Mumbai Court October 1991 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.
Bajaj Auto Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-29-1991
Reported in: 1992(2)BomCR366; (1991)93BOMLR580; 1992(60)ELT32(Bom); 1992(1)MhLj107
Sukumaran, J.1. 'Bajaj' is a by-word for many Indian industrial Products. Among them are those on wheels, Two wheelers and Three wheelers as they are popularly referred to. . The petitioner-Company has its factories in Pune and Aurangabad. The basic pattern of manufacturing process or commercial practice is not substantially different. 2. The manufactured products are exigible to excisable duty. Self-Removal procedure is convenient, alike for administration and the assessee. That was resorted to by the petitioners as well. So long as the movements are correct, the accounts accurate and the assessment reasonable, everything will go smooth. Any doubt or dispute in the system will have its halting effect. The petitioner Company had a rub with the Department about the duty payable under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The dispute was not in relation to the material imported nor in the final products taken out of the factories. It centered roun...
Shrikant Vishnu Palwankar Vs. Presiding Officer, First Labour Court an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-29-1991
Reported in: (1992)IILLJ378Bom
1. This writ petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, impugns an Award dated August 31, 1984, made by the First Labour Court, Bombay, in Reference (IDA) No. 156 of 1980. The reference was made under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act'). 2. The second Respondent is an Establishment which publishes newspapers and runs a Department known as Job Department for carrying out its printing work. The Petitioner was appointed in the Establishment of the second Respondent pursuant to an application made by him in response to an advertisement notifying a vacancy of a Foreman in the Department known as Job Department. The Petitioner was served with two charge-sheets dated November 1, 1977 and November 28, 1977. In the first chargesheet, dated November 1, 1977, it was alleged against him that on October 28, 1977 he had worked overtime from 5-00 P.M. to 11-00 P.M. but that he had sent the overtime slip to the Time Officer indicatin...
Chaturbhuj and Another Vs. Recovery Officer and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-28-1991
Reported in: [1993]199ITR739(Bom); 1992(2)MhLj1484
H.D. Patel, J.1. Respondent No. 1, the Tax Recovery Officer, Nagpur, by order of attachment dated October 20, 1982, attached Plot No. 212 and the house standing thereon bearing Corporation house Nos. 208 and 208-A in Ward No. 23, Lakadganj, Nagpur, owned by the petitioner. The attachment was stated to have been made in pursuance of some recovery said to be outstanding against the late Shri Rajabhai Premji, the father of petitioner No. 1. On an enquiry being made by the petitioners about the details of the recovery, it was learnt that the Income-tax Officer, 'B' Ward, Bhuj (State of Gujarat), has sent revenue recovery certificates to the Tax Recovery Officer, Jamnagar, and he, in turn, forwarded the same to respondent No. 1, the Tax Recovery Officer, Nagpur. The recovery pertained to income-tax dues including interest amounting to Rs. 1,11,428 for the assessment year 1969-70, Rs. 3,824 for the assessment year 1970-71 and wealth-tax dues of Rs. 12,141 for the assessment year 1969-70, all...
Bharat S/O Maganbhai Kheta Vs. Nagpur Improvement Trust
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-28-1991
Reported in: (1992)94BOMLR67
H.D. Patel, J.1. In the aforesaid petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners challenge notifications issued under Sections 31 and 45 of the Nagpur Improvement Trust Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the NIT Act') as well as the consequent land acquisition proceedings resulting in respective awards. Since the questions of law arising in these petitions are more or less the same, we have decided lo dispose them of by this common judgment.2. The petitioners in writ petition No. 476 of 1983 arc the grandsons of late Shri Shamjibhai Kheta, who owned large property at Nagpur. These petitioners are the legatees under the last 'will' of the said Shri Shamjibhai Kheta who died on November 15, 1967. The three executors appointed under the will were (1) Shri A.S. Bobde, Advocate (2) Shri Trimbak Shamji Kheta and (3) Shri M.M. Khinkhcde, Advocate. The executors obtained the probate or the letters of administration from the Civil Court. Amongst the property left by late S...
Neptune Wires Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-28-1991
Reported in: 1992(42)LC122(Bombay)
ORDERS.P. Bharucha, C.J.1. The learned Single Judge dismissed the appellants' writ petition by the judgment and order under appeal.2. The appellants manufacture copper rods, flats, bus bars and rectangular rods, all having the thickness of about 10 mm. After the introduction of Tariff Item No. 68 in the Central Excise Tariff on 1st March 1975, the Central Excise authorities asked the appellants to classify their goods under Item 68. This was not done and the goods were classified by the petitioners under Item 26A. On 20th January 1976, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise passed an order rejecting the appellants' contention that the goods were classifiable under Item 26A and directing that they be classified under Item 68. The order was not appealed against but the appellants paid the duty, according to the averments in the petition, under protest in pursuance thereof.3. By an order dated 24th November 1978 passed in Revision No. 1295 of 1978 filed before the Government of India b...
Vidarbha Veneer Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-25-1991
Reported in: 1992(58)ELT435(Bom)
H.D. Patel, J.1. The petitioner is a public limited company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956 and at all material times carried on the business of manufacturing and marketing plywood and allied products. The petitioner has its factory at M.I.D.C. Estate, Hingna, Nagpur, where the flush doors and other products are manufactured. 2. The subject matter of this petition is the validity of the levy of excise duty on flush doors under Tariff Item 16B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for the sake of brevity) and consequent refund of the amount of excise duty collected without the authority of law. 3. According to the petitioner, flush door is neither a combination nor a finished article of plywood or board falling under Item 16B of the Central Excise Tariff and, therefore, they were not liable to pay excise duty at the rate specified in that item. The correctness of the levy of excise duty on flush doors was challenged in Writ Petitio...
Kankubai Shravikashram Trust and ors. Vs. Kamal W/O Dattatraya Khajurk ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-25-1991
Reported in: (1991)93BOMLR642
H.D. Patel, J.1. The petitioner Kankubai Shravikashram Trust, a public trust duly registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner-institution') herein challenges the order passed by the respondent No. 2, the Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal in Appeal No. STN/67 of 1962 decided on 16.8.1983.2. The facts in brief are that the first respondent was working as a Head Master in the Kankubai Girls High School at Karanja. In the year 1981 while routine inspection of the affairs of the school was made, the second petitioner noticed various irregularities and complaints against the first respondent. The Managing Committee in its meeting held on 3rd July, 1991 resolved to authorise the second petitioner to take further action in the matter. Accordingly a show cause notice dated 10.7.1981 came to be served on the first respondent. She was called upon to explain the allegations made against her. The first respondent submitted her reply vide letter d...
Union of India Vs. Sang Fasteners Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-24-1991
Reported in: 1992(58)ELT205(Bom)
S.P. Bharucha J.1. By the judgment under appeal, the learned Judge made the writ petition absolute and directed the respondents to the writ petition to pay to the petitioners interest on the amount of the refund ordered by him at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from 1st November, 1978 till the date of payment. The respondents are in appeal and Mr. R. V. Desai, their counsel, has, fairly, restricted his argument to the aspect of the interest that the learned Single Judge awarded. 2. The petitioners manufacture nuts, bolts and screws. These are covered by Tariff Item No. 52 of the Central Excises and Salt Act. Their production for the period 1st April, 1975 to 31st March, 1976 did not, admittedly, exceed the value of Rs. 5 lakhs. By reason of an exemption notification issued on 26th July, 1971, nuts, bolts and screws were not liable to excise duty if the total production thereof for home consumption did not exceed the value of Rs. 5 lakhs. The petitioners, although they were not, accor...
Ramesh Shamji Thakkar and ors. Vs. Chhotelal Mahavit and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-24-1991
Reported in: (1994)IIILLJ351Bom
B.N. Srikrishna, J.1. These three writ petitions arise out of the orders dated 30th September, 1987, made by the Second Labour Court, Bombay, in Applications (IDA) Nos. 885, 1340 and 1321 of 1983. The applications were made under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The contentions as also the facts and law are identical and therefore it would be convenient to dispose of the three writ petitions by a common judgment and order.2. For the sake of convenience I shall hereinafter refer to the different respondent-workmen in these writ petitions as 'workmen'.3. Writ Petition No. 1326 of 1988 arises out of the order made in Application (IDA) No. 885 of 1983. In this 9 workmen had jointly claimed 20 days' salary of July 1975, retrenchment compensation, one month's wages as notice pay and 20 per cent bonus for the accounting year 1974-75.4. Writ petition No. 1327 of 1988 arises out of the order made in Application (IDA) No. 1340 of 1983 in whic...
20th Century Finance and Consultancy Services Limited Vs. Khanna Rayon ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-24-1991
Reported in: 1991(4)BomCR301
D.R. Dhanuka, J.1. The plaintiff has taken out this notice of motion for appointment of Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay, as receiver of the suit equipments described in Schedule (Exhibit 'F' to the plaint) with all powers under Order XI, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure including the power to take actual physical possession of the said equipment and to hand over the same to the plaintiff and for various orders of interim injunctions. The defendant has resisted the notice of motion on several grounds.2. By an order dated 26th April, 1991, Jhunjhunuwala, J., appointed the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay, as ad interim receiver in terms of prayer (f) of the notice of motion and also granted limited interim injunction in terms of prayer (g) thereof. Being aggrieved by the said order, the defendant preferred an appeal, being Appeal No. 521 of 1991. Pursuant to the orders passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench, the Court Receiver has taken symbolic possession of the abovereferred eq...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »