000 on account of commission earned by Yash Trust from M/s. Industrial Tube Manufacturing Company.4. The learned authorised representative for the assessee submi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »