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.
Bharat Chandulal Nanavati and Another Vs. Uco Bank and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Bom170; 1991(4)BomCR313; (1992)94BOMLR4
ORDERBharucha, J.1. By the judgment and order under appeal the appellants were adjudicated insolvent upon the petition filed by the 1st respondents.2. The 1st respondents had filed a suit being OOCJ Suit No. 1313 of 1975 against a private limited company called Mona TradersPrivate Ltd. and the appellants, who were its directors. On 4th March 1976 the 1st respondents obtained an ex parte decree. Thereunder the limited company was ordered and decreed to pay to the 1st respondents the sum of Rs. 17,94,156.63 and interest thereon as therein stated; and the appellants were ordered and decreed to pay to the 1st respondents slightly smaller sums with interest thereon as therein stated. The decree also required that the goods hypothecated to the 1st respondents be sold and the not sale proceeds applied her satisfaction of the 1st respondents' claim. The sale was to be effected by the Commissioner for taking Accounts. It was also ordered that the decrees passed against the appellants were not s...
Arochem Industries Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-1991
Reported in: 1991(56)ELT505(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging legality of order dated August 31, 1982 passed by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Valsad rejecting the application for refund filed by the petitioners. The petitioners are a partnership firm and manufacture Organic Surface Active Agents in their factory situated at Silvassa, Dadra & Nagar Haveli. The manufacture of Organic Surface Active Agents is liable to payment of excise duty under Tariff Item No. 15-AA of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The duty payable under Tariff Item No. 15-AA is 20% ad valorem. 2. The Central Government in exercise of powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 published notification dated April 24, 1979 and exempted payment of duty of excise leviable on Organic Surface Active Agents as is in excess of 15% ad valorem. In other words, the Excise Duty on manufacture of Organic...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Simplex Mills Co. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-1991
Reported in: (1993)(65)ELT378Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Invoking the provisions of Section 35G(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, the Central Excise Department has filed the present application seeking reference to the High Court, on the issue of law as formulated by them, pleading the same to have been arising out of this Bench's order No. 233-234/90WRB dated 18-5-1990, in appeal No. 810/90SB (WR) filed by the Respondents herein.2. The facts relevant for the purpose are that Supdt. of Central Excise, Akola had issued a Show Cause Notice dated 5-9-1985 to the Respondents raising a demand for Rs. 8178.50 as differential duty payable for the period April 1984 to May 1985, and the Assistant Collector vide his order dated 26-11-1986 dropped the said Show Cause Notice. The Additional Collector of Central Excise, Nagpur, however, by issue of Memorandum dated 20-3-1989, issued a fresh show cause notice, raising -the said demand over again, by mentioning that the said proceedings were pending before the Assistant Collector on 27-11-1...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. C.P. Shukla Pumps, Kopran
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1991
Reported in: (1991)(37)LC7Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Invoking the provisions of Section 35G(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, the Departmental authorities have filed these applications, seeking reference to the concerned High Courts, in relation to the questions of law, duly formulated by them in their respective applications, pleading that those questions of law arise out of various orders passed by this Bench, as detailed below:Ref. Appln. Bench's Order Appeal No. High Court Remarks No. No. and date to which referenceE/Ref-7/91 1812/90 E/195/89 Gujarat -- dt. 1.11.1990E/Ref-9/91 2053/57/90 dt. E/632/90 Bombay Single RefAppln for both 30.11.1990 E/645/90 the appeals.E/Ref-10/91 714-737/90 E/120/90 Bombay Single RefAppl No 12/91 to dt. 10.5.1990 E/134/90 for AppealNos. 148/90E/Ref-13/91 E/145- and 150/90and Ref App and 148/90 No 19/91 for Appeal Nos.E/Ref-15/91 E/150/90 134/90 and135/90E/Ref-22/91 2217- E/109/90 Bombay and 2224/90 dt. E/l11/90 (For RefE/Ref-29/91 28.12.1990 E/137- E/22/91 to 139/90 Appeal No.E/Ref-35/91 E...
Dr. Ajay S/O Kisanlal Soni and anr. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1991
Reported in: 1992(2)BomCR152
A.A. Halbe, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith.The short question for consideration is about the guidelines required to be observed in granting Police Custody Remand. 2. The petitioners/accused have approached this Court challenging the order of Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, in Criminal Revision Application No. 242 of 1991, preferred by the State the learned Judicial magistrate, First Class, granting the Police Custody Remand of the present petitioners for three days, settings aside the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, granting Magisterial Custody Remand to the present petitioner. The petitioner No. 1 is the son of petitioner No. 2 and both are Medical Practitioners at village Kasoda, tq. Erandol, District Jalgaon. 3. The events, which have led to their arrest on 5-9-1991 can be elucidated as follows. The deceased Shobhana, the daughter of Ganpati Kashiram Naval was married to petitioner No. 1 Dr. Ajay Soni in December, 1985. She was also doctor having acquired ...
Ramchandra Balu Magadum (Desai) Vs. Smt. Rakhamabai Balu Magadum (Desa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1991
Reported in: (1991)93BOMLR716; 1992CriLJ1919; 1992(1)MhLj165
ORDER1. These petitions have their origin in an application moved by the 1st Respondent hereinafter referred to as 'Rakhamabai' seeking maintenance u/S. 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Code). 2. Petitioner Ramchandra is the adoptive son of Rakhamabai having been adopted by that lady on 29th June 1964. Rakhamabai was at the date of the adoption the widow of Balu Maruti who had expired on 22nd February 1960. The adoption was recorded in a deed of adoption which was subsequently got registered. In the deed itself the ages of Rakhamabai and Ramchandra were shown as 30 and 11 years respectively. Balu had left behind a mother also and that lady is still alive. It is conceded before me that Ramchandra is the natural son of Balu's full sister. Shortly after the adoption Rukhamabai left the matrimonial home. Balu at the time of his death was possessed of agricultural land and possibly a house at village Yevti, Taluka Karad, District Satara. Some part of the agricultural land was acqui...
Shantaram Ramchandra Pawaskar and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1991
Reported in: 1991(4)BomCR311
S.M. Daud, J.1. The point for consideration in this petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Code) is the legality or otherwise of a Metropolitan Magistrate's refusal to revoke orders purporting to fall under sub-section (1) of sections 145 and 146 of the Code.2. Room No. 29, Sukh Sadan, Denawadi---hereinafter referred to as 'Room No. 29' was in the occupation of Radhabai surve as a tenant. Radhabai lived in the room with her son Dattatraya. The mother and son having died, a dispute arose between two factions referred to as 'parties Nos. 1 and 2'. Party No. 1 claimed to be a sub-tenant of Radhabai residing in the room and doing business in pickles. Party No. 2 claimed to have become entitled to use the room by virtue of having performed the obsequies of Dattatraya. The L.T. Marg Police Station on 31st December, 1990 submitted a report in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 28 pleading that room No. 29 had become a bone of contention between the t...
Bombay Dyeing and Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-1991
Reported in: (1993)(44)LC101Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is directed against the order in appeal No. ADN-831/90 dated 13.9.1990 confirming the order in original No. G/II/12/90 dated 31.1.1990, rejecting the appellants' claim for refund of Rs. 31,890.60.2. The appellants filed refund claim for the said amount which was received in the office of Asstt. Collector on 16.3.1989. The claim was based on the plea that by virtue of order in appeal dt. 11.2.1988 the matter was readjudicated upon by the Addl. Collector on 1.2.1989, dropping the demand and the amount that was paid pursuant to the initial order in original had become liable to be refunded. As the amount of duty for which the refund was claimed was paid on 24.9.1986, it was felt that the demand was barred by the period of limitation provided under Section 1 IB of CESA and that the same was not paid under protest in due compliance with the provisions of Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules and as such not payable and therefor a show cause notice dated 14.12.1989 was issued...
Burlingtons of Bombay Vs. Third Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-1991
Reported in: (1992)40ITD384(Mum.)
1. to 4. [These paras arc not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.] 5. The assessee is a registered firm engaged in the business of manufacturing and dealing in readymade garments and fabrics. During the year under appeal, (assessment year 1984-85), the assessee had claimed deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act on export turnover of Rs. 40,28,057, out. of which direct exports by the assessee are to the tune of Rs. 18,13,604. The rest of the sales which are claimed as export sales were sales effected by the appellant in its shop situated in Taj Mahal Hotel. The ITO took the stand that deduction under Section 80HHC is allowable only on exports made by the assessee out of India since in respect of such exports, the assessee earns convertible foreign exchange. He, therefore, allowed deduction under Section 80HHC on the FOB value of direct export sales during the year of Rs. 16,13,473.Against this finding, the assessee went in appeal. The CIT (Appeals) disposed of this issue ve...
Dharamaji Gangaram Gholem and Others Vs. Vithoba Soma Khade and Anothe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-1991
Reported in: (1991)93BOMLR659; 1992CriLJ870; 1992(1)MhLj118
ORDER1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 takes exception to the order passed below Ex. 1 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri in Criminal Revision Application No. 36 of 1986. 2. Respondent No. 1 - hereinafter referred to as the 'complainant' - filed a private complaint in the Court of J.M.F.C. at Devrukh which was registered as Criminal Case No. 19 of 1984. The said complaint ascribed to the petitioner-accused commission of offences punishable under Ss. 417 and 420 read with S. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate acquitted the accused on 30-6-1986. The complainant assailed the acquittal by a revision to the Sessions Court at Ratnagiri. A doubt was expressed as to the maintainability of the revision and the A.P.P. was directed to put in an appearance so that the maintainability of the revision could be decided after a proper hearing. The A.P.P. contended that the revision did not lie an...