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.
Aravind Mehram Patel and Another Vs. the Intelligence Officer, Narcoti ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-1989
Reported in: 1991CriLJ382
1. The petitioners, herein, are the accused Nos. 4 and 5 in N.D.P.S. Special Sessions R.A. No. 311/89 and 398/89, cases registered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, hereinafter referred to as the 'N.D.P.S. Act.'2. On 3rd October, 1989, the learned special Judge rejected the application for releasing the petitioners on bail. This application is made under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and is not a revision application against the order of the learned special Judge. The circumstances giving rise to this application are as extraordinary as the behaviour of the Investigating Officer is shocking.3. On 11th August, 1989, Raju Maganlal Patel, Jagannath Bhikaji Kadam, and Ramesh Pandharinath Talashilkar, who are accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 arrived in a Maruti Car bearing No. MAG 5606 and Taxi No. MMQ 1175 at Turner Road, Bandara. The cars were searched. Heroin weighing 4 Kgs. 200 Grams was found in the Maruti Car and Heroin weighing 3 Kgs. 800 Grams wa...
In Re: Zenith Electro-systment Pvt. Ltd
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-1989
Reported in: [1990]69CompCas138(Bom)
Mrs. Sujata Manohar, J.1. Both these petitions are for amalgamation of Zenith Elector Systems P. Ltd. with Zenith Technologies Ltd. under section 391 of the Company Petition No 32 of 1989 is by the transferor-company, namely, Zenith Electro- Systems P Ltd., while Company Petition No. 33 of 1989 is by the transferee company, namely Zenith Technologies Ltd. Meeting of shareholders and creditors of both the companies have been dispensed with in view of the consent letters annexed to the petitions. the official liquidator's report under section 394 has already been filed. There are no objections in that report.2. Mr. Rele, learned for the Central Government, has objected to the scheme of amalgamation on the ground that the transferee company has violated section 372(2) of the Companies Act. (The amendment to this section has not come into operation so far). Under section 372(2), 'the board of directors of the investing company shall be intitled to incest in any shares of any other body cor...
The Baroda Rayon Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-08-1989
Reported in: (1990)LC408Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This day, only stay application was listed for hearing and not the appeal.2. Shri Koruthu, the learned consultant, on behalf of the applicants/appellants stated that this is not a Special Bench matter.The appeal involves an issue which can be decided within a short campus. In any case, they are not challenging or disputing the interpretation of Notification in their present appeal. He, therefore, requested for disposal of the appeal itself. Narrating the facts of the case, he stated that the appellants claimed exemption in terms of Notification No. 178/77 dated 18-6-1977, but since the instructions were received late they had paid full duty and hence claimed for refund of Rs. 1,03,589.52 for the period from 18-6-1977 to 8-1-1978. The Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Surat rejected the entire claim on merits. Against the order of the Asstt. Collector, the appellants herein filed an appeal before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay. The Collector (Appeals) by his orde...
Universal Automobile and Vs. Collr. of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-06-1989
Reported in: (1990)LC547Tri(Mum.)bai
1. When the stay petitions filed by the applicants were taken up for hearing on 21-9-1989, a question arose as to whether Shri S.K. Lakhani should file a separate appeal as regards the penalty imposed on him in his capacity as a partner in M/s. Universal Automobile & Ancillary Ind.This issue is now followed up by the separate Misc. application, the hearing of which is listed today.2. Shri Bharucha, the learned advocate on behalf of the applicants contended that Shri Lakhani is imposed with a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs, as a partner of M/s. Universal Automobile Ancillary Ind. The firm has also been imposed with a separate penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs. Shri S.K.Lakhani is also a proprietor of M/s. Premier Electronics, on whom a separate penalty has been imposed. Shri Bharucha stated that a separate appeal has been filed by M/s. Premier Electronics, the proprietory concern of Shri S.K. Lakhani. The issue is only with regard to the joint appeal filed by M/s. Universal Automobile & Ancillar...
Ramchandra Dattatraya Gandhi Vs. Sou Pushpabai Manohar Sheth
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-06-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Bom182; 1990(1)BomCR643; 1990(1)MhLj485
ORDER1. This is a tenant's petition against as order of eviction passed by the Appeal Court under Section 13(1)(b) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Act).2. The brief facts are as follows: The Respondent filed a suit in the Courts of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Mahad being Regular Civil Suit No. 26 of 1977 for eviction of the petitioner, the tenant, on the ground that she wanted the premises for herself for her use an occupation under Section 13(1)(g) of the Rent Act. The defendant filed his written statement. In his written statement, he contended that he has that been in occupation of the said premises form about 1961 and that at the time of the occupation of the premises he had to carry out various repairs and certain alterations and he had to spend about a sum of Rs.9,000/- for that purpose. He contended that as to how the suit house was in a dilapidated condition and that had carried out these repairs an...
Kopran Chemicals Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-03-1989
Reported in: (1990)(48)ELT569Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This day only the stay application was listed for hearing and not the appeal. After hearing both sides, since the appeal can be disposed of within a short campus, with the consent of both sides, we decided to take up the appeal itself for disposal. It is observed that the appeal has been registered as Special Bench matter. After hearing both sides, we find that the issue involved does not relate to interpretation of notification or classification of the product. The issue involved is mainly whether the exemption is available or not on account of the fact that this has not been mentioned in the classification list. No allegation has been made in the show cause notice to the effect that the goods are not eligible for exemption in terms of the exemption notification. We, therefore, considered that this issue falls within the purview of the Regional Bench and hence took up the appeal for disposal.2. Heard Shri V.K. Jain, the Chartered Accountant for the applicants/appellants. He conten...
Dipen Enterprises Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-03-1989
Reported in: (1990)LC418Tri(Mum.)bai
1. All the above mentioned 4 appeals arise out of the same order passed by the Addl. Collector of Customs & Central Excise, Vadodara, bearing No.VIII/10-l/Cus/T/87-Addl. dated 22-12-1988. By the above order the Addl. Collector confiscated absolutely the goods imported by the appellants M/s. Dipen Enterprises and warehoused under the B/E.No. I-B 11/86-87; I-B 14/86-87 and I-B 13/86-87, all dated 5-8-86. The order also imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the appellants, M/s. Dipen Enterprises and Rs. 50,000/- each on the other 3 appellants.2. The brief facts for the purpose of disposal of these appeals can be stated as below: The appellants, M/s. Dipen Enterprises (hereinafter referred to as 'Dipen') imported at Ahmedabad Airport a consignment of Loaded Printed Circuit Boards (Hereinafter referred to as PCBs) under REP licence granted under para 138(13) of Import Policy AM 1983-84. These goods were sought to be warehoused by filing the warehousing Bs/E and the goods were brought ...
S.B.S. Organics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex. and Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-01-1989
Reported in: (1990)(25)ECC142
1. This is an appeal directed against the order in appeal bearing No.V-2(32 Ceta) 1668/88, dated 22-2-1989, rejecting the appellants' appeal against the confirmation of the demand amounting to Rs. 1,02,600/-being the modvat credit alleged to have been incorrectly availed of. There is no need to set out the facts of the case in detail. The confirmation of the demand and the rejection of the appeal are only on the ground that the Gate passes, under which the input materials viz. Naphthalic Anhydride, received by the appellants' factory, have been endorsed thrice by the recipients of the goods prior to receipt in the appellants' factory. The facts, which are not disputed by either side, are that the entire goods covered by the Gate Passes in original packed condition, have been received by the appellants' factory. But these goods have changed three hands duly endorsed by three recipients before they ultimately reached the appellants' factory. The show cause notice has been issued by the ...
Facit Ab Sweden Vs. First Income-tax Officer.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-01-1989
Reported in: [1990]32ITD3(Mum)
ORDERGarg, AM. - This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of the CIT (A) for the assessment year 1979-80.2. A preliminary objection is raised in the ground with regard to limitation. A draft of the proposed order of assessment was sent by the ITO to the assessee on 30-3-1982, i.e., a day before the normal time limit of 2 years from the end of the assessment year as provided in section 153(1). Upon filing of the objections by the assessee, the directions were issued by the IAC under section 144B on 27-7-1982, which were received by the assessee on 5-8-1982 and by the ITO on 30-7-1982. The final order of assessment was made on 12-8-1982. The assessees contention before the CIT (A) that the ITO had only one day after receiving the IACs directions to pass the final order and having taken more period than that, the assessment made on 12-8-1982 was barred by limitation. The CIT (A) did not accept the contention as, according to him, the time taken in section 144B proceedings was 1...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›