Mumbai Court January 1990 Judgments
Ramesh Bhikaji Kulkarni Vs. Shivaji Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-1990
Reported in: 1990(2)BomCR259
S.M. Daud, J.1. This appeal takes exception to the acquittal of Respondents 1 to 8---Nos. 2 to 8 therefrom constituting the management of Respondent 1 Institution in a College of which the appellant was serving as a Lecturer in Mathematics.2. The 1st Respondent runs a College known as Shivaji College at Barshi in which the appellant was employed as a Lecturer in Mathematics. Alleging that his services had been wrongly terminated and his salary wrongly withheld, the appellant filed an appeal to the University College Tribunal. The Tribunal on 8th August, 1979 directed the Respondents to reinstate the appellant and pay him 50% of the salary payable. The Tribunal granted two months to the respondents to comply with the order. Far from so doing, the respondents approached the High Court by way of a writ petition. The High Court on 3rd October, 1979, rejected the petition in limine. Not satisfied, the Management went further and sought to obtain Special Leave from the Supreme Court to appea...
Tag this Judgment!State of Maharashtra Vs. Mahamodimia Ahmadsahib Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-1990
Reported in: 1990(3)BomCR118
T.D. Sugla, J.1. ---This is an appeal by the State of Maharashtra against the judgment and order dated 20th December, 1980 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Alibag in Land Acquisition Reference No. 2 of published in the months of September 1973 and April 1974. Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short the L.A.O.) awarded compensation by taking the fair market value of the land at Rs. 6,000/- per acre. In reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the trial Court accepted the applicants contention that the compensation awarded at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- per acre was inadequate and that it would be reasonable to award compensation taking the fair market value of the land at Rs. 500/- per guntha, i.e. Rs. 20,000/- per acre. Accordingly, he awarded an additional amount of compensation of Rs. 9.236/- and additional soletium of Rs. 1.385/- totalling to Rs. 10, 621/- with interest at the rate of 4% per annum on the amount of the compensation from the date of award til...
Tag this Judgment!Gansons Limited and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and Collector of Cus ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-1990
Reported in: 1990(31)LC255(Bombay)
D.N. Mehta, J.1. The Petitioners herein have prayed in this Writ Petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 28.7.1986 bearing No. REM/ DT-RR/G/3850 issued by Respondent No. 4, annexed as Exhibit 'M' to the Writ Petition. The Petitioners further prayed for a direction against Respondent No. 4 to withdraw or cancel the said order dated 28.7.1986 and to honour the detention certificate issued by Respondent No. 2 for the period from 1.6.1985 to 9.12.1985 in full, and to refund to the Petitioners an amount of Rs. 2,63,979-20 together with interest thereon at 18 per cent per annum, paid by the Petitioners to Respondent No, 4. In the alternative, the Petitioners prayed that in the event of Respondent No. 4 not being able to remit or refund full amount of demurrage charges under their rules, then Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 be ordered and directed to reimburse and indemnify the Petitioners with regard to the balance of the amount together with interest at the ra...
Tag this Judgment!Ajit Wire Industries Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-1990
Reported in: [1990]33ITD124(Mum)
ORDERPer Shri Chander Singh, AM - This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of the CIT (A), dated 1-10-1985 confirming the penalty of Rs. 72,634 imposed by the ITO under section 271(1) (c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1980-81.2. The learned counsel for the assessee has vehemently argued that there was no material before the revenue authorities to levy the penalty of Rs. 72,634. The assessee had filed the return of income on 5-8-1980 declaring the total income at Rs. 18,02,130. However, the assessee subsequent to the date of filing the original return, realised that a genuine and bona fide mistake had been committed and, therefore, sought to rectify the said mistake by filing a revised return on 9-12-1981 declaring the total income at Rs. 18,99,910. Since the revised return was filed there was no justification for the revenue authorities to initiate and impose penalty under section 271(1) (c). Reliance, in this connection, has been placed on the decision...
Tag this Judgment!Anil Starch Products Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1990
Reported in: (1990)(29)ECC450
1. This is an appeal directed against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) bearing No. GSM-1772/89AHD (File No. V-2(17) 31/AHD/89) dated 24.8.1989.2. Brief facts for the purpose of disposal of the appeal can be stated as below: 3. The appellants are manufacturers of dextrose monohydrate. They bring certain duty-paid inputs used in the manufacture of the aforesaid product under the MODVAT scheme. In the manufacture of dextrose monohydrate, at the stage of centrifuging, crystals are separated and the. mother liquor, which is known by the trade name "Redugent" otherwise known by the commercial name "hydrol is thrown out, which is not chargeable to duty. The department alleged that the inputs are used in the manufacture of this exempted hydrol and hence credit in respect of the inputs, which have gone into the manufacture of this exempted product, is not admissible to them and they have issueda demand accordingly. In the adjudication proceedings initiated by the Assistan...
Tag this Judgment!Shivaji Works Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1990
Reported in: (1990)(29)ECC139
1. Both the aforesaid appeals are directed against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay bearing No.R-523-524/AUR/89 dated 29-6-1989. Since both the appeals involve consideration of the same issue, they were heard together and hence this common order.2. The facts of the case for purpose of disposal of the appeals can be briefly stated as below: The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of iron and steel castings at their foundry. They have sought for availing of modvat credit in respect of the duty paid on the inputs, which are in the nature of certain chemicals going into the preparation of 'sand moulds' for casting. Availment of modvat credit in respect of the said inputs going into the preparation of sand moulds was objected to by the department on the ground that the inputs are used in the preparation of sand moulds, which are in the nature of equipments and hence inputs so used in the preparation of sand moulds would not be eligible for modvat credit ...
Tag this Judgment!Anil Starch Product Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1990
Reported in: (1990)(49)ELT525Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal directed against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) bearing No. GSM-1772/89AHD [File No. V-2(17) 31/AHD/89] dated 24-8-1989.2. Brief facts for the purpose of disposal of the appeal can be stated as below: 3. The appellants are manufacturers of Dextrose Monohydrate. They bring certain duty paid inputs used in the manufacture of the aforesaid product under the MOD-VAT scheme. In the manufacture of dextrose monohydrate, at the stage of centrifuging, crystals are separated and the mother liquor, which is known by the trade name "Redugent" otherwise known by the commercial name "hydrol" is thrown out, which is not chargeable to duty. The department alleged that the inputs are used in the manufacture of this exempted hydrol and hence credit in respect of the inputs, which have gone into the manufacture of this exempted product, is not admissible to them and they have issued a demand accordingly. In the adjudication proceedings initiated by the Assist...
Tag this Judgment!Rajiben Rana Chad Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1990
Reported in: (1990)(49)ELT608Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Both the Reference Applications seek reference to the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, against the common order bearing No. 1164-65 dated 22-6-1984 passed by this Tribunal in Appeal Nos. CD(BOM) 768/86 and CD(BOM) 771/86. As most of the points of law, alleged to have arisen in both the appeals being more or less common, common submissions were made, and we also deal with them under this common order.2. The points on which the applicants have sought for reference can be identified in two sets: (i) common for both the applicants and (ii) specific for each of the applicants.3. The alleged points which are common in both the applicants can be summarised as under: (a) Whether Section 138-B(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, makes the statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act as inadmissible, as none of the persons whose statements were so relied upon, were examined in chief before the adjudicating authority. (b) Whether it was permissibl...
Tag this Judgment!D.S. Screen Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1990
Reported in: (1990)(50)ELT475Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Vadodara bearing No. 15/MP/89 dated 14-6-1989 ordering confiscation of S.S. wire mesh and P.B. wire mesh found from the fancy premises of the appellants with granting option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 3.00 lacs and also demanding duty to the tune of Rs. 3,16,055.40 and Rs. 1,20,606.96 on the alleged clandestine removal and evasion of duty and also imposing personal penalty of Rs. 2.00 lacs on the appellants as well as ordering confiscation of plant and machinery etc. with granting option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 1.00 lac.2. The appellants herein are the manufacturers of wire mesh of different sixes and grades made out of stainless steel (S.S. Wire) and Phosphor Bronze (P.B. Wire mesh) and Filters and Spinnerette Filter Pack made out of the said wire mesh for man made fabric industry. Prior to 1986 the said factory was run in the name of M/s. Hindustan Boilers.On 10-12...
Tag this Judgment!State of Maharashtra Vs. ShamuddIn Kasimsaheb Momin
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1990
Reported in: 1990(2)BomCR93; 1990CriLJ2448; 1990(1)MhLj449
1. This appeal takes exception to the acquittal of respondent for the commission of an offence under Section 2(ia)(j) and Rule 47 r.w. 7(1)(v) punishable under Section 16(ia) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.2. The complainant A. D. Ajamsondkar was a Food Inspector appointed as such under the afore-mentioned Act of 1954. He along with Food Inspector Tiwari and two panchas on 9-1-1980 at about 2.00 p.m. went to a place near D.J. Gurkul High School, Balives Solapur. The respondent was standing there selling 'Baraf-Cola'. The complainant disclosed his identity and purchased 900 gms. of Baraf Cola. 75 ps. were paid to the vendor and a receipt taken from him. Intimation in Form No. VI was given as also a notice under Section 14-A. A receipt for this was obtained. The purchased Baraf Cola was divided into three equal parts and inserted into three clean, empty and dried bottles. Each bottle was properly corked, labeled and sealed. A panchanama was drawn up. The same day one of...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »