Mumbai Court February 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.
T.K. Ispat (P) Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Collector of Central
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-1989
Reported in: (1989)(22)LC352Tri(Mum.)bai
1. M/s. T.K. Ispat (P.) Ltd., Koregaon, Bhima Dist., Pune have filed this appeal against the order-in-original No. V(68) 15-25/Adj./87/Pt.II/3079, dt. 3.5.1988 passed by the Assistant Collector Central Excise, Pune IV Dn., Pune confirming show cause cum demand dated 21.1.1988 for Rs. 5,95,687.90 raised against them and also imposing a penalty of Rs. 5000/- on them under Rule 173 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. The appellants were heard by me on 28.12.1988 through Shri N.D.Khosla, Excise Consultant who reiterated the submissions made in the appeal petition. Shri Khosla also further submitted that they had acted under a bonafide belief that they were entitled to MODVAT credit on the exempted intermediate goods and they had kept the Department informed in the matter as admitted in the show cause notice dated 23.3.1987. It was therefore, not a case of fraud, evasion or suppression of facts on their part. They were not therefore liable to pay any duty beyond a period of 6 months from ...
Khatijabai Umar Abdul Karim Vs. Zarinabegam Chiragdin
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)BomCR475
Sharad Manohar, J.1. This writ petition arises out of suit filed by the present petitioner who is the landlady in respect of the suit premises, for recovery of possession of the suit premises from the respondent defendant, a helpless lady whose husband has deserted her, on the ground of the landlady's bona fide requirement.2. Admittedly, the suit premises are on the ground floor of the building to the petitioner-plaintiff. It was purchased by her in the year 1959. The respondent was already in occupation of the ground floor of the building as tenant of the erstwhile landlord. After the purchase of the building by the present petitioner, she become the respondent's landlady.There is no dispute that right from the beginning when the petitioner became the owner of the building in question, quarrels and disputes have been going on between the parties. Earlier a suit was filed for recovery of possession of the suit premises from the respondent on the ground of unlawful sub letting. As state...
Groves Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1989
Reported in: (1990)(46)ELT129Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal directed against the order No. S/10-42/88-GP 3 dated 13-4-1988 passed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay confiscating 4 consignments of imported blended silk wool yarn and imposing penalty of Rs. 90,000/- against each of the Bs/E in respect of the 4 consignments.2. The brief facts for the purpose of disposal of the appeal can be stated as under:- The appellants imported 4000 kgs. of 120/2 MC blended silk wool yarn and filed four Bs/E for their clearance. The appellants claimed clearance of the goods against 3 REP duty free licences. The Customs however objected to the clearance on the ground that the licences produced are valid for import of only spun silk yarn as duty free import replenishment against REP licences as per App. 21 of 85/88 Import Policy where as the goods imported are blended spun silk yarn falling under entry No. (12) of Appl. 2B and hence the licences are not valid to cover the items imported and the duty exemption benefit is also not available....
Dr. Hannan Gulam HussaIn Chaugule Vs. State of Goa and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1989
Reported in: 1989(2)BomCR303; (1989)91BOMLR669; 1990CriLJ1550
Kamat, J.1. By the Order bearing No. 14/11/88-HD(G) dated 3rd November, 1988 purportedly made in the exercise of the powers under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 the State Government directed Shri Gulam Hussain Chaugule, alias, Gulam Hussain Shaikh alias Baba to be detained at the Central Jail, Aguada, a resident of Bandra, Bombay with a view to preventing him from abetting the smuggling of goods. This order was served on Shri Gulam Hussain Chaugule hereinafter called the Detenu on 5th November, 1988 while he was in judicial custody pursuant to the cancellation of the bail earlier granted to him. By the present petition, the petitioner who is the son of the Detenu challenges the order of detention dated 3rd November, 1988 on several grounds. Though as many as ten grounds No. (iv) and (x) were not urged at the time of hearing. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Public Prosecutor at le...
Hemandas J. Soni Vs. I.T. Zariwalla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1989
Reported in: AIR1989Bom355; 1989(1)BomCR560; (1989)91BOMLR108; 1989MhLJ334
1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order of the then Addl Principal Judge, city civil court, bombay, dismissing the appeallant;s suit on the ground that it was barred by limitations. 2.The appellant id the owner of a building situated at Chowpaty Road. There is no dispute that the respondent is the tenant of flat No. 5 therein. It was the applleant's case in the plaint that the respondent had, on or about 8th Sep., 1958, encroached upon a room adjoining flat No.5 and he sought a dectee for possession thereof.3. In his written statement the respondent stated that the appellant's predecessor-in-title to the said building had contended that he said room and had instituted a criminal proceeding in this behalf. The respondent had been acquitted of the alleged offence on 10th Mar., 1959. The respondent denied that he had on or about 8th September, 1958 encroached and trespassed upon the said room. He averred that he was the tenant of flat No.5 'included the room alleged to have be...
Gram Panchayat Karmachari Sangh Maharashtra and ors. Vs. State of Maha ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1989
Reported in: 1989(1)BomCR493
M.L. Pendse, J.1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are recking partly of salaries and wages including dearness allowance and other allowances with those paid to the State Government employees, Zilla Parishad employees or Municipal employees. The petitioners are employees of Gram Panchayats in the State of Maharashtra. The grievance of the petitioners is that their scales of pay are not revised from the year 1965 onwards even though the wage scale of State Government employees, Zilla Parishad employees and Municipal employees are revised from time to time. The petitioners complain that Gram Panchayat employees perform the same duties as performed by the employees of the State Government, Zilla Parishad, and Municipal Councils. The petitioners complain that they were not given even the minimum rates of wages.2. In answer to the petitioners, Smt. S.S. Karekar, Section Officer, Rural Development Department, Government of Maharashtra, ha...
Nandlal Hiralal Gupta Vs. Narayan Dillidas Sahu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1989
Reported in: (1989)91BOMLR202
M.S. Ratnaparkhi, J.1. The decree passed by the Third Additional District Judge, Amravati on 11th July 1988 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 94 of 1985 dismissing the appeal and confirming the order of the 12th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division. Amravati passed on 31st January 1985 in Small Cause Suit No. 276 of 1982 directing the defendant to pay Rs. 2970/- with interest at 6 percent per annum from the date of suit till realisation with costs, has been challenged in this revision.2. The plaintiff who is respondent in this revision, came before the trial Court with a suit for recovery of Rs. 2970/- on the allegations that the defendant was his tenant and the monthly rent was Rs. 110/-. It was his case that the defendant was in arrears of rent from 1.6.1980 to 31.8.1982. He therefore, served a notice on the defendant. In spite of this notice, the defendant did not repay the amount. Hence this suit.3. The defendant denied the claim of the plaintiff. He denied that he was in arrears of rent. ...
Hanuman Vitamins Foods Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Bom204; 1989(2)BomCR460; (1989)91BOMLR398; 1989MhLJ935
ORDERKenia, J.1. This petition raises a question as to the levy of stamp duty under the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958, on a document purporting to be an instrument of transfer of shares in a Co-operative Society and also raises the question of legislative competence in the State Legislative on the question of levy of stamp duty as indicated in detail hereinbelow.2. The 1st petitioner, Hanuman Vitamins Foods Pvt. Ltd. as members of the Dalamal Tower Premises Co-operative Society Ltd. and as holder of five shares therein was in occupation of office premises No. 904 on the 9th floor of the building known as 'Dalamal Tower' situate at 211, Nariman Point, Bombay 400 021. By an instrument dated the 31st of March 1986, the 1st petitioner has purported to transfer in favour of the petitioners Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 the said five shares of the face value of Rs. 50/- each bearing distinctive numbers 711 to 715 in the capital of the said Society for a consideration of Rs. 9,46,900/-. The said instrument ...
Dr. Hirak Ghosh Vs. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1989
Reported in: 1989(1)BomCR480; [1991]70CompCas324(Bom)
H. Suresh J.1. By a letter dated June 20, 1968, issued at Jamshedpur, the petitioner was appointed as an assistant medical officer at teh Tata Main Hospital, Jamshedpur, which is run by the Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. The petitioner was given residential quarters by the company. After 17 years of service, on October 3, 1985, by a letter of the same date, issued at Jamshedpur, the services of the petitioner were terminated abruptly. The petitioner has challenged his termination in the Labour Court at Jamshedpur. The said proceedings are pending. In the meanwhile, the company wanted him to vacate the residential quarters. He has refused to do so. In 1986, the company filed an eviction suit in the Munsiff's Court at Jamshedpur and sought possession and mesne profits. The said suit in the Munsiff's Court is being contested and is pending. 2. In the meanwhile, sometime in une, 1988, the company was advised to file a Criminal Case No. 54/S/88 in the court of the Additional Chief Metropolita...
Ramsingh Sitaram Chavan Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1989
Reported in: 1989(1)BomCR491
M.L. Pendse, J.1. The grievance in this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is to the appointment of respondent No. 3 to the post of Inspector General of Prisons, Maharashtra State. The Chief Secretary, Mr. B.G. Deshmukh, by order dated May 9, 1986, informed respondent No. 3 that a decision is taken to transfer and post him as Inspector General of Prisons, Maharashtra State, and he should relinquish charge his present assignment and assume charge of his new assignment in consultation with Mr. Dravid, who was holding the charge of Inspector General of Prisons. Rules for appointment to the post of Inspector General of Prisons are framed by the Government of Maharashtra in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution and are known as 'Inspector General of Prisons and Director of Correctional Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1985.'2. Rule 2 provides that appointment to the post of Inspector General of Prisons shall be made either (a)...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »