Mumbai Court August 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.
Bank of India Vs. Senior Travels Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-1991
Reported in: 1991(4)BomCR261
D.R. Dhanuka, J.1. The plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,07,39,807.77 plus interest and costs. By this suit, the plaintiff bank is inter alia seeking to realise various securities created by the 1st defendant in its favour including the security created in respect of the premises described in Exhibit 'H' to the plaint. The said premises consist of Shop No. 6-A and 7-A forming part of the building known as Mamta Building situate at Prabhadevi, Bombay.2. Originally, this notice of motion was taken out by the plaintiff against defendant No. 1, defendant No. 2 and M/s. Vishal Surgical Equipment company the respondent No. 1, only. Subsequently, by an amendment made in this notice of motion with the leave of the Court, Mr. Ramesh Ahuja, partner of M/s. Vishal Surgical Equipment Company, has been impleaded in this proceeding. By this notice of motion, the plaintiff is seeking an order of punishment against defendant No. 2 and respondent No. 1-...
Jyoti Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-1991
Reported in: (1993)(63)ELT279Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal against the order in Appeal No. M-1044/BD-443/86, dated 23-3-1987 passed by the Collector (Appeals).2. The undisputed facts are that the appellants cleared switchgear with accessories on payment of duty under G.P. No. 584, dated 3-6-1983. They were, however, returned to the factory, whereupon a D-3 declaration was filed by the appellants for receiving the goods back for being remade, repaired or reconditioned under the provisions of Rule 173H. Re-entry of the goods, as per D-3 declaration, has been made on 28-8-1984 (after a period of one year). However, the goods, have been cleared on payment of duty without any such processes being done by the appellants and this removal was to another customer. This has been cleared second time on payment of duty under G.P. No. 1299, dated 22-10-1984. The appellants claimed refund of duty in respect of the payment made under G.P. No. 1299, dated 22-10-1984, by filing a refund claim on 23-1-1988 on the ground that the same goods...
Swetal Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-1991
Reported in: (1993)(46)LC303Tri(Mum.)bai
1. For hearing the applicants' appeal on merits, they are required to deposit a sum of Rs. 94,557 towards duty and Rs. 50,000/- towards penalty.2. Shri Kapoor, the ld. advocate, appearing on behalf of the applicants pleaded that the demand is time barred and the penalty is not justified. They have filed the classification list claiming exemption under Notification No. 208/83 being re-rollers manufacturing various items out of duty paid material. One of the inputs received by them is the duty paid plate sheering, out of which re-rolled products like angles, rounds, bars are manufactured. In accordance with the Board's clarification to the Collector of Central Excise, Indore, they are eligible for exemption even if plate sheering are used as inputs. Hence the demand for duty and penalty are not justified. They have not suppressed any material factors.3. Shri Singh, the ld. JDR, contended that the Collector has not accepted the Board's clarification. He also stated that the specific inpu...
Wilco International Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-1991
Reported in: (1993)LC202Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal directed against the Order-in-Original No.S/10-102/90-BI (B) dated 8-2-1991 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay. In the said order the Learned Additional Collector has held that the import of Jungle (press out model book) is a toy, which is a consumer item covered by Serial No. 172 of Appendix 2(B) and hence the import is not allowed. The Additional Collector has held that this item is classifiable under Chapter Heading 9503.90 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The goods were ordered confiscation but allowed redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 1.40 lacs and also on payment of appropriate duty under the aforesaid Chapter Heading of the Customs Tariff. The personal penalty of Rs. 35,000/- has also been imposed, if the goods are cleared on payment of duty for home consumption.2. The Additional Collector in the said order also permitted re-export of the goods on payment of reshipment fine of Rs. 35,000/- and in the case of such a reshipment personal ...
National Industrial Corporation Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-1991
Reported in: (1993)(68)ELT692Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is directed against the order in appeal No. SKM-939/89 BII dated 26-4-1989 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, partially confirming the order in original No.V/Adj/5903-19 (15)/15/88/10299 dated 7-8-1988, confirming the demand of during the period August and September 1987 which has been subsequently quantified to Rs. 16,304.67.2. Today only the stay petition was listed for hearing. However with the consent of both the sides, the appeal itself was taken up for hearing.3. The appellants are engaged in manufacture of coated fabrics and they were availing of the proforma credit on duty-paid plastic sheets and films used in laminated fabrics, under Rule 56A available vide Notification No. 68/84 C.E., dated 1-3-1984. The said notification was however rescinded on 1-3-1987 and the modvat procedure was made applicable to the said inputs and the final product. Pleading that they were not aware of the said change, the appellants continued to avail of the ...
Kirloskar Oil Engine Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-1991
Reported in: (1993)(65)ELT371Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal directed against the order passed by the Addl.Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Pune, bearing No. 49/CEX/90 dated 31-12-1990.2. The facts of the case are that, the appellants claimed modvat credit in respect of the inputs - Bi-metal strips used in the manufacture of bearings. Accordingly, they were availing of this benefit. However, it came to the notice of the Department on a perusal of the RT 12 and RG 23 etc., that they were taking modvat credit even in respect of the inputs used in the manufacture of bearings, which were removed under Chpt. X procedure under Nil rate of duty as OE equipments cleared to other manufacturers. Hence, the Supdt. issued a notice on 9-4-1987, covering the period from April, 1986 to Oct. 1986, denying modvat credit in respect of the duty paid on Bi-metal used in the manufacture of bearings, which were cleared under Chpt. X procedure at Nil rate of duty. The Asst. Collector adjudicated upon the show cause notice and the matter...
Dyes and Chemical Worker's Union Vs. Asian Chemical Works and others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)BomCR286; [1991(63)FLR651]; (1992)IILLJ523Bom; 1991(1)MhLj1132
1. The petitioner-union filed a complaint of unfair labour practice, being Complaint (ULP) No. 195 of 1979, in the Industrial Court at Bombay alleging that the first respondent-company had indulged in unfair labour practice covered under items Nos. 6 and 9 of Schedule IV and 4 (a) and 5 of Schedule 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'). In the Industrial Court, the petitioner-union examined for workmen and the first respondent-company examined its Managing Partner by name J. C. Katharani. On appreciation of the evidence. adduced before him, the learned Member of the Industrial Court (second respondent) came to the conclusion that the petitioner-union failed to prove that the first respondent-company had indulged in unfair labour practice covered under item 9 of Schedule IV and 4(a) and 5 of Schedule II of the MRTU and PULP Act. So far as item 6 of Schedule IV of the MRTU...
Varisalli Mohammed Ilias Vs. Abdul Sattar Gulam HusseIn (Since Decease ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)BomCR27
P.S. Patankar, J.1. The question that arises for my consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant is protected under section 15-A of the Bombay Rents, Hotel & Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter called Bombay Rent Act)? If protected then admittedly the Civil Court will be having no jurisdiction to decide the suit.2. A few facts are as follows.3. There is one Hair Cutting Saloon by name 'Bombay Hair Dressers' situated at 110/2, Shivaji Nagar, in the City of Pune. The structure belonged to one Smt. N.K. Jangi. One shop premises out of it was originally leased out to the father of the plaintiff who was carrying on hair cutting business in the name of 'Bombay Hair Dressers'. Sometime in 1962, the same was given to the defendant No. 1 and the defendant No. 1 went on carrying on the said business till his death and then it is carried on by defendant No. 4. Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 are sons of defendant No. 1.4. The plaintiff filed special civil suit in the Court of Civil ...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. M/S. Dhruwa Woollen Mills Pvt. Ltd. and O ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-1991
Reported in: 1991(3)BomCR666; 1991CriLJ3142
1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the State of Maharashtra on behalf of the Provident Fund Inspector and is directed against M/s Dhruwa Woollen Mills Pvt. Ltd. and its four directors and the manager. It appears that on the accused tendering a plea of guilt before the learned Magistrate that the same was accepted and original accused Nos. 1 and 3 to 7, who are respondents to this criminal appeal, were fined Rs. 200/- collectively, in default simple imprisonment for 60 days for the offences punishable under section 14A of the Employees' Provident Funds Act. 2. Appearing on behalf of the State, Mr. Patil contended that the fine imposed on the accused was abnormally low and that it is very much in the public interest that a punishment which was commensurate with the nature of offence ought to have been awarded. He, therefore, maintained that regardless of the explanation of the accused concerning their financial difficulties, the closure of the unit etc. that the sentence award...
Bapurao S/O Nanu Vs. Bapurao S/O Maruti Andha and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-1991
Reported in: 1991(4)BomCR72
N.P. Chapalgaonkar, J. 1. Both these writ petitions raise a common question of law and, therefore, are being disposed of by this common judgment. Father of the present respondent No. 1 namely; Maruti s/o. Malloji (in Writ Petition No. 43 of 1986) was the owner of Survey No. 168 (old survey No. 133) admeasuring 15 acres 34 gunthas situated at Nandgaon in kinwat taluka of Nanded district. Admittedly, he is tribal. He executed agreement of sale on 3-2-1953 in favour of present petitioner and a certificate of validation purporting to be under section 98-A of The Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 was granted validating this transaction by the revenue authorities on 16-11-1960.2. The original owner tribal Rama Ratanji (in Writ Petition No. 432 of 1986) executed an agreement of sale on 21-3-1955 agreeing to sell Survey Nos. 79 and 51 to the extent of 4 acres 32 gunthas, 4 acres and 8 gunthas respectively, situated at Bendi in Kinwat taluka to one Bilankhan-present petitioner....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »