Mumbai Court October 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.
Devidayal Electronics and Wires Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-23-1990
Reported in: 1991(2)BomCR451; (1991)93BOMLR416
Sujata Manohar, J. 1. The petitioners, inter alia, produce wire out of wire rods. For this purpose, the petitioners purchase duty paid iron and steel wire rods from which wire is drawn by the petitioners. Both, wire rods purchased by the petitioners as well as wire produced from such wire rods fall under Tariff Item 26AA(ia) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. This tariff item is as follows:'Iron or steel products, the following namely :ia) Bars, rods, coils, wires.'It is the contention of the petitioners that both wire rods as well as wire fall under the same tariff item and that converting wire rods into wire does not amount to an activity of manufacture as defined in section 2(f) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944.2. We need not examine this contention on merit because in any event, by virtue of certain notifications issued by the Government of India, it is an accepted position that upto 19th od June, 1980, these items were exempt from payment of any excise duty. On 19th o...
L.D. Textile Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-22-1990
Reported in: (1992)(58)ELT236Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal directed against the order of the Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Baroda, bearing No. 64/MP/89 dated 29-12-1989 demanding duty totalling Rs 1,39,44,646/-. In the said order, the Collector has also ordered confiscation of 43 bags of yarn seized from the factory premises but allowed the same to be redeemed on payment of fine of Rs 1,55,000/-. The Collector has also ordered confiscation of plant and machinery of the appellants but permitted redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 10.00 lacs. A penalty of Rs 30.00 lacs has also been imposed by the Collector on the appellants under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. Facts of the case for the purpose of disposal of this appeal, as narrated by the Ld. Consultant Shri K. Srinivasan, can be stated as below: 3. The appellants are manufacturers of excisable yarn classifiable under Tariff Item No. 18 III(ii) and 18E of the First Schedule to the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. They are...
Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-22-1990
Reported in: (1991)(34)ECC111
1. This is an appeal directed against the order-in-appeal bearing No.SKM-623/90.B.I. passed by the Collector of Cen. Excise (Appeals), Bombay dated 8-5-1990.2. The appellants herein are the manufacturers of biscuits and confectionery and they have opted for modvat scheme. They claimed modvat benefit for certain goods viz. M.G. Poster paper, paper, printing inks, plain aluminium foils etc. It was alleged by the Department that these inputs are neither consumed as raw materials for their final products nor are they directly used as packing materials.These inputs are captively consumed for the manufacture of intermediate products viz. printed/laminated papers and printed/laminated alumin foils on which no duty is paid. These intermediate products also cannot be said to be arising during the course of manufacture of their final product. Therefore, modvat credit in respect of the duty paid on the aforesaid products is not admissible. Another objection taken by the Department was that the i...
Janabai Govind Surve Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-20-1990
Reported in: 1991ACJ294; AIR1991Bom333; 1991(3)BomCR1; (1991)93BOMLR887
1. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 19th March 1987 passed by the respondent No. 2 -- Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Greater Bombay ('the Tribunal', for short) -- in M.A.C.T. Application No. 2217 of 1984 and also the validity of Rule 306(3) of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Rules, 1959 ('the Rules', for short), inasmuch as the said order dated 19th March was based on the said Rule. The short facts leading to the filing of this petition are as under.2. On 3rd April 1984, son of the petitioner -- the late Dnyaneshwar Govind Surve --was knocked down by a car at Chowpatty, Bombay, and he was admitted to J. J. Hospital by the police. The said Dnyaneshwar died at about 10 p.m. on the same day, i.e. 3rd April 1984. The petitioner-mother filed an application for compensation, being M.A.C.T. Application No. 2217 of 1984, claiming an amount of compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-. A sum of Rs. 15,000/- was paid to the petitioner under Section 92A of the Motor Vehicl...
Sohan Singh Jodh Singh Kohli Vs. Chandrakanta Goyal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Bom343; (1991)93BOMLR260
ORDER1. This Chamber Summons has been taken out by the Respondent for the purpose of dismissal of this Election Petition No. 19 of 1990 under the provisions of S.86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for non-compliance with Ss. 81 and 83 of the Act and for non-disclosure of any cause of action. There is also another prayer for striking off certain paras of the pleadings under O.6, R. 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as according to the Respondent the pleadings contain scandalous, frivolous, vague, vexatious, irrelevant and unnecessary or otherwise prejudicial statements, which have no bearing on the grounds pleaded in the election petition.2. Similar Chamber Summonses have been taken out by the Respondents in each of the matters, in all 9, including this Chamber Summons and they have been placed for hearing. In most of these matters, Mr. M.P. Vashi has appeared for the petitioners and in two matters, Mr. Kotwal has appeared for the Pet...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. New India Mining Corporation Pvt., Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-1990
Reported in: [1991]190ITR284(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. In this reference relating to the assessee's assessment for the assessment year 1971-72, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has, at the instance of the Department, referred to this court the following two questions as questions of law :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that both in terms of the lease agreement dated April 23, 1940, between the assessee-company and the Government and under section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, there existed during the relevant previous year, a liability on the company to restore the land leased to it to its original condition and that, therefore, the estimated liability for 'restoration charges' was an admissible revenue expenditure under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the liability, if any, under the lease agreement towards 'restorati...
Suraina Subhash Rane Dr. (Miss) Vs. University of Bombay (Through Its ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-1990
Reported in: 1991(2)BomCR263
S.M. Daud, J. 1. This petition takes exception to alleged arbitrariness in the excessive weightage given to orals with a corresponding total denigration of dissertations in assessing the proficiency of candidates appearing at the Bombay University's examination in M.D. Pathology.2. Petitioner, after securing a Diploma in Pathology and Bacteriology (DPB) a course conducted by third respondent, joined the M.D. Pathology degree course. Her topic for dissertation/thesis prepared under the supervision of one Dr. A.R. Chitale was accepted. This entitled her to appear for the M.D. exam., held in July 1989. `Orals' are one facet in which candidates at the above exam, are tested - the other two being `Theory' and `Practicals'. Respondent 6 who is on the staff of the L.T. Medical College (LTMC) at Sion, Bombay was the Head-Examiner for the orals. Besides respondent 6 there were three other Examiners. Petitioner is from the Grant Medical College (GMC) and there has been a tit-for-tat war - so say...
Collector of Customs Vs. Univac Corporation
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-1990
Reported in: (1993)(64)ELT264Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Both the aforesaid Reference Applications moved by the Collector of Customs, Kandla, involve the same question of law, which is sought to be referred to the High Court and hence the Ld. SDR Shri KM Mondal, while moving these applications preferred to argue both the applications together.2. After perusing the question of law required to be referred to by the department, we are satisfied that the applications involve consideration of the same issue and hence they were heard together and proposed to be disposed of by this common order.3. Shri K.M. Mondal, the Ld. SDR, pointed out that the question of law required to be considered in both the applications is as follows : 1. The provisions of Para 1 of O.G.L. as reproduced as annexure to Appendix 21 of I.T.C. Policy of AM 1983-84 do not permit import of second-hand Capital goods. The provisions are to be read with the provisions of Para 232 of the relevant Policy and Para 5(3)(ii) of the Import (Control) Order, 1955.4. On questioning, h...
Ramesh Shankar More Vs. Ramesh Mataprasad Dube and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-1990
Reported in: 1991(1)BomCR649; 1991(1)MhLj81
Ashok Agarwal, J.1. By the present election petition the petitioner has prayed for a declaration that the election of the first respondent to the Vidhana Sabha Elections from the 41 Andheri Assembly Constituency held on 27th February 1990 is null and void and/or illegal on the ground that the first respondent and this agents and other persons with his consent have committed corrupt practice as defined under section 123 of the Representation of Peoples Act as well as for violation of the other provisions of the said Act. The petitioner has further prayed for a declaration that he has been duly elected in the said election. The said petition was filed on 16th April 1990. By my order passed on 7th June 1990 the petition was accepted and was made returnable on 23rd July 1990. The first respondent who is the returned candidate was served on 31st July 1990. On 28th August 1990, the first respondent appeared and applied for four weeks time to file the written statement and the same was grante...
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-1990
Reported in: 1991(1)BomCR672
D.R. Dhanuka, J.1. This is a petition filed by Union of India and Food Corporation of India against the Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd., in substance a declaration that the impugned award dated 4th January 1990, made by Shri V.K. Bhandari and Capt. D.T. Ramchandran, Arbitrators is wrongly filed in this Court and in alternative for setting aside of the said impugned award. Material facts and relevant circumstances emerging from the record are as under :---2. By a Charter Party Agreement dated 4th June, 1984 the respondents-owners chartered their vessel m.v. 'JAG RAKSHAK' to the petitioners to carry 12000 metric tons of rice in bags from Burma to India on the terms and conditions set out therein. It is stated in so many words right at the top of the said charter party agreement that the said agreement was made at Bombay. The said charter party agreement recites that the said agreement was arrived at between the President of India, New Delhi and the respondents herein. Addendum No. 1 form...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »