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.
international Liner Shipping Agency Vs. Additional Collector of Custom ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-1990
Reported in: 1991(34)LC269(Bombay)
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. The writ petition challenges the order of the Additional Collector of Customs dated 30th August 1990 imposing upon the petitioners a penalty of Rs. 1,25,000/- under Section 116 of the Customs Act. The shortlanding is found on the basis of the out-turn report issued by the Trustees of the Port of Bombay. This Court has, repeatedly, held that short-landing cannot be found only upon that basis so that on that ground itself the impugned order must be struck down. Curiously, however, the out-turn report itself shows the shortlanding to be nil. There is, therefore, non-application of mind not only to the law but also to the facts.2. Petition absolute in terms of prayers (a) and (b).The respondents shall pay to the petitioners the costs of the petition....
State of Maharashtra and Another Vs. Chandrakant @ Pomaji Vasudev Soms ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-07-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Bom245; (1991)93BOMLR927
ORDERPendse, J.1. This petition filed by the State of Maharashtra under Article 227 of the Constitution and the group of companion writ petitions filed by the State Government and various claimants are directed against judgment dated July 6. 1982 delivered by Assistant Judge, Solapur, in proceedings commenced under chapter VI of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961, for acquisition of large tracts of land admeasuring 540 acres, 26 gunthas and 34 annas situate adjoining the boundary of Solapur Municipal Corporation and within the compass of Solapur revenue village.The Maharashtra Legislature passed the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961, being Maharashtra Act No. III of 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') to make special provision for securing the orderly establishment in industrial areas and industrial estates of industries in the State of Maharashtra, and to assist generally in the organisation thereof, and for that purpose to establish an Industrial Deve...
Garware Plastics and Polyester Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-07-1990
Reported in: 1991(2)BomCR631; (1991)93BOMLR1; 1991LC178(Bombay); 1991(52)ELT506(Bom)
Sujata Manohar, J.1. The 1st petitioner is a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. The 2nd petitioner is the Managing Director of the 1st petitioner Company. The 1st petitioner Company has two units - one at Aurangabad and the other at Nasik. The petitioners carry on the activity of manufacturing Polyester film in their factory at Aurangabad. The polyester film manufactured by the petitioners at Aurangabad is metallised or lacquered at the petitioners factory at Nasik.2. The petitioners pay excise duty on the polyester film; manufactured by them at Aurangabad under Tariff Item 15A(2). The duty paid film is then sent to Nasik where the process of lacquering and metallising the film is carried on. The respondents have claimed excise duty also on lacquered and metallised polyester film under Tariff Item 15A(2) or tariff Item 15BB (which was in force for the period 1-3-1981 to 1-3-1982). They have sought to classify the lacquered and metallised polyester film under the s...
Forbes Forbes Campbell and Co. Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Collr. of Customs
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-07-1990
Reported in: 1991(52)ELT382(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Mr. Bulchandani waives service. Heard.2. The writ petition impugns the order of the Additional Collector of Customs dated 30th August, 1990 imposing upon the petitioners a penalty of Rs. 4 lakhs. The penalty is imposed upon the basis of a finding, inter alia, based on the outturn report of the Trustees of the Port of Bombay. The order is challenged only in so far as that aspect is concerned but, inasmuch as the penalty is a composite penalty, the order will have to be quashed both as regard the finding based on the outturn report as also in regard to the imposition of the penalty of Rs. 4 lakhs for the reasons now stated.3. It has been held by this court that short landings cannot be determined solely on the basis of outturn reports. In their reply to the show-cause notice, the petitioners quoted the relevant portion of a judgment of this Court which sets out the guidelines in this behalf. The impugned order sets out the contention of the peti...
Jammilla Begam Abdul Jabbar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1990
Reported in: 1991(2)BomCR68; (1991)93BOMLR357; 1991CriLJ1743
Puranik, J.1. The petitioner challenges the Order of Detention of one Abdul Jabbar Usman, passed by the 1st Respondent on 18th July 1990 under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act.2. Briefly stated the detenu Abdul Jabbar Usman was involved in an incident dated 21st May 1990 in a running BEST Bus in a section of City of Bombay. In the said incident, the petitioner and his other five associates successfully decamped with a brief case containing cash from one of the passengers after showing an open razor and knife and also threatened the other passengers in the bus. There was chaos and terror in the bus. Shrieks of passengers were heard. Ultimately, when the bus was halted the detenu and his associates escaped in the crowd. Crime No. 311 of 1990 was registered against the detenu and his associates. After intensive search the detenu was arrested on 24th May 1990 and was produced before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. After a few days of remand, the learned Additional Ch...
Turakhia Enterprises Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1990
Reported in: 1991LC599(Bombay); 1993(63)ELT24(Bom)
Bharucha, J.Rule, returnable forthwith.Mr. Sanklecha waives service on behalf of the respondents.Heard.1. The writ petition impugns the order of the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports dated 17th September 1990 in so far as it imposes penalties upon the petitioner and its partners and debars them for a period of 5 years. For the purposes of imposing a personal penalty upon the partners, the Joint Chief Controller states that the petitioner and its partners had not accepted the show-cause notice and, therefore, had evaded responsibility to produce the necessary information and documents called for by the show-cause notice. In the same order, however, the Joint Chief Controller states that the notice issued to petitioner and its partners had been returned undelivered by the postal authorities with the remark 'Not known'.2. No second attempt to serve the show-cause notice was, apparently, made. It is patent that the show-cause notice was not, in fact, received by the petitioner ...
Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. Vs. D.T. Pandey
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-1990
Reported in: 1991(2)BomCR553; [1991(62)FLR164]; (1994)IIILLJ1071Bom; 1991(1)MhLj810
Dhanuka, J.1 This petition is directed against order dated 11th April, 1989 passed by Shri M.K.. Bhope, Presiding Officer, First Labour Court, in Reference (IDA) No. 1100 of 1985 made under Sections 10(1) and 12(5) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 holding that the said reference was not barred by Section 59 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, hereinafter referred to as 'the 1971 Act'. The Labour Court passed the same order in group of seven references heard together for the purpose of consideration of preliminary contention raised on behalf of the employer referred to hereinafter. The only question which arises for my consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the said reference was barred under Section 59 of the 1971 Act. Section 59 of the 1971 Act reads as under:-'59. If any proceeding in respect of 'any matter falling within the purview of this Act' is instituted under this Act, then no proceeding shall at any...
Amar Vasudeva Kamath Vs. Registrar, University of Bombay and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-1990
Reported in: 1991(1)BomCR212; (1991)93BOMLR789; 1991(1)MhLj415
D.R. Dhanuka, J.1. The petitioner is a student enrolled for the course of Bachelor of Engineering with the third respondent institute affiliated to the University of Bombay. The petitioner is undertaking study for the B.E. degree course which was revised sometime in the year 1987. Prior to that, the old B.E. degree course was in force. The B.E. degree course is a four years course divided into eight semesters.2. The petitioner has already cleared Semesters I, II and III. The petitioner did not pass in one of the subjects in the examination pertaining to IVth Semester i.e. Theory of Machines. The result of IVth Semester was declared sometime in August 1990. Since the petitioner was not allowed to keep term for the Vth Semester with the back-log of the IVth semester in accordance with the ordinance permitting A.T.K.T. facility which was brought into force sometime in the year 1974, the petitioner and several other students have filed their respective writ petitions in this Court under Ar...
MarcelIn Sabestian Carvello Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-1990
Reported in: 1991(52)ELT484(Bom)
Daud J.1. This appeal by persons arraigned as accused No. 5, 17, and 20 takes exception to the conviction and sentence recorded against them for their allegedly committing offences punishable under Sections 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and 135(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962.2. The case against the appellants, shortly stated is that being aware of smuggling operations being carried on by various persons, they permitted the use of their godown for the purposes of storage of contraband consisting of metallic yarn, synthetic yarn and synthetic fabrics etc. Appellants are full brothers and were doing business in the name and style of 'Cyril Wilson & Co.' at Belgaum in the State of Karnataka. Pursuant to the discovery of the smuggling activities being carried on by the three brothers and their co-conspirators, the Customs Authorities apprehended the culprits. In the course of the investigation carried on by the Customs Authorities, statements of the appellants were recorded under Section 1...
Tata Engg. and Locomotive Company Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-1990
Reported in: 1991LC93(Bombay); 1991(52)ELT500(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners re challenging issuance of six show cause-cum-demand notices dated February 20, 1985, February 28, 1985, March 12, March 13, March 19 and March 31, 1985. By these six show cause notices, the petitioners were called upon to explain why excise duty short levied of the total value of Rs. 1,17,81,766.84 should not be recovered in accordance with Section 11A(i) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The facts which gave rise to the issuance of the show cause notices by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Telco Pimpri Range, Pune, are not in dispute, but are required to be set out briefly to appreciate the grievance of the petitioners.2. Petitioner No. 1 is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1913 and carries on business of manufacture of motor vehicles at its factory at Pimpri, Pune Dist. The petitioners manufacture chassis of moto...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »