Mumbai Court November 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.
Mani Kant Sohal Vs. M/S. Pannalal Kesharchand Banthia and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-14-1990
Reported in: 1991(2)BomCR461; 1991CriLJ1247
ORDER1. This is a Criminal Revision Application filed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Marine and Preventive Wing, Alibag Division, in respect of an order dated 6-5-1988 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Panvel, in Regular Case No. 357 of 1985. Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 to the Criminal Revision Application were the original Accused Nos. 1 to 3 before the trial Court. The applicant herein had filed a complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate charging the accused with having committed offences punishable under different sub-clauses of S. 85 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 and the rules framed thereunder.2. The brief facts giving rise to this prosecution are as follows :-Accused No. 1 is a partnership firm, and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the partners thereof. On 2-2-1982 pursuant to a secret information, the Superintendent of Customs (Preventive), Gold (Control), Bombay, along with the assisting officers raided and searched the licenced shop premises of accused No. ...
Bombay Burmah Trading Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-14-1990
Reported in: 1991LC194(Bombay); 1991(52)ELT195(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. Shri Rege waives services on behalf of the respondents. Heard counsel.2. The grievance of the petitioners in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is that the refund application filed on August 1, 1989 is not disposed of by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise for a considerable length of time and, on the other hand, two show cause notices are issued to the petitioners to explain why the refund should not be refused on the ground of unjust enrichment. Only few facts are required to be stated to appreciate the grievance of the petitioners.3. The petitioner No. 1 is a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and, inter-alia, manufactures paper based decorative laminates. By order dated January 3, 1989, the respondent No. 2 classified the goods under sub-heading 3920.31 as it stood upto February 28, 1988 and thereafter under sub-heading 3920.37 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The c...
Jugilal Laxminarayan Yadav and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-14-1990
Reported in: [1991(63)FLR382]; (1992)ILLJ248Bom; 1991(1)MhLj318
1. This petition is directed against order dates September 23, 1987 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Bombay (Shri A. G. Naik), a copy whereof is Exhibit 'K' to the Petition. The short facts and circumstances leading to filing of this petition are us under.2. On March 19, 1975, the Petitioner No. 2 was employed as clerk by Kohinoor Mills Co. Ltd. (Respondent No. 4 herein). On October 1, 1960, the Petitioner No. 1 was employed as clerk by the very same Company, i.e. Respondent No. 4 herein. On October 18, 1983, the President of India issued an Ordinance known as 'The Textile Undertakings (Taking Over of Management) Ordinance, 1983' whereby the management of several textile undertaking, including Kohinoor Mills, was taken over by the Central Government. The National Textile Corporation (South Maharashtra) Ltd. Bombay (Respondent No. 3 herein), is an Additional Customer of the Undertaking known as 'Kohinoor Mills'.3. On February 13, 1985, the Rashtriya Mills Mazdoor Sangh, a...
Satyavijay Anna Tandel Vs. Administrative Tribunal of Goa, Daman and D ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-13-1990
Reported in: (1990)92BOMLR580
Suresh, J.1. This petition has been filed by the original tenant in the following circumstances:2. The original petitioner-tenant had taken a house, owned by the respondent bearing Municipal Registration No. 71, on monthly rent. This was in the year 1964. The rent was Rs. 80/- per month till about March 1973 and thereafter it was increased to Rs. 110. A per month from April 1973. Some time in July 1976 the original petitioner received from the Court of the Rent Controller, South Goa, a notice in case No. 81 of 1976 in the matter of an eviction application filed by three persons as plaintiffs. Amongst them was one Candida Pinto who is presently respondent No. 3 in this petition. The allegation was that the petitioner had neglected to pay the rent of the premises from April 1976 to August 1976 amounting to Rs. 400/- and that the applicants require the said premises for their bona fide personal use and occupation. In the said application the said respondent No. 3 filed an affidavit dated ...
Amar Dye Chem Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-12-1990
Reported in: 1991(52)ELT379(Bom)
M.L. Pendse, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. Shri Desai waives service. Heard counsel.2. The petitioners re-submitted refund application dated April 13, 1988 in accordance with the order passed by Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) dated November 18, 1987. The petitioners claimed refund of Rs. 64,22,994.18 in respect of excess duty recovered by the Department for the period commencing from March 1, 1984 to August 31, 1984 the petitioners also claimed refund of duty of Rs. 62,05,917.49 in respect of period commencing from September 1, 1984 and ending with February 28, 1986. Few facts which gave rise to these refund applications are as follows :The petitioners manufacture 'Naphthals' and 'fast colour base' falling under Tariff Item No. 68 of First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The petitioners filed Classification Lists but the Superintendent of Excise directed the petitioners to pay duty under Item No. 14-D of the First Schedule b...
Tata Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-1990
Reported in: (1991)(53)ELT88Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The aforesaid 18 Stay Applications have been filed on behalf of the applicants covering a duty amount of Rs, 41,82,238/-which is the amount not paid and in respect of which Stay Applications have been moved.2. Shri E.P. Bharucha, the learned advocate on behalf of the appellant stated that 53 orders were passed on their Price Lists by the Asstt.Collector disallowing exclusion of certain items namely Handling charges, packing charges, distributors discount, uniform discount and stock clearance discount. These items were held to be not admissible.However, in respect of Stock clearance discount it has been allowed in respect of sales to distributors but not allowed in respect of transfer on consignee account and for captive consumption. They have already deposited a sum of Rs. 4.40 crores under protest as against the total demand raised on the RT-12 consequent on the finalisation of the Price List to the extent of Rs. 4.82 crores, leaving the balance of the aforesaid amount in respect ...
Joseph John Carvalho Vs. Leila Joseph Carvalho
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Bom156; 1991(2)BomCR466; (1991)93BOMLR875; 1991(1)MhLj168
ORDER1. This is a husband's petition under S. 18 read with S. 19 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1969, seeking a declaration and decree of nullity of the marriage between the petitioner and respondent solemnised on 19th January, 1986. The parties are both Christians domiciled in India and their marriage was solemnised in accordance with the Christians Rites.2. The case made out in the petition is broadly that the consent of the petitioner to the marriage had been obtained by concealment of vita facts. The details of the allegations made the petition are not very relevant as I am of the view that this Court would have no jurisdiction to entertain the petition for the reasons which are set out hereinafter.3. When the petition was called out, though the petition had been duly served on the respondent-wife no one appeared for the respondent. It is, however, seen from the averments in para 15 of the petition that the petitioner Mid the respondent had last resided at Vasai in District Thane and t...
Bussa Overseas and Properties (Private) Limited and Another Vs. Union ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Bom273; (1991)93BOMLR892
ORDERSugla, J.1. Issues involved in these seventeen petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are somewhat similar. For the sake of convenience all of them are disposed of by a consolidated judgment.2. The issue in Writ Petns. Nos. 685, 2031, 2518 and 3317 of 1986, 699, 2265, 3068, 3645 and 3975 of 1987, 1534, 2030, 2595 and 2717 of 1988 is whether the goods imported by the petitioners answer the description 'Ethyl Alcohol' mentioned in the respective REP licences. The goods imported are in most of the cases Whisky concentrate. In few cases it is Gin concentrate or Brandy concentrate. described in the Bill of Entry as '.....years old Vatted Malt Scotch Spirit at 60% or 61% Vol.', 'Compound Alcoholic Preparations known as concentrated Extract for manufacture of Alcohol Beverage' and 'Compound Alcoholic Preparation known as concentrated extract for manufacture of Alcoholic Beverages at Appro. 60/61% V/V.' or more or less respectively.The issue in Writ Petns. Nos. 3816 of 1...
Collr. of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Dhrangadhra Chemicals Works Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-08-1990
Reported in: (1991)LC318Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Rajkot against the order of the Collector(Appeals) bearing No.GSM-2443/89 Rajkot dated 11-12-89.2. Shri Mondal, the Ld. Deptt. Representative, stated the facts of the case as below: The respondents are manufacturer of soda ash. They are availing of modvat credit in respect of inputs such as ammonia, sodium sulphate etc. used in the final product soda ash. They are also removing part of the soda ash, for brine water purification captively under Exemption Not. No.154/68 dated 3-8-1968. As per this Notification, soda ash removed for purification of brine water within the factory to be used in the production of excisable or non-excisable goods upto 3% of sodium chloride contents of the common salt in the process of purification of brine is exempted from payment of duty. In this case, they had availed of modvat benefit, even in respect of such soda ash removed captively for the purification of brine water cleared at Nil rate of...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Metazinc (India) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-08-1990
Reported in: (1991)LC218Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Though this day, only stay application moved by the Collector of Cen. Excise, Bombay was listed for hearing, after hearing the arguments of both the sides and with their consent, the appeal itself was taken up for hearing, since the issue involved falls within the short compass, as falls in the stay application itself.2. The appeal is directed against the order of the Collector (Appeals) bearing No. KVV-395/90-B.III dated 12-6-1990 allowing the respondents' appeal by grant of refund of duty paid on the goods removed earlier from the factory and returned back after reprocessing.3. The facts of the case as narrated by Shri Deepak Kumar, are as below: The respondents filed two refund claims to the extent of Rs. 56,518.88, the duty paid on the two consignments cleared to M/s. Bombay Tyre International Ltd. However, the goods were returned back by the buyer as not conforming to their requirement. When the goods were received back, they gave intimation regarding the receipt back of the d...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »