Mumbai Court January 1990 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.
Lalitkumar Kesharimal JaIn Vs. Secretary in the Govt. of Maharashtra a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-1990
Reported in: 1991(33)LC298(Bombay)
R.A. Jahagirdar, J.1. One Sinnalal Jain, son of Kesharimal Jain, has been detained by an order of detention passed on 24th of May 1988 by the Government of Maharashtra under Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, hereinafter referred to as 'the COFEPOSA Act'. The order of detention states that it has been passed with a view to preventing the said detenu 'from carrying smuggled goods'. This order of detention is now challenged in this petition by the detenu's brother, one Lalitkumar Kesharimal Jain.2. Mr. Patel, the learned Advocate appearing in support of the petition, has given us the necessary facts of this case and he wanted to assail the validity of the order of detention on several grounds. However, it has not been necessary for us to examine all the arguments because on the basis of the argument based upon the correct interpretation of Clause (iii) of Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act, the petition must succeed.3. The de...
V.V.F. Employees' Union Vs. S.M. Limaye and others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-12-1990
Reported in: [1990(60)FLR647]; (1990)IILLJ484Bom
1. The petitioner is a registered trade union claiming to represent the majority of workmen employed in Vegetable Vitamin Foods Company Limited, which is respondent No. 3 in this petition Respondent No. 2 is also a registered trade union and it also claims to represent the majority of workmen of respondent No. 3 Respondent No. 2 will be hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent union' and respondent No. 3 will be hereinafter referred to as 'the company' Respondent No. 1 in the petition is the Industrial Tribunal at Bombay. Whose order is impugned in this petition. It should also be stated that neither of the unions is a recognised union under any law.2. The respondent union submitted a charter of demands upon the company in respect of several industrial matters. Pursuant to the said charter of demands, conciliation proceedings were held. During the pendency of the conciliation proceedings, the petitioner union, which had participated in the conciliation proceedings arrived at a settle...
Gujarat Export Corporation Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-12-1990
Reported in: [1990]77STC110(Bom)
Sujata Manohar, J.1. In all these references the applicant is Gujarat Export Corporation Limited. The applicant at all times material for the reference was a registered dealer under the provisions of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. During the financial years 1973-74 and 1974-75, the applicant imported chemicals. These chemicals were sold by the applicant to various dealers at Bombay.2. One such contract of sale was between the applicant and Ashok Traders. It is dated 18th April, 1973. This contract has been relied upon, by the consent of parties as the contract which can be considered as representative of all such contracts, for the purposes of these references. The buyers paid the customs duty on the goods and cleared the goods from the customs. The sales tax authorities have included the customs duties so paid in the sale price of the goods. This is disputed by the applicant. The Tribunal has, therefore, referred the following questio...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Hindustan Tyres (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-1990
Reported in: (1990)(49)ELT604Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal directed against the order of the Collector (Appeals) bearing No. V-2(68) 1962/88 dated 6-11-87.2. The brief facts for the purpose of disposal of the appeal can be stated as below : The respondents were served with show cause notice dated 13-1-87 in respect of goods cleared without payment of appropriate duty, during the period from April, 1981 to December, 1981 and the month of Feb., 1982. The Asstt. Collector based on the show cause notice confirmed the demand for an amount of Rs. 3042.68 for the period from April to Dec. 1981 and Feb. 1982 and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 150/-. The respondents took the matter before the Collector (Appeals). The Collector(Appeals) by the aforesaid order allowed the appeal of the respondents on the ground that the demand traverses beyond a period of six months and the show cause notice has been issued by the Supdt. especially the power of demand in such cases is vested with the Collector with effect from 25-12-85 in view of the...
Rambhau @ Ramchandra Narhari Pavtekar and ors. Vs. Vinayak Keshav Pavt ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-1990
Reported in: 1990(1)BomCR661
M.S. Ratnaparkhi, J.1. A decree passed by II joint Civil Judge, Senior Division Pune on 4-1-1977 in Special Civil Suit No. 45 of 1970 decreeing plaintiff's claim for partition and separate possession of one-eighth share in the property described in paragraphs 2-A to 2-E of the plaint has been challenged in this appeal2. The facts giving rise to this litigation may briefly be stated as followsPlaintiff and the defendants 1 to 7 are the close relations. The genealogical tree disclosing their relationship is shown in paragraph 1 of the judgement of the trial Court. Enough to point out at this stage that Trimbakrao Pawtekar a resident of Yeola was person who had three sons Narahari, Kashinath and Keshavrao. Kashinath's branch become extinct. Narahari's branch is represented by Ramchandra defendant No. 1, Digambar-defendant No. 2, Dattatraya-defendant No. 3 and Gajanan-defendant No. 7 (son of Ranganath deceased) and Anant deceased. Keshavrao's branch is represented by Vinayak (the plaintiff...
Mohamedali Esmail Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-1990
Reported in: 1990(3)BomCR192; (1990)92BOMLR186
T.D. Sugla, J.1. Besides two common questions of law involved in all these three references, there is an additional question raised in Sales Tax Reference No. 21 of 1986. The references cover in all a period of 8 years from April 1, 1964 to March 31, 1972. Sales Tax Reference No. 20 of 1986 covers a period of three years from April 1, 1969 to March 31, 1972, Sales Tax Reference No. 81 of 1980 of two years from April 1, 1967 to March 31, 1969 and Sales Tax Reference No. 21 of 1986 of three years from March 1, 1964 to March 31, 1967.Common questions of law are :'(1) Whether, on a true and proper interpretation of rule 3 of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959, the process of converting raw hides into finished tanned goods amounts to manufacture as far as the tanning materials, viz., chemicals, oils, lime, etc., are concerned, so as to entitle the applicant to set-off under rule 41-A of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959, in respect of such materials ? (2) If the answer to the aforesaid questio...
Khurshed Amangool Khan Vs. P.D. Palnitkar and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Bom362; 1991(3)BomCR15; 1991(1)MhLj490
ORDER1. These six petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution question the correctness of an order passed under Section 22, affirmed in appeal under Section 23, both of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 -- hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. 2. Petitioner is the owner of seven structures comprising several rooms known as Amangool Chawl situated at Danda-Khar at Bandra, Bombay. Respondent No. 4 to all the petitions are in occupation of different rooms of the chawls as tenants. The said respondents had stopped paying rent to the petitioner since 1975. The chawl was declared as slum on 30th September, 1978 under Section 4 of the Act. On 26th July 1981, the petitioner addressed notices of demand to the 4th respondents figuring in these petitions as also seven others similarly situated. They were called upon to pay the rent outstanding from them. The notices not Having evoked any positive response, the petitioner moved the Competent Author...
Ashak HussaIn Allah Detha Alias Siddique and Another Vs. Assistant Col ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-1990
Reported in: 1990(1)BomCR451; (1990)92BOMLR122; 1990CriLJ2201; 1990LC4(Bombay)
ORDER1. The five accused are alleged to have committed the offences punishable under S. 21 r/w. S. 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, hereinafter referred to as 'the N.D.P.S. Act' and Sections 135(1)(a) and 135(1)(b) both r/w. S. 135(1)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Applicants herein Ashak Hussain Allah Detha alias Siddique and Riyaz Ahmed Afzal are, respectively, accused Nos. 4 and 5. They are hereinafter referred to as the applicants of Ashak and Riyaz. They apply for bail.I. THE PROSECUTION CASE2. The accused No. 1 Hamid Khan was residing in Room No. 301 and the applicants in Room No. 210 of R.K. Hotel, Lamington Road, Bombay. Saidulla, who is in Pakistan, despatched a large consignment of narcotic drugs on 19th July, 1989. A lorry, driven by Shersingh, carried the contraband. Accused No. 1 Hamid Khan met the Applicants in Room No. 201 and inquired of them whether the consignment had arrived. Meanwhile, Shersingh met the applicants and told them that...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Premier Automobiles
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-1990
Reported in: (1990)92BOMLR138
T.D. Sugla, J.1. These two references are at the instance of the department. The references relate to the assessment to sales tax for the period covering from July 1, 1965 to June 30, 1966 and July 1, 1966 to June 30, 1967. The questions of law referred to this Court for opinion are :(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the 'service pool charges' recovered by the opponent-assessee from its distributors at the rate of Rs. 10 per vehicle did not form a part of the sale price of the vehicle as defined in section 2(29) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 ? (ii) When the opponent-assessee bought raw materials against a certificate in form 15 issued under section 11(1A)(b) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 and used the same in the manufacture of motor vehicles which were not sold but were capitalised, was the Tribunal justified in coming to the conclusion that such use of the raw materials did not amount to use for anot...
Collector of Customs and Central Vs. Roto Screentech Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-1990
Reported in: (1990)(31)LC467Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal directed against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay, bearing No. V-2 (5903 CETA) 204/RK 88 dated 03.4.1989, 2. Shri K.M. Mondal, the learned SDR, while narrating the facts of the case stated that in this case the Assistant Collector granted refund for Rs. 2,28,149.48 under his order dated 30.6.1987. On scrutiny of the refund claim, it was noticed that an amount of Rs. 94,197.00 was erroneously refunded and a show cause notice was issued for recovery of the erroneous refund on 23.12.1987, which is well within the period of six months from the date of show cause notice. The aforesaid refund order was passed by the Assistant Collector was also reviewed by the Collector and the Collector directed for filing an appeal under his older dated 2.6.1988. Accordingly the the appeal has been filed within the period of three months on 21.6.1988, which was received by the office, of the Collector (Appeals) on 23,6.1988. The Collector (Appeals) has rej...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »