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.
Rallis India Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-1991
Reported in: 1992LC177(Bombay); 1991(55)ELT493(Bom)
Savant, J.1. By this Petition, the Petitioners are challenging the legality & validity of the order dated 4th August 1984 passed by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Bombay, under which the petitioners' claim for certain deductions on account of the same being post manufacturing expenses has been rejected. Since, however, the matter has now to be sent back to the Assistant Collector, only a few facts may be stated as under :- 2. The First Petitioner Company manufactures table fans. In respect of the said articles of manufacture, they had submitted certain price-lists. In the light of the Judgments of the Supreme Court, the Petitioner Company submitted the amended price-lists and claimed deduction for the period commencing from 1st September 1971. The deductions claimed were on account of : (i) Marketing and Distribution; (ii) Advertising attributable to selling activity; (iii) Freight; and (iv) Interest. In March 1977, the Petitioner Company submitted a further price-list cla...
Vomayya Babu Shetty Vs. Digvijay Spinning and Weaving Mills and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-1991
Reported in: (1992)ILLJ691Bom
1. The petitioner-workman was in the employment of the first respondent Mills as a fitter since 1963 and was working as an erection fitter at the relevant time. He was served with a charge-sheet on December 9, 1976 that on that day at about 11.00 a.m. when he was searched by a watchman on duty, he was found in possession of half broken brass bush and four small pieces of brass in his back pocket and thus committed a misconduct under Standing Order 21(d). After the petitioner gave a detailed reply to the said charge sheet on December 18, 1976, a departmental enquiry was held against him in consequence of which he was dismissed from service with effect from December 25, 1976. He, therefore, carried the matter to the Labour Court at Bombay presided over by the second respondent by filing Application (LCB) No. 202 of 1977. The learned Labour Judge held that the domestic enquiry conducted against the petitioner was legal and proper and in accordance with law. Thereafter, by a judgment and o...
Ram Naresh Tripati Vs. S.D. Rane and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-1991
Reported in: [1991(63)FLR646]; (1992)IILLJ519Bom; 1991(1)MhLj1159
1. In this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution what falls for my consideration is an important question of law as to the interpretation of the provisions of Section 22(ii) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the MRTU and PULP Act') 2. The petitioner workman was an employee of the third respondent company. He was charge-sheeted on November 29, 1980 on certain allegations of misconduct. A domestic inquiry was ordered to inquire into his alleged acts of misconduct, which was fixed for hearing on December 2, 1980 and adjourned to December 6, 1980. It is the case of the petitioner that he requested the Inquiry Officer to allow him to be defended by one Talreja who claimed to be an office-bearer of the Bombay Mazdoor Union of which the petitioner was a member. It was also the case of the petitioner that the said Talreja was authorized to defend the members of his union at the domestic i...
Haffkine Biopharmaceutical Corporation Ltd. Vs. V.M. Patki and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-1991
Reported in: (1993)IIILLJ948Bom
Saldanha, J.1. The appellants, Haffkine Biopharmaceutical Corporation Limited, have preferred the present appeal, which is directed against the judgment and order of the learned single Judge dated 17/18th September, 1987 in Writ Petition No. 612 of 1983. The present appellants, through that petition, had challenged an order of the Presiding Officer, 6th Labour Court, Bombay, passed on Application (IDA) No. 623 of 1982 dated 29.1.1983. By that order, the Presiding Officer had allowed the application filed before him under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The applicant, who had retired from the services of the appellants on 31.7.1981, had contended that he was entitled to claim the equivalent of gratuity amount payable to him for his tenure of service. It is essential to mention that the present appellants, as indicated above, took over the services of the employees of the erstwhile Haffkine Institute on and from 1.9.1975, on which date the appellants came into exist...
Bhujangrao S/O Pratiba Jadhav and anr. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-1991
Reported in: 1992(2)BomCR198
M.S. Vaidya, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith.A.P.P. waives notice.Dead body of one Anandibai w/o Koutikrao Jadhav i.e. the wife of petitioner No. 2 was found in a field at village Borgaon (BK), Taluka Jafrabad, Dist. Jalna on 5-3-1991. Some woman reported that fact at the house of Anandibai and the matter was reported in course of time, to Jafrabad Police Station. It was found from the medical report that she had died of throttling. The matter was reported to the parents of and brothers of deceased Anandibai. The brother of Anandibai lodged first information report at Jafrabad Police Station, alleging therein that the present petitioners and one Leelabai w/o Ramchandra Pandit were responsible for causing the death of Anandibai. An offence punishable under section 302, 498-A, 201 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code came to be registered against the said persons and the present petitioners were arrested on 7-3-1991. Previous attempts for seeking bail failed in the Courts below a...
MexIn Medicaments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-1991
Reported in: (1995)(77)ELT392Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) bearing No. M-498/BD-291/96, dated 26-11-1986 rejecting the appellants'appeal.2. The facts of the case are that the appellants being the manufacturers of medicaments, removed on payment of duty certain medicines (76,800 bottles) in January-February 1983. They were found to have been crystallised and hence were required to be reprocessed. Hence the goods have been called back. A quantity of 57,459 bottles were received and at the time of their receipt in their factory, D-3 declaration was furnished and they were taken into the prescribed record. Thereafter, they were issued for reprocessing after assigning the batch numbers. The goods were reprocessed and 53,514 bottles were cleared on payment of duty again and hence refund claim has been filed under Rule 173L, which was rejected by the Asstt. Collector, on the ground that the appellants have mixed the goods received for reprocessing with other non-duty paid...
Autofiled Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-1991
Reported in: (1992)LC385Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal directed against the order in appeal No. 1634/87 BCH dated 1-4-1988 passed by the Collector (Appeals).2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are manufacturers of engine valves. They imported a consignment of welding electrodes valued at Rs. 29,957/-. These Welding Electrodes are required for their actual use in the manufacture of engine valves and they claimed clearance under OGL Appendix 6, Serial No. 554 which reads as "Welding Electrodes". However, the department objected to their clearance under OGL on the ground that they are composed of Nickel Alloy and they are in the form of rods and hence would be covered by the specific description under Sr. No. 547 of Appendix 3 Part A of Policy 85-88 and hence would require a specific licence. In the adjudication proceedings initiated by the Deputy Collector, goods were ordered confiscation and a fine of Rs. 30,000/- was imposed. When the matter was taken up in appeal, the appellants pleaded that the goods ha...
Smt. Sugandhabai and Others Vs. Vasant Ganpat Deobhat and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-1991
Reported in: 1992(2)BomCR560; 1992CriLJ1838; 1992(1)MhLj427
ORDER1. Criminal Application No. 46 of 1989 is a proceedings initiated under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Criminal Application No. 585 of 1991 was filed initially as Criminal Revision petition, but under the orders passed today, the same was allowed to be converted into an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Both of these applications involve a common question of law, and the facts are more or less similar. Therefore, with the consent of the Advocates for the parties, the same are being disposed of by a common judgment. Both of them are petitions made by wives, whose claim under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance has been disallowed by both the Courts below. 2. The facts, as-much-as they are relevant for the purposes of this decision in Criminal Application No. 46 of 1989 are as follows. The petitioner-wife had preferred an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, bearing Criminal Mi...
Phenoweld Polymer Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-1991
Reported in: 1991LC13(Bombay); 1991(56)ELT43(Bom)
Pendse, J. 1. The petitioner No. 1 Company carries on manufacture of Moulded Plastic Articles at their factory at Saki Vihar Lake Road, Bombay-400 072. The items manufactured by the petitioners were liable to payment of excise duty under Tariff Item 15(A) (2) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Finance Bill, 1975 introduced Tariff Item No. 68, which is residuary item, to the First Schedule of the Act and thereupon the Department claimed that the duty on moulded plastic articles manufactured by the petitioners shall be paid under Tariff Item 68 instead of Tariff Item 15(a) (2). The petitioners paid the duty under mistaken belief that the claim of the Department is correct. 2. On October 19, 1978, the petitioners informed the Assistant Collector that the products manufactured by them are liable to payment of duty under Tariff Item 15-A(2) and not under Tariff Item No. 68. The Assistant Collector accepted the contention by order dated January 16, 1979 and ...
Voltas Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-1991
Reported in: 1992LC24(Bombay); 1991(56)ELT329(Bom)
Pendse, J. 1. Both these petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be conveniently disposed of by common judgment as the issues raised in these two petitions are identical. The facts giving rise to the filing of these two petitions are as follows : 2. The petitioner No. 1 is the Company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the manufacture of Air-conditioners, water coolers and refrigerators. The Company manufactures various models of air-conditioners, water coolers and domestic refrigerators at their factory at Thane and the manufactured goods are delivered to the customers. The manufactured goods of the Company are liable to payment of excise duty under Item No. 29A of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and the rate of duty is ad valorem. Prior to the year 1980, the Company removed the goods manufactured on the basis of the prices which included the post-manufacturing costs and expenses. In view...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »