Mumbai Court July 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.
Hyderabad Batteries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-1989
Reported in: (1990)(25)ECC132
1. This is an appeal directed against the Order of the Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay, bearing No. S/10-183/83 F, dated 30-7-1983.2. Brief facts for the purpose of disposal of this appeal can be stated as below: 3. The appellants, who are the actual users, imported a consignment of 12% Nickelply Wire Cloth Cold Bonded/Mesh Nickel/Cold Bonded Wire Cloth against OGL Appendix 10 Sr. No. 1 of AM 1983. This was objected to by the customs department on the ground that the goods are wire cloth/sieve cloth of mesh less than 400 and hence are coming under Serial 502 of Appendix 3 of AM 83, requiring a specific licence. In the adjudication proceedings conducted by the Additional Collector, the goods valued at Rs. 2,33,423.00 were ordered confiscation but allowed redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 75,000/-. The present appeal is against the order of confiscation and imposition of redemption fine.4. Shri S.B. Patil, the learned Consultant, on behalf of the appellants, stated that the s...
Ashok India Engg. Works Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-1989
Reported in: (1989)(44)ELT657Tri(Mum.)bai
1. For hearing the above mentioned applicants' appeals on merits, the applicants M/s. Ashok India Engg. Works are required to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- and the other three applicants, being the partners of the firm, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- each being the penalties imposed on them under the Central Excise Act. Shri Koruthu, the learned Consultant on behalf of the applicants pointed out that there is hardly any justification for imposition of penalties. Elaborating on this point further, he has stated that the applicants, M/s. Ashok India Engg.Works are the manufacturers of switches without the aid of power. This position has been brought to the notice of the department. Even their letter-head clearly indicates that they are the manufacturers of switches as one of the items. He took us through the various correspondences addressed to the department clearly indicating that they are the manufacturers of switches, which were exempted, since they are manufactured without the aid of powe...
Siraj Ahmed Mohamed Mehta Vs. L. Hmingliana and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-1989
Reported in: 1989(25)LC45(Bombay)
1. The first Respondent, the Detaining Authority, having been subjectively satisfied in connection with the activities of the Petitioner-Detenu, which are prejudicial under the provisions of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, on the 9th of December, 1988, issued an order of detention under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with a view to preventing the Petitioner-Detenu from smuggling goods. The detention order is at Exhibit 'A'. Grounds of detention are at Exhibit 'C' There is no dispute as regards service of the order of detention and the grounds of detention. It is this order of detention which is the subject-matter of various challenges in this Writ Petition.2. Suffice it to say that the incident, which led to the seizure of certain contraband articles, took place on the 24th of October 1987 and pursuant thereto th...
Shree Vallabh Glass Works Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Bom27; [1991]71CompCas161(Bom); 1989MhLJ863
ORDERJahagirdar, J.1. The 1st petitioner is a public limited company, and will be hereinafter referred to as 'the company' and has an industrial undertaking at Salwad in Palghar Taluka of Thane District, The 2nd petitioner is the Director of the company. The petitioners were presented with a bill by the Gram Panchayat of Salwad (the 2nd respondent), hereinafter referred to as 'the Gram Panchayat'. for a sum of Rs. 9,47.539/-. This amount consists of the property tax of Rs. 8.77 lakhs and a sum of Rs. 53.700/-, as being expenses of conducting the appeal - an appeal presumably preferred by the company against the claim of the Gram Panchayat. The 1st respondent in the petition is the. Stale of Maharashtra. while the 3rd respondent is the. Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat.2. The. petitioners contend that the recovery of the dues of the Gram Panchayat is stayed by the provision's of section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act...
M/S. Bharat Cotton Press Company, Arvi and Others Vs. Municipal Counci ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Bom38; (1989)91BOMLR271
ORDERMookerjee, C.J.1. Municipal Council. Arvi, respondent No. 1. had framed bye-laws under Ss. 278 and 280 read with S. 322 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965, for keeping control over cotton ginning and pressing factories within the limits of the Municipality and for assessment of licence fees. Under bye-law 4 of the said bye-laws, licence fees were payable according to the horse power of the engines or electric motor used by the cotton ginning and pressing factories situated within the Municipal limits of Arvi. The licence fee was Rs. 10 --per horse power up to including 10 horse power engine or motor. In case of factories using engines and motors frorm 10 to15 horse power the prescribed fee was Rs. 15 - per each horse power. In case of factories using engines and motors over 15 hourse power the fee was Rs. 20/- per each horse power. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 322(3)(e)(ii) of the Maha-rashtra Municipalities Act, 1965, respondent No. 2-the Collector of W...
Ambalal Maganlal Patel and Another Vs. Indumati Narayan Mohile and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Bom187
ORDER1. This is plaintiff's motion for receiver and injunction pending their suit for specific performance and in the alternative for damages.2. Hearing Counsel on either side and going through the affidavits and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no merit in this motion. Few facts and circumstances need to the stated. By agreement dated 5th September 1977 between defendants Nos. 1 and 2, who were the then joint trustees of the family trust created for the benefit of the minors Sanjay and Ajay, sons of Avinash Mohile, as the vendors on the one part, and the plaintiffs as the purchasers on the other, defendants Nos. 1 and 2 agreed to convey and sell to the plaintiffs the suit property situated at Swami Vivekanand Road, Bandra, Bombay admeasuring about 900 square metres for a lump sum consideration of Rs. 1,00,001/-. Towards the said consideration, plaintiffs advanced Rupees 35,000/-. In September 1980 defendant No. 1-A attained majority in October 1980 defendant...
Shree Vallabh Glass Works Ltd and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-1989
Reported in: 1989(2)BomCR554
Jahagirdar J.1. The first petitioner is a public limited company and will be hereinafter referred to as 'the company' and has an industrial undertaking at Salwad in Palghar Taluka of thane Districr. The second petitioner is the director of the company. The petitioners were presented with a bill by the gram panchayat of Salwas (the second respondent),hereinafter referred to as 'that grampanchayat',for a sum of Rs.9,47,539. This amount costs of the property tax of Rs.8.77 lakhs and sum of Rs.53,700,being expenses for conducting the appeal-an appeal presumably preferred by the company against the claim of rhe grampanchayat. The first respondent in the petition is the State of Maharashtra. While the third respondent is the sarpanch of the gram panchayat. 2. The petitioners contend that the recovery of the dues of the gram panchayat is stayed by the provisions of section 22 of the Sick Industrial companies (Special Provisions) Act,1985,hereinafter,referred to as 'the Act'. If the company do...
Sukhdeo Chokha Waghmare Vs. Trustees of Bombay Port Trust and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-1989
Reported in: 1989(3)BomCR203; [1989(59)FLR342]; (1991)IILLJ557Bom; 1989MhLJ773
1. The petitioner, Sukhdeo Chokha Waghmare, was appointed as a casual mazdoor on August 26, 1945 by the Bombay Port Trust (hereinafter referred to as 'the first respondent'). The second respondent, Deputy Docks Manager of the Bombay Port Trust, is the administrative head under whom the petitioner was working and the third respondent is the Chairman of the said Port Trust.At the time of his selection to the post of a registered mazdoor in the year 1962, the petitioner was referred to the Medical Officer of the first respondent for ascertaining his age on a medical examination. The medical officer issued a certificate specifying the date of birth of the petitioner as July 1, 1926 purely on a medical examination. Accordingly, the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded in the official records of the first respondent as July 1, 1926.Thereafter, on November 17, 1983 when the petitioner was working as 'Cart Wagon Unloader' he received a memo from the office of the first respondent infor...
Dyes Distributors India Ltd. Vs. K. Srinivasan, Collector of Customs a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-1989
Reported in: 1989(24)LC783(Bombay)
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. R.E.P. licences were issued to the Andhra Pradesh State Trading Corporation, Hyderabad, on 17th December 1981 and 12th May 1982. On 30th July,1982 this Corporation applied for an endorsement upon the licences for 4 items, which included Ethanolamine. This endorsement was made on 31st July 1982. The licences were transferred by the Corporation to Kalpana Trading Company and by that company to the petitioners on 12th August, 1982. The petitioners thereafter entered into a contractor import of Ethanolamine and the shipments thereof arrived at Bombay in October and November 1982. Bills of entry were filed but clearance was not permitted. On 13th December 1982, the petitioners received two notices under Clause 7 of the Import (Control) Order, 1956, asking the petitioners to show cause why Ethanolamine should not be deleted from the said licences because this 'item was endorsed purely through inadvertence'. The petitioners replied to the notices and there was corresponden...
J.K. Chemicals Ltd. Vs. B.D. Borude and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-1989
Reported in: [1989(59)FLR333]; (1990)ILLJ65Bom
1. This writ petition impugns the order made by the Industrial Tribunal declining to pass an award in terms of a settlement on the ground that there was non-compliance with the provisions of Rule 62 of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957.2. An industrial dispute between the petitioners and its workmen was referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. The dispute related to pay scales, dearness allowance and other service conditions. The workmen were represented by the 2nd respondent trade union. Pending the disposal of the reference, the workmen formed a committee to discuss with the petitioners a possible settlement. A memorandum signed by 704 out of the 710 workmen stated thus : 'We, the workmen of J.K. Chemicals. Ltd., Thane have formed a Committee to discuss with the Company to arrive at agreement. This Committee has our full support. We want this Committee to discuss and negotiate with the Company on issues of wages, gratuity, production bonus, leave, L.T.A. etc.,...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »