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.
Mrs. Shehnaz Sananh Andish Vs. Assistant Collector of Customs
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-16-1989
Reported in: 1990LC191(Bombay); 1990(47)ELT324(Bom)
ORDER1. Mrs. Shehnaz Andish, an Iranian national suffering from chronic bronchitis and having a seven-year old child Arash-Ald suffering from congenital heart disease, applies for an order that she may be released on bail in an offence under the Customs Act involving gold of the value of nearly Rs. 17 lakhs.2. The O.P.D. papers of Cama Hospital reveal that the Applicant has been described as an old 'known case of brochitis'. The investigation was made and she was treated. One of her sons was examined by cardiologist whose certificate has been produced. The investigation such as electro-cardiogram, echogram was done. The diagnosis is congenital heart disease.3. The Applicant is a married lady and is, no doubt, a foreigner. Her own health and the child's health, which is serious enough to demand her presence with the child, are factors which need to be taken into account.4. I have anxiously considered the vehement opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. He urged that having regard t...
United Labour Union and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-16-1989
Reported in: (1989)91BOMLR770; [1990(60)FLR686]; (1991)ILLJ89Bom
1. The 1st petitioner is a registered trade union representing employees doing the work of sweeping and cleaning in Air India building at Nariman Point, Bombay-21. The petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 claim to be two of such employees. The 1st Respondent is the Union of India. The 5th Respondent is the State of Maharashtra. Respondent No. 2 is a statutory corporation established under the Air Corporation Act, 1953. Respondents No. 3, 4, 6 and 7 are some of the contractors through whom Respondent No. 2 gets done the work of sweeping and cleaning of the Air India building at Nariman Point, Bombay-21. It may be mentioned that it is an admitted position that under the Industrial Disputes Act, the Appropriate Government' in respect of the 2nd respondent is the Central Government.2. The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 was enacted on 10th February, 1971 (the said Act is hereinafter for brevity's sake referred to as the 'C.L. Act'). In September 1971 the Labour Enforcement Officer...
American Dry Fruits Stores Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-15-1989
Reported in: (1990)(48)ELT526Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This Reference Application is filed for referring the points of law allegedly arising out of this Bench's order No. 1386/85 WRB, dated 28-11-1985 to the High Court. [1986 (25) E.L.T. 775 (Tri.)] 2. After the aforesaid order was passed, the applicants filed a Writ Petition No. 2588/85 before the High Court of Bombay and pending the said Writ Petition before the High Court, they filed the present Reference Application on 17-2-1986, where inter alia they prayed for condonation of delay in filing the reference application. The Writ Petition No. 2588/85 came to be dismissed by the High Court of Bombay on 24-2-1986 wherein an observation was made that the question urged in the Writ Petition could be decided in the Reference and not by way of Writ Petition. The application for condonation of delay was heard by this Bench on 6-5-1986. Vide order No. 543/86, the condonation application had been rejected and consequently the Bench dismissed the Reference Application. The applicants thereafte...
Anilkumar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-15-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)BomCR506; 1990CriLJ2058
ORDER1. The order passed by the Sessions Judge, Akola, on 23rd October, 1989 quashing the bail granted to the petitioner by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Akot and remanding the petitioner to the police custody has been challenged in the revision.2. It is not much disputed that the present petitioner, who is working as an advocate at Akot in Akola District, was apprehended by the Akot Police on 11-9-1989 in connection with an offence punishable under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The case of the investigating machinery was that they had received some information that the petitioner was keeping with him packets of brown sugar and selling it to other persons. In pursuance of this information, so received, Mr. R. G. Deshmukh, the P.W.I. attached to the Akot Police Station, took the police party with him and kept in wait on the road leading to Court at about 11 a.m. or so. The petitioner was seen going towards the Riwarkhed Road in a cycle r...
Anthony Steven Pinto Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-15-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ2193
Daud, J.1. This petition takes exception to the validity and continuance of a detention order dated 30th September, 1986 passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (52 of 1974).2. The detenu-petitioner came to Bombay on 11-2-1986 by flight No. EK 500. He had three pieces of baggage with him and upon a noting made one of the said baggages was detained as it was declared to be containing a Sony make colour T.V. valued at Rs. 5,000/-. The set was said to in a carton which was kept on a trolley. This was the only item declared by the detenu as dutiable. The detenu replied in the negative when asked by the Customs Officers if he had any concealed gold or wrist watches inside the T.V. set. In the presence of panchas the carton containing the T.V. set was opened because it was found to be heavier in weight than what it should have normally weighed. At the scale, it was found to weigh 34.5 kgs. whereas a T.V. set normally ...
Union of India Vs. Shankarlal Harilal Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-15-1989
Reported in: 1990(47)ELT522(Bom)
1. This is an Appeal from the decision of the learned Single Judge granting reliefs to the petitioner following decision of Division Bench in Jain Sudh Vanaspati Ltd. v. S. R. Patankar : 1988(33)ELT77(Bom) 2. Mr. Devdhar on behalf of the appellants has argued that since the Division Bench had applied the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Apar Pvt. Ltd. v. The Union of India : 1985(22)ELT644(Bom) it would be appropriate to apply the decision of the Full Bench. He has submitted that the present case was not a case where the goods were totally exempt from the levy of the duty which came to be imposed in the interegnum between the first bringing of the goods within the territorial waters and second entry after the ship had once left Bombay.3. Our attention is drawn to the second hear-note. However, the reasoning or ratio is to be found in paragraph 41 of the Judgment in Apart Pvt. Ltd. case and the subsequent Division Judgment in Gin Vanaspati Ltd. case has applied the reasoning ...
Anirudhha Ramkrishna Karlekar Vs. Jankibai Raghunath Bedekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-15-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)BomCR247; (1990)92BOMLR142
T.D. Sugla, J.1. Out of these two petitions, Writ Petition No. 2677 of 1983 is preferred by the tenant-original defendant and Writ Petition No. 4128 of 1983 is preferred by the landlady-original plaintiff. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as 'tenant' and 'landlady' for the sake of convenience.2. The landlady filed a suit against the tenant for possession of suit premises comprising of a shop on the grounds of illegally obstructing the use of open passage in front of the shop, causing harassment by making false allegations against her, causing nuisance and annoyance to the neighbours and on the ground of bona fide requirement of the said premises by her and her daughter-in-law specifically stating that the tenant had acquired suitable alternate accommodation and did not require the suit premises. The trial Court accepted the landlady's case and held that she was in bona fide need of the shop, that the tenant did not require the suit premises and that the conduct of the tenant...
First Income-tax Officer Vs. Quality Cine Laboratories (P.) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-15-1989
Reported in: [1990]33ITD496(Mum); (1990)37TTJ(Mumbai)282
ORDER1. In this appeal the revenue challenges the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) holding that the assessee company is entitled to investment allowance in respect of machinery and plant installed by it for the purpose of its business of processing and printing of cinematograph films.2. The assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of processing and printing of cinematograph films. This appeal arises from its income-tax assessment for assessment year 1982-83 for which the previous year ended on 30-9-1981. The assessee had claimed a sum of Rs. 76,520 as investment allowance on account of new machinery installed in its business for the purpose of processing and printing of cinematograph films, amounting to Rs. 3,06,080. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the assessees claim for said investment allowance in the following words in the assessment order :The assessee had claimed investment allowance of Rs. 76,520 on account of purchase of certain machin...
Miss Grace Odarkar Lamptey Vs. L. Hmingliana and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-10-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ2323
Mehta, J.1. The petitioner, who is a citizen of Ghana, has challenged the order of detention dated 13-4-1989 passed against her by the Detaining Authority under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (Act 46 of 1988). This Writ Petition can be disposed of on the narrow issue that the authorities concerned have not considered the representation made by the Detenu with the necessary promptitude and expedition.2. The Detenu made a representation to the State Government as also the Central Government on 27-7-1989. The same was received by the Superintendent of Prison on 1-8-1989. The representation was despatched to Delhi on 5-8-1989. It is the contention of the Detenu that there was a delay of three days in despatching her representation to the Department at Delhi.The representation was received in Delhi on 9-8-1989. On the same day, i.e., on 9-8-1989 the Department sent for parawise comments from the Gover...
Metraco (India) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-1989
Reported in: (1990)LC261Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal directed against the order of the Addl. Collector of Customs, Bombay bearing No. SG-Misc 122/CR/88/S/10-76/CR/89 SUB dated 23-3-1989 ordering confiscation of 4 consignments of Cassia totally valued at Rs. 17,85,780/- but allowing the goods to be redeemed on payment of fine of Rs. 9 lakhs. The Addl. Collr. has also imposed a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs on the appellants.2. The main facts of the case for the purpose of disposal of the appeal can be summed up as below: The appellants imported 4 consignments of cassia and claimed clearance under OGL as per Sr.No. 62 of Appx. 6 part II. They presented the Bill of Lading dated 28-11-1988, showing the date of issue as well as the date of loading on board as 28-11-1988. Import of cassia under OGL was disallowed by issue of Public Notice No. 82 dated 29-11-1988. However, under para 3 of the aforesaid Public Notice, it has been stipulated that import of Cloves and Cinnamon/Cassia by eligible importers shall not be permitted unde...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »