Mumbai Court July 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.
Maharashtra Elektrosmelt Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1991
Reported in: (1991)93BOMLR389
M.M. Qazi, J.1. The mining lease for iron on over 515-00 acres (= 321-89 hectares) in village Lohara in Bramhapuri Tahsil of Chandrapur district was originally granted to M/s. SICOM vide Government order dated 31.10.1974 for 20 years. The lease was executed on 17.6.1975. The lease was subsequently transferred in favour of the petitioner by an agreement dated 6.1.1977. However, possession of the land under lease was not delivered at the time of execution of the agreement. The Collector, Chandrapur, wrote a letter to the petitioner on 15/18.1.1977 (Annexure C) in respect of two mining leases; one regarding Lohara (referred supra) and another regarding Lohara mine, both situated in Bramhapuri Tahsil of Chandrapur district, asking the petitioner to make necessary arrangement for taking over possession of the lands under leases immediately. The Collector also directed the Tahsildar, Bramhapuri, and the Divisional Forest Officer (East) Chanda Division, to hand over possession of the lands un...
Darayas Cawasji Balsara Vs. Shenaz Darayas Balsara
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Bom175
1. There is a controversy between the parties as to whether M. P. Kania, J. (as he then was), had delivered his judgment in open Court on 31st July 1989 and it merely remained to be signed. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. P. Kania is now a Judge of the High Court of Allahabad. According to the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff, on 31st July 1989, the learned Judge had dictated his judgment in open Court. Mr. M. Janardhanan, Advocate for the Defendant, says that the judgment was not delivered by the learned Judge in the open Court. Miss. A. Rodrigues was the Registrar of Parsi Chief Matrimonial Court, Bombay, on that day and throughout the session which lasted upto 11th August 1989. In view of the above controversy, I have thought it fit to request Miss Rodrigues, who is now functioning as Deputy Official Assignee, to produce the primary record maintained by the Court in this behalf. In the Minute-book maintained by the Registrar Miss Rodrigues, it is recorded at page 78 as under :--'Monday;...
Indian Organic Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1991
Reported in: 1992LC171(Bombay); 1991(56)ELT54(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. The controversy in this petition stands concluded by decisions of two Division Benches of this Court. To appreciate the controversy, it is necessary to set out few facts. 2. Petitioner No. 1 is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act and carries on business in imports of various chemicals and other materials. The Company imported 499.998 Metric Tonnes of 2-Ethylhexanol (Octanol) from the foreign suppliers. The Company filed Bills of Entry for clearance on November 8, 1983 on arrival of the goods. The petitioners claim that while computing the customs duty it is not permissible to include expenses incurred after import of the goods. The goods were liable to be classified under the Customs Tariff Item No. 2901/45 and there was no dispute in respect of basic customs duty and the auxiliary duty. The customs authorities insisted on determinating the additional duty by including customs duty while determining the assessable value. The petitioners feeling aggrieved by the ...
Gokak Patel Volkart Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1991
Reported in: 1992LC17(Bombay); 1991(56)ELT56(Bom)
Pendse, J.Rule, returnable forthwith. Shri Bulchandani waives service on behalf of the respondents. Heard counsel. 1. The question which falls for determination lies in a very narrow compass. Only few facts are required to be stated to appreciate the grievance of the petitioners. 2. The petitioners were agents of a foreign flag vessel which had called in Bombay in or about middle of July 1984. The petitioners had filed Import General Manifest dated July 16, 1984. The vessel inter alia brought three full container load containers under three bills of lading. As declared by the shippers, the containers had 12 pallets stuffed in two containers, while 11 pallets in the third container. The vessel discharged the manifested quantity, including the three containers with their seals intact in the Bombay Port Trust Docks and thereafter the vessels sailed from Bombay. 3. The petitioners received show cause notice dated August 29, 1988 from respondent No. 1 alleging that under Item Nos. 75, 76 an...
Rotogravurs Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1991
Reported in: 1992LC173(Bombay); 1992(57)ELT407(Bom)
1. The petitioner is a manufacturing unit inter alia carrying out job work of re-engraving on second-hand rollers. The petitioner filed classification list dated October 5, 1985 for classification of the product as non-excisable on the ground that the process does not amount to manufacture. The petitioners claimed that CEGAT had also decided in the case reported in (M/s. Uday Textile Engineering) that the work undertaken by the petitioner does not amount to manufacture. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise by order dated January 21, 1986 accepted the claim of the petitioner. 2. The Superintendent of Central Excise by letter dated February 17, 1986 directed the petitioner to file advance classification list in view of the new Tariff Act becoming effective from March 1, 1986. The petitioner filed classification list on February 24, 1986 and pointed out earlier order dated January 21, 1986 passed by respondent No. 3 approving the product as non-excisable. The Superintendent of Centra...
Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1991
Reported in: 1992LC168(Bombay); 1991(55)ELT483(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging decision recorded by CEGAT confirming the order passed by the appellate authority and Assistant Collector rejecting the refund claim on the ground that the claim is barred by provisions of Section 27 of the Customs Act. The facts lies in a narrow compass and are required to be briefly stated to appreciate the grievance of the petitioners. 2. The petitioners imported liquid paraffin by two separate consignments in March, 1977. The petitioners presented bill of entry and paid customs duty under Tariff Item 27.10(1) at the rate of 40% and auxiliary duty at the rate of 5%. The petitioners claimed that the collection of countervailing duty by the Customs authorities was not justified under Excise Tariff Item No. 11A. The Department did not accept the claim and as the petitioners were keen to clear the goods, the countervailing duty/additional duty at the rate of 20% ad valorem...
Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-1991
Reported in: (1995)(76)ELT121Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal directed against the order of the Collector (Appeals) bearing No. PPM.1446/BI-722/87, dated 26-5-1988. rejecting the appellants' appeal.2. The undisputed factual position is that the appellants filed a provisional AR-I for Budget day clearance and paid duty in advance, on assessment made by the proper officer. However, since no clearance took place on the Budget day, the final ARI was assessed to 'Nil' duty. The amount of Rs. 6763.80, which was paid under provisional AR I was claimed as refund of duty by making suitable endorsement on the RT 12 return for the month of February. It, however, was not considered by the Supdt. and the appellants were directed to file a regular refund claim, which came to be filed before the Asstt. Collector beyond a period of six months. Hence, refund claim was rejected as time barred.Appeal against the said order was also rejected.3. After hearing both the sides, I find that the payment on provisional AR I was itself a deposit in res...
Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Vs. Collector of C. Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-1991
Reported in: (1995)(76)ELT165Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal directed against the order in appeal bearing No.R-466/B.II/90, dated 6-2-1991 rejecting the appellants appeal.2. The appellants claimed refund of duty in respect of gate pass, which was cancelled. While submitting the RT-12 returns, they requested the Supdt. for making suitable credit in respect of the cancelled Gate Pass, which was, however, refused and the appellants were directed to file a regular refund claim. When the refund claim came to be filed, it was rejected as time-barred since it was filed beyond a period of six months. The appeal against the said order was also rejected.3. Shri Naik, the ld. JDR for the Department pleaded that the appellants have made the consolidated debit for all gate passes in the PLA. When the Gate Pass was cancelled, there was no necessity for them to include the amount covered by the Gate Pass for purpose of consolidated debit in the PLA. The appellants, need not have to debit this amount. Having debited this amount themselves,...
Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Panvel Industrial Co- ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-1991
Reported in: 1992ACJ503; AIR1992Bom107; 1991(1)MhLj945
1. The only point involved in this appeal is whether there was a concluded contract of insurance between the parties on 24th December, 1973 so as to foist liability upon the insurance company, the appellant herein.2. A few facts are as follows :--The respondent has constructed 28 sheds at Panvel in 1973. Out of those 28 sheds, shed standing on plot No. 54 was allotted to one Mr. Jani who was having partnership business in the name of Synthetic Esters and Chemicals. One Mr. V. B. Shaha was workingas an agent of the appellant insurance company. On 24th December, 1973, he approached the respondent's Manager for the purpose of insuring those 28 sheds with the appellant. Mr. Shaha ascertained the premium and a cheque of Rs. 3,800/- was paid by the Manager of the respondent. In token thereof, Mr. Shaha also signed on counterfoil. On the next day in the morning, the shed which was standing on plot No. 54 caught fire and was damaged extensively. The Manager of the respondent informed this to M...
Kulkarni Black and Decker Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-1991
Reported in: 1991LC377(Bombay); 1992(57)ELT401(Bom)
Pendse, J. 1. The petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, and carries on business of manufacturing electrically operated hand tools. The integral components of power tools are certain parts known as rotors and stator which are assembled in power tools so as to form the driving mechanism of the tools. A typical power tool has a gear box attached to a rotor at one end and is fixed at the other end to the body of the power tool. The rotor turns inside a stator and which is fixed inside the body of the tool. The rotor and stator assembly when energised with electric current produces a driving force which in turn drives the gear box and produces a motion in the gear box. The rotor and stator assembly forms driving mechanism of electrically operated power tool and is referred to as 'a motor'. The rotor and stator were classified by the petitioners as parts of electric motors and designated as 'wheel motors' and 'work motors'. The 'wheel motors' and 'work motors' w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »