Mumbai Court December 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.
Manilal Dajibhai Tandel and ors. Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1990
Reported in: 1991(3)BomCR206
Sujata Manohar, J. 1. The petitioners have been detained on 14-6-1990 in pursuance of orders dated 13-6-1990 passed by the State Government under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA Act) with a view to preventing them from smuggling goods. The case of each of the petitioners was placed before the Advisory Board, and after receipt of the opinion of the Advisory Board, the State Government has confirmed the detention of the petitioners under section 8(f) of the said Act. This order is of 7th of August, 1990.2. Mr. M.S. Sonak, has very ably argued the case of the petitioners on the basis of a petition received from jail. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the grounds of detention furnished to the petitioners are vague and no case is made out for the detention of the petitioners under section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act.3. The grounds of detention set out in detail the incident in questi...
Dr. Luis Proto Barbosa Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1990
Reported in: (1991)93BOMLR90
Sujata Manohar, J.1. The petitioner has challenged in this writ petition an order of the third respondent dated December 14, 1990 disqualifying him from membership of the Legislative Assembly of the stale of Goa. The petitioner was elected as a Member of the Goa Legislative Assembly on November 26, 1989 on the Congress (I) party ticket. He was elected as speaker of the Assembly on January 22, 1990. On March 24, 1990 the petitioner, while holding the office of speaker, resigned from the Congress (I) along with six other members of the said party. These persons formed a new political party which they designated as the Goan People's Party. The resignation of the petitioner was accepted by the Congress (I) party on March 25, 1990.2. On March 28, 1990 the fourth respondent who is also a Member of the Goa Legislative Assembly, filed a petition for disqualification of the petitioner from the membership of the Legislative Assembly under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India and the R...
income-tax Officer Vs. Jotumal T. Thawani
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-1990
Reported in: (1991)36ITD1(Mum.)
1. In this appeal department objects to the cancellation of reopening of the case under Section 147 and also to the deletion of additions made in the reassessment 2. The assessee is an individual and the previous year ended on 31-3-1978. Originally, return of income showing a total income of Rs. 80,900 was filed on 31-7-1978.Copies of order-sheet endorsements kept on pages 6& 7 of the department's second compilation show that the assessee attended before the Income- tax Officer on 8-9-1978 and waived notice of hearing under Section 143(2). Some clarification was tendered by the assessee which was also noted in the order sheet endorsement dated 8-9-1978. The assessee again attended and tendered information in respect of some other point on 21-9-1978. He again attended on 22-9-1978 and tendered yet another information and ultimately the Income-tax Officer passed order under Section 143(3) on 22-9-1978 on a total income of Rs. 80,900 (exactly the same as returned by the assessee). Co...
ion Exchange (i) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-1990
Reported in: (1991)LC520Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Collector (Appeals) bearing No. 1885/89 BCH dated 4-12-1989. The undisputed facts are that the appellants claimed refund of duty paid on 19-5-1988 by filing the refund claim, which was received by the Asstt. Collector on 20-6-1989.The claim was rejected as time-barred and the matter was taken in appeal before the Collector (Appeals) which was also rejected. The present appeal is against that order.2. Shri Agrawal, authorised representative of the appellants stated that the goods involved are components for Desalination Plant, which are required for drought affected areas in Gujarat. They had applied for exemption of these parts and the ad hoc exemption order was issued by the Government only on 5-1-1989 and the refund claim has been filed within a period of six months from that date. They had to clear the consignment, which arrived by air on account of urgency and hence they had paid duty. In the absence of any specific exemption, th...
Anil Jamnadas Chhatbar Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-1990
Reported in: 1991(32)ECC274; 1991LC53(Bombay); 1993(63)ELT19(Bom)
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Mr. S.M. Shah waives service on behalf of the respondents. Heard. On an earlier writ petition filed in respect of the same consignment, an order was passed on 20th June 1990 whereby the 2nd respondent was directed to give a personal hearing to the petitioner pursuant to a Query Memo on or before 9th July 1990 and thereafter to pass an order and serve it upon the petitioner on or before 24th July 1990. The order contemplated by the said order was passed on 19th July 1990. The 2nd respondent stated in the order that 'Some more enquiries could be made regarding the quotation and I might have given some more opportunity to the Counsel to lead evident to the contrary in this behalf. However, this cannot be done as the Hon'ble High Court has directed me to pass the order on or before 24-7-1990.'2. A second writ petition was filed impugning the order dated 19th July 1990. The ground was that the order had been passed in spite of insufficiency of...
Selfshine Industries Vs. Board of Trustees of Port of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-1990
Reported in: 1992(38)ECC124
1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner is complaining of detention of 189 bags of HDPE by Respondent No. 1 and seeking consequential reliefs in that behalf. The facts and circumstances leading to the filing of the Petition are as under :-2. The Petitioner is an importer of HDPE. The Petitioner had appointed M/s. Harshad Clearing Agencies, the 2nd Respondent, as his clearing agent in relation to clearance of consignments of raw materials like HDPE.3. On 20-8-1981 the Petitioner had lawfully cleared the said goods. The Petitioner had cleared 189 bags of the above referred imported goods in ordinary course after the payment of custom duty and after filing their bill of Entry No. 7083, dated 21-4-1981.4. M/s. Climax Pipe Pvt. Ltd., Calcutta appears to have made a complaint with Yellow Gate Police Station to the fact that goods taken delivery of by the Petitioner through their clearing agent belonged to the said party. The said clearing agent ha...
Mafatlal Engineering Industries Ltd. Vs. Mafatlal Engineering Industri ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-1990
Reported in: (1992)IILLJ657Bom; 1991(1)MhLj1359
1. This is a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India preferred by Mafatlal Engineering Industries Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company'). The Petition is directed against an order dated February 3, 1989 passed by the Member, Industrial Court, Thane in Complaint (ULP) No. 168 of 1986. The 1st Respondent Trade Union to this writ petition was the Original Complainant before the Trial Court and the 2nd Respondent to this Writ Petition was Respondent No. 5 to the proceeding before the Lower Court. Respondent No. 4 Mumbai Mazdoor Union was the recognised union within the framework of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act') and has, therefore, been cited as a party-Respondent to this proceeding. The 4th Respondent has neither appeared before the Trial Court nor before this Court, nor are there any pleadings on it behalf. The contest is esse...
Fr. Alfred Aguiar Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-1990
Reported in: 1991(1)BomCR554; 1991(1)MhLj328
D.R. Dhanuka, J.1. The petitioner is the sole Trustee and Manager of the Bosary Church School which is a Public Trust duly registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. The said school is a minority educational institution.2. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated the 29th August 1988 passed by the Education Officer of Bombay, Municipal Corporation, directing the management to restore the status-quo by reinstating the respondent No. 3 to her original post and hold proper enquiry as more particularly set out therein. On 19th September 1988 this petition was admitted and interim injunction was granted in terms of prayers (b) and (c) of the petition hereby the operation of the impugned order dated 29th August 1988 was stayed and the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were restrained from taking any further action in pursuance of the other above referred impugned order.3. The petitioner has filed an affidavit of service proving that the rule-nisi issu...
Dinesh L. Gaude Vs. Ponda Municipal Council and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-1990
Reported in: 1991(3)BomCR440
Sujata Manohar, J.1. The 1st respondent, Municipal Council, had issued an advertisement on 9-7-1990 inviting bids for the purpose of leasing six shops belonging to respondent No. 1. As per this advertisement, there were three shops in category 'C' bearing Nos. C-1, C-2 and C-4, admeasurings 6.75 square metres each. There were three shops in 'D' category bearing Nos. D-1, D-2 and D-3, each admeasuring 4.28 square metres. The minimum bid for shops in 'C' category was Rs. 600/- per month while for 'D' category, the minimum bid fixed was Rs. 300/- per month. The advertisement further stated that the Council reserves the right to reject or accept any or every bid. The interested bidders were also required to deposit earnest money of Rs. 3,000/- and a non-refundable participation fee of Rs. 50/-. Pursuant to this notice, an auction was held on 25-7-1990. The petitioner was the only bidder for shop No. D-2. The record of the auction has been produced before us. As per this record, the initial...
inspecting Assistant Vs. Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-1990
Reported in: (1991)36ITD620(Mum.)
1. to 12. [These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.] 13. The next ground in assessee's appeal is with regard to its claim for the payment of custom duty amounting to Rs. 4,46,297 on equipments repatriated from Iraq. The assessee is a construction company. It was engaged in execution of construction projects in India as well as abroad. To execute the construction work, it has to shift the plant and machinery and other assets to the work site. Similarly, on completion of the project, these assets are transferred either to other sites or to the Head Office. During the year 1980-81, the assessee had purchased Casagranda Piling Equipment worth Rs. 14,80,022 from M/s. Boodai Trading Company, Kuwait, for executing Daquq Chai work in Iraq. It was used in the said project and the after the work was over, the equipment was brought to India on 6-8-1982. On such repatriation, the Government of India charged customs duty of Rs. 4,46,297 which, though was capitalised in ass...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »