Mumbai Court June 1989 Judgments
Tigrania Metal and Steel Vs. Collr. of C. Ex. and Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-1989
Reported in: (1990)(45)ELT581Tri(Mum.)bai
1. For hearing the applicants appeals on merits, M/s. Tigrania Metal & Steel Industries are required to deposit a sum of Rs. 69,73,171.87 towards duty and Rs. 5.00 lacs towards penalty and the applicants covered by Stay applications 514/89 and 515/89 are required to deposit a sum of Rs. 1.00 lac and Rs. 2.00 lacs respectively, towards penalty.2. Shri A. Satalvad, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants, contended that the applicants are re-rollers of iron and steel products. They were availing exemption under Notification No.208/83. They were getting ship breaking scrap in the form of various steel materials like bars, flats, angles, etc. The Collector issued a show cause notice on 26-7-1988 on the ground that the exemption contemplated in the aforesaid notification is not admissible to them and there had been a deliberate suppression of material facts relating to input used and sought to confirm the demand for the period 1-8-1983 to 31-3-1986, though the ...
Tag this Judgment!Alex Alias Dosa Sanna Joseph Vs. V.K. Saraf and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ2218
Kurdukar, J.1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner detenu seeks to challenge the order of detention dated 20th January, 1989 under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (No. LXV of 1980) - hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', passed by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay.2. It is no more in dispute that the impugned order along with the grounds of detention and the material relied upon by the detaining authority were served upon the detenu on 23rd January, 1989.3. In view of the submission raised before us it would be necessary to set out the grounds of detention :-It is stated in grounds No. I that on 8th November, 1988 at about 15.15 hours, while Rajendra Sawant was attending to his Pan business at the corner of 13th Road and 18th Road, Opposite K. M. Colony, Bandra (West), Bombay, the detenu armed with a sword came there with his associates viz. (1) Nana alias Mangesh Mohite who was having a hockey stick with him; (2...
Tag this Judgment!Nandlal Vithaldas Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-1989
Reported in: [1989]180ITR609(Bom)
Ratnaparkhi, J.1. The extraordinary powers of this court under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India are sought to be invoked for quashing the orders passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur on December 22, 1978, May 19, 1979, and March 10, 1980 (annexures 7, 8 and 9), for a writ of mandamus against the respondent directing him to allow the claim of bad debt amounting to Rs. 83,937 for the assessment year 1975-76.2. The facts giving rise to this litigation may be briefly stated as follows. The petitioner is a partnership firm having its place of business at Shegaon in Khamgaon Tahsil of Buldana District. This firm is an income-tax assessee. It is dealing in cotton business at Shegaon. In the course of their usual business, the firm sold 91 bales of cotton to Shri Krishnakumar Mills, Mahua, in Gujarat State in the accounting year 1969-70. The total price was Rs. 83,937 inclusive of sales tax, insurance, etc. In the ordinary course of business, this amount was show...
Tag this Judgment!Noormohammed and Sons Vs. Indian Overseas Bank and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Bom179; 1989(2)BomCR428; (1989)91BOMLR299
ORDER1. This is second defendant's motion of the effect that pending the hearing and final disposal of the arbitration proceeding between the plaintiffs and the second defendant further proceedings relating to the present suit should be stayed under S. 34 of the Arbitration Act (hereafter, the Act ) and the plaintiffs should be directed to refer the subject matter of this suit to arbitration.2. It is undisputed that between the plaintiffs and the second defendant there is in fact a subsisting arbitration agreement which covers the dispute raised by the plaintiffs against the second defendant in this suit. There is also no dispute that pursuant to this agreement reference has already been made to the arbitrations and the arbitrators are in fact seized of the arbitration proceedings at New Delhi. Certain legal questions having arisen in the said proceedings the same, I understand have been referred for their determination to the Delhi High Court. There is thus a subsisting arbitration ag...
Tag this Judgment!Orkay Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-1989
Reported in: 1989(24)LC431(Bombay); 1989(43)ELT265(Bom)
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. The petitioner manufacture partially oriented yarn (POY) of 115 deniers in one of their units. This POY is transported in the mode prescribed by Rule 56-B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, to another unit of the petitioners for texturising. The question raised here relates to the excise duty payable on the texturised yarn.2. By a notification date 11th May 1982 issued under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules texturised yarn produced out of base yarn was made exigible to a concessional rate of duty, viz., the duty for the time being leviable on the base yarn, if no already paid, plus Rs. 5/- per kilogram. The first explanation to the notification defined base yarn to mean yarn falling under Sub-item II(i)(a) of Item 18 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Item 1811(i)(a) relates to man-made filament yarn, non-cellulosic, other than textured. It is not in dispute that the POY with which we are here concerned falls under Item 1811(i)(a). By...
Tag this Judgment!Sunder Lal Vs. Ambagalage Ajith Fernando
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-1989
Reported in: 1989(24)LC751(Bombay); 1989(43)ELT634(Bom)
Desai, Member J.1. It is obvious to us that the Respondents to this Appeal, which is a proper Appeal, will never be served. However, a few facts may be stated.2. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Criminal Case No. 66/CW/87 tried by the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 32nd Court, Bombay, who are holding Sri Lankan Passport were, according to the information received by Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, to bring to India large quantities of VCRs and gold. They arrived by Cathay Pacific flight from Dubai at 4.30 a.m. on 25th May 1987 and examination of their baggage resulted in the recovery of 36 VCRs, six in each suitcase as well as five gold bangles of the market value of over Rs. 4,64,000/-. At that time accused No. 3 who is also a Sri Lankan National, entered the Customs baggage hall and took possession of one of the trolleys. He thereby it is alleged was a party to and actively assisted the accused Nos. 1 and 2 in their attempt to smuggle goods into India.3. The charges against the acc...
Tag this Judgment!Dnyanu Babu Mali (Jambhalikar) Vs. Khajesha Hanifsha Abdul Bhandari an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-1989
Reported in: (1989)91BOMLR568
M.L. Pendse, J.1. The Petitioner is tenant of premises situated in City Survey No. 5759-C at Mangal Talkies, Miraj and the petitioner is running a canteen in the said premises. The premises were let out in the year 1952 on a monthly rent of Rs. 35/-. The landlord terminated the tenancy and instituted suit in the year 1974 on the grounds: (1) default in payment of rent (2) conduct of tenant resulting into nuisance and annoyance (3) that the act committed by the tenant amounts to breach of Section 108(o) of the Transfer of Property Act, and (4) that the tenant has erected a permanent structure in the premises without the prior consent in writing of the landlord.2. The Trial Court, after recording evidence, decreed the suit on three grounds and held in favour of the tenant on the ground of default. The tenant carried appeal before the District Court, Sangli and the appeal was dismissed. The Lower Appellate Court upheld the decree of eviction only on the ground of erecting permanent struct...
Tag this Judgment!Wilfred Joseph Dawood Lema Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ1034
H.H. Kantharia, J.1. This is an appeal, preferred from jail, by the appellant accused, (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant') challenging his conviction for being found in possession of narcotic drug viz. crude heroin which is popularly known as 'smack' or 'brown Sugar' or 'gard-powder' under Section 8(c) read with Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two years inflicted on him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, Bombay by his judgment and order dated June 2, 1987 in Sessions Case No. 381 of 1986.2. The relevant facts giving rise to the appeal are as under :On February 2, 1986, the staff of the Palton Road Police Station, dealing with the offences under the Act, were on patrolling duty. They arrived near the Bombay Dyeing building along the Heradia Road i...
Tag this Judgment!Gram Panchayat, Katil Vs. Presiding Officer, First Labour Court, Nagpu ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-1989
Reported in: [1990(60)FLR11]; (1991)IILLJ147Bom
M.S. Deshpande, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges the award passed by the Presiding Officer, First Labour Court, Nagpur on 16th June, 1980 holding that the termination of the respondent No. 2 by the petitioner was bad in law and that he was entitled to be reinstated forthwith and holding him to be entitled to the back wages at the rate of Rs. 75 per month from October 1975 upto the date of reinstatement.2. On a reference made by the Deputy Commissioner, Nagpur under Section 10(1)(c) read with 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, when the matter came up before the First Labour Court, written statement came to be filed by the petitioner - employer urging that it was not an 'industry' within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, nor was it running any industry as contemplated under the Industrial Disputes Act, and that the respondent No. 2 was not a 'workman' and, therefore, the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 did...
Tag this Judgment!Mahibub Ghudubhai Siledar Vs. Hanmantrao Nilappa Patil and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-1989
Reported in: 1989(2)BomCR581
Sharad Manohar, J.1. This appeal is filed by original defendant No. 1 against the decree passed by the trial Court in the suit filed by present respondent No. 1 for specific performance of the Agreement for Sale of the suit property dated 20-5-1970 (Exh. 68) signed by original defendants No. 1 and 3 (Appellant and respondent No. 2 respectively in this Court) which agreement was reiterated by a registered document/agreement (Exh. 69) on 1-6-1970 (but which was signed only by original defendant No. 2). By the agreement dated 20-5-1970, both defendants Nos 1 and 2 agreed to sell the entire suit land to the plaintiff (respondent No. 1 before me) for a total sum of Rs. 15,000/-. The defendants are Muslims and there is no dispute before me at this stage that defendant No. 2 had 40 paise share in the property, whereas original defendant No. 1 had only 23.1/3 share in the same. Both of them had, between themselves, thus, 63 1/3 share in the suit property which was agreed to be sold by the two ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »