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.
K.T. Steel Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-1991
Reported in: (1993)(45)LC285Tri(Mum.)bai
1. There is a delay of 25 days in filing the appeal, for which a condonation application has been moved. Shri Bharat, the Id. advocate pleaded that the impugned order was received by the appellants on 21.11.1986 and the appeal ought to have been filed on or before 21.2.1987. But the appeal was filed on 18.3.1987. The delay is mainly on account of the fact that their General Manager, Shri Nadkarni, looking after excise matters, died on 13.11.1986 and the factory was taken over by the Receiver and hence was closed since 1982 onwards.Hence normal working was disrupted. Shri Mondal, however stated that even, when the order was received, the factory was closed and it is reported to be closed till date. Hence, this is not a satisfactory explanation. After hearing both the sides, we observe that during the material period, the General Manager of the firm died and this could have caused disruption in the normal working even in the administrative office and hence, we take a liberal view to con...
M/S. M.J. Brothers Vs. Amar Finance and Estate
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Bom1; 1992(2)BomCR397; 1991(2)MhLj1144
ORDERBharucha, J. 1. An interesting question is raised in this appeal in regard to the obligation of the court in transactions covered by the Bombay Money-lenders Act, 1946. 2. The respondents are money-lenders. They had made various advances to the appellants prior to 30th November 1979. They filed against the appellants a Summary Suit (being Summary Suit No. 1332 of 1980) for the recovery of Rs. 3,41,917/-, whereof Rs. 3,00,000/- was the principal amount. The appellants filed in that suit a petition under Section 30 of the Act for taking an account of the transactions between themselves and the respondents. An agreement was then arrivedat and recorded on 19th June 1981. Thereunder the appellants agreed to pay to the respondents the sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- without interest, by the instalments therein mentioned. The summary suit was withdrawn and the petition u/S. 30 dismissed. The appellants committed defaults in making payment of the instalments provided under the agreement. Thereupon ...
William Jacks and Co. (India) Ltd. Vs. Nilima Dinesh Prasad and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Bom126; 1991(3)BomCR541
ORDER1. The plaintiffs have filed this suit for a declaration that the plaintiffs are the owners of Flat No. 31-A situate on the 3rd floor of the building known as Darshan Apartments, Mount Pleasant Road, Bombay, and of Garage No. 35 situate thereat and of 125 shares of defendant No. 3 Society represented by Share Certificates Nos. 28, 86 and 122 and for a negative declaration that defendant No. 1 and/or defendant No. 2have no right, title or interest in the said flat or the said garage or the said shares and for a direction against defendants Nos. 1 and 2 to do all things necessary to complete the title of the plaintiffs in respect of the said flat, the said garage and the said shares.2. By this notice of motion, the plaintiffshave sought an interim injunction restraining the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 from proceeding with R.A.F. & R. Suit No. 918/4826 of 1976 filed in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay against the plaintiffs till the hearing and final disposal of this suit.3. This noti...
K. Hargovind Das and Co. (Exports) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-1991
Reported in: 1991LC20(Bombay); 1992(57)ELT43(Bom)
Pendse, J. 1. While summarily dismissing this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, we propose to direct the Prothonotary and Senior Master to file prosecution against petitioner No. 2 for intentionally making a false declaration which is by law receivable as evidence. We are prima facie satisfied that petitioner No. 2 has used as true the declaration known to be false and made in Paragraph 15 of the petition. The facts leading to the filing of this petition are as follows : 2. The petitioner No. 1 is a Private Limited Company carrying on business of export and petitioner No. 2 Mansukhlal Chhaganlal Desai is the Director of the Company. The petitioners in the course of their business, imported five consignments of Mono Ethylene Glycol in March 1983. The Customs Authorities assessed the goods under Customs Tariff Item No. 29.01 for the purpose of Customs duty and under Tariff Item No. 68 for the purpose of additional duty/countervailing duty. The Customs au...
industrial Plastic Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-1991
Reported in: 1992(57)ELT390(Bom)
M.L. Pendse, J.1. The petitioner No. 1 is the Private Limited Company and, inter alia, manufactures Phenol resin. The phenolic resin is manufactured in various forms, namely, lump, solid, liquid and powder. The basic ingredients of phenolic resin are phenol and formaldehyde and the phenolic resin is the result of Phenol and Formaldehyde being re-acted with each other. Prior to June 1, 1971 the Phenolic resin and phenolic moulding powder were assessed for the purposes of excise duty under Item No. 15A of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and the duty payable was 40% ad valorem. On June 1, 1971, the Government of India, in exercise of powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 issued Exemption Notification whereby artificial or synthetic resins specified in Notification and falling under Item No. 15A of the First Schedule was exempted from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon as is in excess of the rate specified in t...
Patel Aluminium Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-1991
Reported in: 1991LC511(Bombay); 1991(56)ELT303(Bom)
A.V. Savant, J. 1. The first petitioner is a company manufacturing some aluminium products namely extruded shapes and sections, slugs etc. falling under Tariff Entry 27. From November 1980 onwards, the petitioner-Company filed the price list claiming deductions on account of certain items alleged to be post manufacturing expenses. Along with that price list they filed their Chartered Account's certificate specifying the percentage of post-manufacturing expenses. However, the petitioner's claim was rejected. After filing the appeal, which was dismissed, the petitioners had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 470 of 1981. At the stage of admission of the said writ petition, the impugned orders were set aside with liberty to the assessing authorities to pass fresh orders in accordance with law. In the meanwhile the petitioners were allowed to clear the goods on certain terms. 2. Pursuant to the orders passed on 9th April 1981 in Writ petition No. 470 of 1981, the petitioners were heard again....
Maharashtra State Co-operative Cotton Growers' Marketing Federation Lt ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)BomCR485
D.R. Dhanuka, J.1. On 4th July, 1986, the petitioner No. 1 (who was then the sole petitioner) filed this petition under section 33 of the Arbitration Act. 1940, impugning the original Award dated 3rd May, 1985 made by respondents Nos. 2 and 3 Arbitrators appointed under the Bye-laws of the East India Cotton Association Limited as well as the Appellate Award dated 7th February, 1986 made by the Board of Directors of the said Association in the appeal as permissible under the Bye-laws of the said Association. The impugned Awards were in terms made against petitioner No. 2 alone and not against the petitioner No. 1. However, the petitioner No. 1 filed this petition impugning the above-referred Awards its capacity as alleged successor in business of the petitioner No. 2. Even the notice of filing of the Appellate Award was served by this Court on the petitioner No. 2. By several affidavits filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1 in whose favour the impugned Awards were made as aforesaid, i...
Gawaji Alias Gawaja Sawleram Sarode Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-1991
Reported in: 1991(3)BomCR585
N.P. Chapalgaonker, J.1. An interesting point has been raised in this petition whether a candidate who has lost election and has filed Election Petition under section 15 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 succeeds in proving that returned candidate was not qualified to be elected, would be entitled for a declaration that he is elected in place of the returned candidate.2. Election to Village Panchayat, Wadule in Newasa taluka took place on 19-6-1989 and respondent No. 5 herein was declared elected for Ward No. 3. It was the case of the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 is a Christian and does not belong to any of the recognised Scheduled Castes. Since the seat is reserved for the Scheduled Castes respondent No. 5 is not entitled to contest the said election. On this ground, the election came to be challenged by way of Election Petition bearing No. 2 of 1989 before the Civil Judge, Junior Division at Newasa. It was contended by the present petitioner in that Election Petition...
Tipco, Industrial Plastic Corpora Vs. Union of India (Uoi), M.C. Thaku ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-1991
Reported in: 1991(37)LC588(Bombay)
M.L. Pendse, J.1. The petitioner No. 1 is the Private Limited Company and, inter alia, manufactures Phenol resin. The phenolic resin is manufactured in various forms, namely, lump, solid, liquid and powder. The basic ingredients of phenolic resin are phenol and Formaldehyde and the phenolic resin is the result of Phenol and Formaldehyde being reacted with each other. Prior to June 1,1971 the Phenolic resin and phenolic moulding powder were assessed for the purposes of excise duty under Item No. 15-A of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and the duty payable was 40% ad valorem. On June 1, 1971, the Government of India, in exercise of powers conferred by Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 issued Exemption Notification whereby artificial or synthetic resins specified in Notification and falling under Item No. 15A of the First Schedule was exempted from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon as is in excess of the rate specified in th...
Kitab Mahal P. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-1991
Reported in: (1992)(62)ELT460Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is directed against the order in original No.S/10-80/84G dated 9-5-1984 of the Addl. Collector of Customs, Bombay, ordering confiscation of the consignment comprising of one second-hand Adast Dominant 72 H.P. Two colour offset printing machine as also one Sona stove and two Rubber Blankets vide Section 111(d) of the Customs Act read with Section 3(2) of the Import & Export (Control) Act but granting option to pay a fine of Rs. 30,000/- in lieu of confiscation for the items other than Sona stove.2. The appellant filed B/E for clearance of the Offset printing machine claiming clearance thereof under OGL Appx. 10(3) read with Appx.1(12)/18 of AM 82-83 Policy. On examination, the consignment, besides printing machine, was found to have contained one Sona stove and two Rubber blankets, though the same were not reflected either in the invoice or B/E. The B/E was accompanied by a certificate of the Chartered Engineer indicating the date of manufacture of the said machine a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »