Mumbai Court November 1989 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.
New India Industries Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Bom239; 1990(1)BomCR515; 1992(38)ECC136; 1991(56)ELT3(Bom)
ORDERMookerjee, CJ.1. This writ petition had come up for final hearing before Ashok Agarwal, J. The learned single Judge was of the view that the levy and collection of excise duty by the respondents upon the photographic printing papers manufactured by the petitioner No. 1 New India Industries Ltd. according to the price charged by its sole distributor Agfa Gevaert (India) Ltd. was illegal and unauthorised. The respondentshad opposed the petitioners' claim for refund of excise duty, inter alia, on the ground that the petitioner No. 1 had already passed on the burden of the said duty. Therefore, the petitioners ought not to be allowed to unjustly enrich themselves by obtaining an order for refund. In view of difference of opinion on the said question between different Benches of this Court, Ashok Agarwal, J. has made the present reference for deciding the following question :-'Where the tax admittedly has been held to be levied and collected by the State without the authority of law, w...
Indian Dyestuff Industries Limited Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-1989
Reported in: 1991LC771(Bombay); 1990(47)ELT325(Bom)
1. By consent of the parties all these Petitions were called out and heard together. The facts being common, they are all disposed off by this Judgment.2. By these Petitions, the Petitioners are seeking to quash and/or set side the levy of additional duty in respect of consignments of Orthoxylene imported by the Petitioners. The Petitioners claim exemption from payment of additional duty by reason of Notification No. 276/67, dated 1st December 1967. The relevant portion of this Notification reads as follows :-'In exercise of the power conferred by sub-rule (i) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Govt. hereby exempts the excisable goods falling under Items 6 to 11A of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) produced in any premises (other than the premises wherein refining of crude petroleum or shale or blending of non-duty paid petroleum products is carried on) declared under sub-rule (2) of Rule 140 of the Central Excise Rules, 194...
Salzgitter Industrie Bau Gmbh Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-1989
Reported in: [1990]184ITR7(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. The assessee is a non-resident company incorporated in West Germany. The assessee-company, Shah Construction agreement on and Jolly Brothers (Pvt.) Ltd., entered into a collaboration agreement on April 12, 1956, and formed a company by the name Shah Salzgitter and Jolly (P.) Ltd., in India in the year 1956, with the object of executing a contract work for Koyna Dam in Maharashtra. The assessee held 49% of the equity shares, while the two Indian companies held 51% between themselves. The assessee was to render technical assistance including supply of know-how to the newly formed Indian company (for short, the 'Indian company'). The terms as regards the ownership of plant, machinery and other equipment, inter alia, were that the three companies would continue as the owners thereof in their shareholding ratio. For the purpose of enabling the contract work to be carried on smoothly and efficiently, the assesses opened a branch and a bank account in India in or about Decemb...
Yogesh Mallick Vs. Adelaide Afonso
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-1989
Reported in: (1989)91BOMLR341
G.F. Couto, J.1. The very maintainability of this Revision Application directed against the Order dated 24th April, 1989, whereby the learned District Judge, Panaji, stayed the Judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panaji, in a money suit, is the subject of a strong challenge by the respondent. Therefore, while admitting this Writ Petition, my learned brother Kamat, J. who dealt with it at the time of admission made it subject to the maintainability qua Section 46 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968. Further, presumably under the assumption that the challenge to the maintainability of this Revision Application was in respect of the question as to whether a Revision Application against an Order passed under the Rent Control Act lies to the High Court, he added 'Learned Advocate-General to lend assistance to the Court'. The matter came now for hearing, and therefore, the first and the foremost question to be dealt wit...
NaraIn Singh Yadav Vs. the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Expo ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)BomCR39; 1990CriLJ1652
(1) All these petitions are disposed of by this common judgment.(2) It all began in 1973-74. The Government detected certain serious offences punishable under S. 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with S. 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 and also under Sections 20, 468 and 471 of I.P.C. as against the petitioners and others. The investigation was handed over to the C.I.D., U.P. (E.O.W.), Lucknow. After some investigation, about 8 criminal cases were filed in Bombay, being Criminal Cases Nos. 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of 1975 in the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade, Bombay. Similarly, 5 more cases were filed in the year 1978, being cases Nos. 5791, 5792, 5793, 5794 and 5795 of 1978 in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, G.R.P., Kanpur. All these cases are still pending and they are at the very initial stages. The petitions agree for the purpose of quashing the prosecution on the ground that there has been an inordinate delay...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Arun Gulab Gawali
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ2171
ORDER1. This application by the State of Maharashtra is for cancellation of bail granted by the Order dated 19th September, 1989 made by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 19th Court, Esplanade, Bombay.2. The Respondent charged with offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 302 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act, applied to this Court for bail. Suresh J. on 7th June, 1989 dismissed the application. He held that the Respondent belongs to a gang of criminals, is involved in various cases of murder and takes law into his own hand.Three months later, on or about 19th September, 1989, the Respondent applied for bail to the learned Magistrate on the basis of a certificate issued on 11th September, 1989 by Dr. B. K. Goyal, a renowned Cardiologist. The certificate is that the Respondent was under treatment of Dr. B. K. Goyal from 30th March, 1987 to 12th October, 1987, a fact which was known to the Respondent when Suresh J. re...
Narayan Deoji Koli Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)BomCR557
S.M. Daud, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution takes exception to the decision of the Commissioner, Konkan Division, in an appeal said to fall under the provisions of Government Resolution No. CBC-1680/43669/D-V dated 29 October, 1980.2. Petitioner joined service as Junior Assistant in the Rehabilitation Housing and Backward Classes Department of the Government of Maharashtra at Mantralaya in October 1955. He was transferred to the Labour and Social Welfare Department on the 1st November, 1955. Then he came to Education and Social Welfare Department and on 10 March, 1966 was promoted as a Superintendent. After returning from the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, a Government under taking to which he had been deputed, he was posted in the social welfare Cultural Affairs, Sports and Tourism Department. Petitioner was thereafter promoted as an Assistant Secretary on 1 April, 1955. Then came a second deputation to the Maharashtra Tourism Development Corpo...
Suresh Bhaiyaji Puri Vs. Vidya Suresh Puri
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-1989
Reported in: II(1990)DMC138
M.S. Ratnaparkhi, J.1. The petitioner, who happens to be the husband of the respondent, has challenged the order granting maintenance to the wife at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month by the Sessions Judge, Akola.2. Admittedly the petitioner and the respondent are husband and wife. The wife filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure vide Criminal Application No. 291 of 1987 before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Akola contending that her husband has refused to maintain her. She claimed a maintenance of Rs. 500/- per month. The learned Magistrate on hearing both the parties recorded the finding by his order dated 17-11-1988 that the wife was neglected and refused to be maintained by the husband and that she is entitled to get Rs. 250/- per month by way of maintenance. This order was challenged both by the husband as well as the wife. Wife filed Criminal Revision Application No. 311 of 1988 before the Sessions Judge, Akola for enhancement of the maintenan...
S.P. Banerjee Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-1989
Reported in: (1990)32ITD514(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal preferred by the assessee under the I.T. Act. The two grounds raised are (1) regarding benefit under Section 10(10-A A) and (2) regarding deduction under Section 80C in respect of investments made in National Savings Certificates.2. Briefly to state the facts, the assessee, Shri S.P. Banerjee, was an employee of the Reserve Bank of India and subsequently he joined in the National Bank of Agricultural and Rural Development, hereinafter known as NABARD. He retired on 31-10-1984. Butas he accumulated earned leave to his credit, he went on to get salary from 1-11-1984 to 30-4-1985.There is no controversy about the fact that within five days of his retirement, he got the provident fund. The assessing officer and the Dy. C.I.T.(A) denied him the benefit under Section 10(10-AA). Their contention was that it was not on the retirement or superannuation when the assessee got the benefit of leave encashment. Hence, according to them, it could not be exempt under Section 10(1...
Sudarshan Tukaram Mhatre Vs. R.D. Tyagi, Commissioner of Police, Thane ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ1964
Daud, J.1. This petition takes exception to an order of detention made under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (No. 65 of 1980).2. The Dombivali Police Station received an information from one Abhimanyu Sakharam Kane about his uncle Parshuram Kane having been done to death on 19-4-1989 by the petitioner-detenu and his associates. On the basis of this information an offence punishable under Section 302 read with S. 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. The detenu was arrested on 9-5-1989. On 8-6-1989, pursuant to an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Thane the detenu was released on bail. The investigation into the crime having been completed, a charge-sheet was put up against the detenu and one of his associates viz. Navnath Patil. Thereafter, the detenu was found at two different places; once at the Ramnagar over-bridge, Dombivali (East) and on the next occasion in front of Iran Hotel at Nehru Chowk, Kalyan. This was on 12-6-1989 and 28-7-1989. He was f...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »