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.
Avelino De Souza Vs. Chairman, Administrative Tribunal and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)BomCR334
E.S. Da Silva, J.1. The petitioner is the landlord of a building bearing House No. 123/2, situated at Duler, Mapusa, Goa and respondent No. 3 (hereinafter called ' the respondent' is the tenant of the petitioner. The rent payable in respect of the said building was Rs. 20/- per month. Since the respondent was in arrears of rent for a period of 24 months, from October, 1977 to September, 1979, in the total amount of Rs. 480/- the petitioner filed an application in October 1979 before the Rent Controller (hereinafter called the Controller), under section 22(l)(a) c the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 (hereinafter called the Act) after serving on him a notice for payment of the said rents. The respondent before filing his written statement raised a dispute under section 32(3) of the Act, by his application dated 11-12-1979, claiming that the rents were paid by him upto September, 1978 and when in November, 1978 he had taken the rent for October. 1...
Asaram Sitaram Padole Vs. Yadaorao Raghobaji Hatwar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-1991
Reported in: (1991)93BOMLR994
B.U. Wahane, J.1. By this criminal revision application, the applicant has challenged the order dated 6.2.1990 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhandara, releasing the accused on bail on his executing P.R. Bond with one surety in the like amount.2. Mr. Padole, the applicant, submitted that because of the death his daughter, an offence is registered against the non-applicant No. 1 Yadavrao, under Sections 304-B, 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. According to him the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhandara has no jurisdiction to release the accused on bail, the non-applicant No. I being involved in a case exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. Therefore, according to him, the Judicial Magistrate, First Class. Bhandara, has exceeded his powers and therefore, the order be set aside and the non-applicant No. 1 be directed either to produce himself or he be taken in the custody.3. Shri Qazi, the learned counsel for the non-applicant No. 1 filed reply to the applica...
Avtar Singh and Co. P. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1991
Reported in: (1993)(63)ELT295Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is directed against the order in original bearing No. 19 of 1989, dated 2-2-1989 passed by the Addl. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-I confirming the demand of duty of Rs. 23,533.13 in respect of 163 video cassettes vide Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and also imposing personal penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on the present appellants.2. On the information received, the business premises of the appellants were searched on 23-6-1984, when 163 Video Cassettes of Tamil Film 'Darling Darling Darling' were found. The appellants stated that they had purchased the video rights from M/s. Vigranth Creations, Madras and had recorded the cassettes without payment of central excise duty.They, however, claimed exemption under Notification No. 102/82, dated 28-2-1982 pleading that the cassettes were not intended for sale or for promotion of sale but were meant to be rented out to Cassette Libraries. A show cause notice dat...
Christiani and Nielsen Vs. First Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1991
Reported in: (1991)39ITD355(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for assessment year 1984-85. The only dispute in this appeal is regarding the taxability of Rs. 20,11,527 being the fee received by the assessee under the agreement dated 8-4-1982 for conducting preliminary studies, collection and assimilation of data and finally preparing a feasibility report with regard to Trans-Harbour Communication Link between the Island city of Bombay and the Mainland.2. Assessee is a Public Limited Company registered in Denmark. It entered into an agreement with an Indian concern, Steering Group, constituted vide Resolution No. BML-1081/D-32 dated 27-2-1981 by the Government of Maharashtra within J. R.D. Tata as its Chairman. The Special Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Shri M.S.Palnitkar, the Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Shri R.T.Atre, the Vice-Chairman of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Shri P.G. Patankar, the President an...
Devidayal Non-ferrous Indust. Vs. Fourth Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1991
Reported in: (1993)44ITD387(Mum.)
1. In this appeal by the assessee, only ground taken is that relief under Section 80-1 of the Income-tax Act should have been allowed.2. Previous year relevant to this appeal comprised of the period of twelve months from 1-5-1980 to 30-4-1981. Assessee-company took over an old rolling mill from 1-7-1979 and claimed that it had scrapped the old plant and machinery and had invested further sums in installing the new plant and machinery. It claimed that the new unit commenced production with effect from 15-4-1981 and hence it became entitled to relief under Section 80-1, being deduction of 25 per cent of the profits of the new unit. The ITO rejected the claim and against that original assessment order, assessee went in appeal to the CIT (Appeals), who restored this aspect of the matter to the file of the ITO with a direction that a speaking order should be passed in regard to the assessee's claim for relief under Section 80-1. The ITO, in pursuance of that appellate order, passed order d...
H.H. Datar (Dr.) A.M.O. Vs. P.S. Shivram, Gen. Manager, India Security ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1991
Reported in: [1991(63)FLR519]; (1995)IIILLJ44Bom
ORDERH.H. Kantharia, J.1. In this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner-workman, on his behalf and on behalf of 19 others, challenges the order dated July 26, 1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Central Government Labour Court No. 1 rejecting the applications under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act').2. The relevant facts giving rise to this writ petition are as under:There are two groups of applications, viz. application Nos LCB 417 to 427 of 1972 filed by 11 applicants under Section 33C(2) of the Act in the year 1922 in the Labour Court presided over by the second Respondent. The second group of application Nos. 319 to 327 of 1981 were filed in the same Court by the other set of workmen in the year 1981 under the same provisions of law.3. It was the case of the applicants therein that they were working in various capacities in the dispensary attached to the factory of the India Se...
Kashinath Laxman Gawali Datta Prasad Vs. the General Manager, Hindusth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-1991
Reported in: (1994)IIILLJ1097Bom
H.H. Kantharia, J.1. The petitioner-Workman was in the employment of the first respondent-Corporation as an Electrician 'B' Grade from 1966. His last drawn wages were Rs. 375/- per month approximately. He was served with a notice dated 18.5.1976 for voluntary abandonment of service with effect from 5.5.1976 as he was absent from duty from 5.5.1976 unauthorisedly. He was thereafter served with another notice on 25.5.1976 for an action under Standing Order 18(ii). The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation by a letter dated 26.5.1976 and requested the Personnel Manager of the first respondent to sanction leave upto 7.6.1976 as his wife was to be operated for Tubectomy operation after delivery. He had already earlier submitted an application for leave on 17.4.1976 for the same purpose with a certificate of Dr. S. P. Patankar who had certified that the petitioner's wife was due for delivery in May, 1976 and thereafter for intended to become operation. It was the case of the petitioner...
Kishore Y. Patel and Others Vs. Patel Engineering Co. Ltd. and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Bom114; [1994]79CompCas53(Bom)
ORDER1. The plaintiffs are shareholders of Patel Engineering Company Ltd., the 1st defendant company in this suit. The defendants Nos.2 to 8 are also the shareholders of the 1st defendant company. There are two groups of shareholders in this company who are continuously fighting for its control and management since quite sometime i.e. (1) Y. G. Patel Group represented by the plaintiffs and (2) Pravin Patel Group represented by the defendants. Having regard to the verdict of Extraordinary General Meeting of the Company held on 8th May, 1990 under the Chairmanship of retired Judge of this Court, Shri D. M. Rege, and the realities of situation, it can be safely stated that the defendants' group is the majority group and the plaintiffs' group is the minority group. On 24th June, 1991, the plaintiffs filed this suit seeking to obtain several reliefs against defendants Nos. 2 to 7. By prayer (a) of the plaint, the plaintiffs have prayed that the defendants Nos. 2 to 7 be decreed to pay a sum...
Ceat Tyres of India Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-1991
Reported in: 1992(57)ELT221(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. Two points of law arise in this writ petition and each is covered against the petitioners. 2. By a Notification issued under Section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, the goods specified in the Table thereto were, when imported into India, exempted 'from so much of that portion of the duty of Customs leviable thereon' as was in excess of the rates specified in the corresponding column of the Table. The argument on behalf of the petitioners was that the expression 'duty of customs' covered not only the basic customs duty but also additional and auxiliary duty. A Single Judge of this Court has taken the view that 'duty of customs' covers only basic customs duty and not additional or auxiliary duty. The Kerala High Court has taken the same view. A Special Leave Petition was filed before the Supreme Court against this judgment of the Kerala High Court and it was dismissed by order dated 12th September 1984 in SLP (C) 16629/44, M/s. Kathayee Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Union of India....
Modern Syntex (India) Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-1991
Reported in: 1993(63)ELT17(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. Two contentions are raised in each of this large bunch of writ petitions. The first contention is that the use of the expression 'duty of customs' in an Exemption Notification implies that exemption is given not only in respect of basic Customs duty but also in respect of additional and auxiliary Customs duty. For the reasons stated by the us in the judgment that we have just delivered in Writ Petition No. 2525 of 1982, Ceat Tyres India Ltd. v. Union of India, this contention must be decided against the petitioners. 2. The Notification that uses this expression applies to 'polyester fibre' and 'all others', the rates of duty being different. It is the contention of the petitioners that what they had imported was polyester staple fibre which is technologically and commercially distinct and different from polyester fibre and, therefore, falling under the category of 'all others'. In the affidavit filed by the respondents in reply it is stated that the word 'staple' is adde...