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.
Arvind Trading Company and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-1991
Reported in: (1991)93BOMLR403
M.M. Qazi, J.1. Since both the petitions are on identical point and involve common question of facts and law, they Eire being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The petitions are directed against the order passed by the respondent No. 1 in Appeal No. 2 of 1988 filed under Section 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, dated 14th March 1988, confirming the order passed by the Additional Collector, Nagpur, in Case No 11/Pulses/87 and 12/Pulses/87 dated 8th May 1987, directing confiscation of the stock of the petitioners kept in the Central Warehouse Corporation, Nagpur, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, with the further direction, directing the Food Distribution Officer to dispose of the said goods by public auction.3. The facts giving rise to the present petition are, in brief, as under:On 14.9.1987 at about 4.30 P.M. the Supply Inspector of Mahal Zone along with the Zonal Officer visited the shop of the petitioners and e...
In Re, Smt. Amina
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Bom214
ORDER OF REFERENCE1. This petition raises the following important questions of Constitutional law of great public importance:--(a) Whether 'personal laws' are subject to Part III of the Constitution of India?(b) Whether the High Court has no jurisdiction to examine the question as to whether the impugned provision of 'personal law' is in conformity with Constitution of India or notand is bound to enforce it as it is, even if it appears to he repugnant to one or other of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India?(c) Whether the provisions of Sunni Muslim 'Personal Law' sought to be enforced in the Courts of Law to the effect that a son is entitled to double the share than that of a daughter on inheritance is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India?2. On or about 23rd April 1991, Mr. A. J. Rizvi, the learned Advocate for the petitioner, presented this petition to me on behalf of Smt. Aminabai widow of Ismail Shaikh for being appointed as a...
Deepak Rama Umbrajkar Vs. the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ1569
M.L. Dudhat, J.1. By this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the detention order dated 14th January, 1991 issued by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, respondent No. 1. 2. The petitioner in this case was detained by an earlier order of detention dated 17th August, 1990 under S. 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the N.S.A.' for the sake of brevity). The said order of detention was revoked by respondent No. 2 the State of Maharashtra on 11th January, 1991. Therefore on 14-1-1991 the present impugned order of detention under S. 3(2) of the N.S.A. was issued by respondent No. 1. This fresh order of detention dated 14-1-1991 is challenged by the petitioner is this petition. 3. Shri Thakare, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order on various grounds. Firstly, it was argued on behalf of the petitioner that the order of detention is bad in law, on the same was issued mala fide sheerly with the...
Parle Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-1991
Reported in: 1991LC139(Bombay); 1991(56)ELT60(Bom)
Pendse, J. 1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging legality of order dated January 26, 1984 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Division K-II, Bombay. By the impugned order the Assistant Collector rejected five refund claims filed by the petitioner Company on the ground that all the claims are time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act read with Rule 173J of the Central Excise Rules as it stood prior to August 6, 1977. The facts giving rise to passing of this order are not in dispute and are required to be briefly stated to appreciate the grievance of the petitioners. 2. Prior to March 17, 1972 the petitioner Company manufactured aerated waters and the process of manufacture was liable to levy of excise duty under Item 1-D of the erstwhile First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act and the rate of duty was 20% ad valorem. The Company claims that aerated waters were manufactured out o...
Suvina B. Redkar Vs. Government of Goa and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-1991
Reported in: 1991(4)BomCR695
H.W. Dhabe, J.1. These two writ petitions which challenge the Notification of the State Government dated 26th June, 1991 issued under sub-section (3) of section 18 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Town and Country Planning Act, 1974 and its further consequential notification dated the same issued under sub-sections (1) and (3) of section 20 of the said Act can conveniently be disposed of by this common judgment. However, reference to the parties in this judgment would be as in the Writ Petition No. 240 of 1991 except where W.P. No. 243 of 1991 is particularly considered and referred to.2. The facts in Writ Petition No. 240 of 1991 are that the petitioner is the Chair-person of the South Planning and Development Authority and in Writ Petition No. 243 of 1991, the petitioner is the Goa Citizens League, which holds out itself as a Special activist organisation formed with a view to promote social, economic and educational cultural and political interests for achieving the progress and welfare of...
Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-1991
Reported in: 1991LC136(Bombay); 1991(56)ELT62(Bom)
M.L. Pendse, J.1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging legality of show cause notice dated March 29, 1984 issued by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, calling upon the petitioners to show cause why action should not be taken in accordance with provisions of Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act in respect of escaped duty between period commencing from January 5,1981 and ending with February 29,1984. The short-levy alleged is of Rs. 7,77,59,992.27 and the show cause notice claims that the Company suppressed the relevant information. The information alleged to have been suppressed is that the refrigerators were sold without including the maintenance charges recovered for duration of four years under the nomenclature of 'service contract'.2. The principal contention urged by Shri Hidayatullah, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, is that the service contract for maintenance of the refrigerators...
Wyeth Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-1991
Reported in: 1991LC581(Bombay); 1992(57)ELT68(Bom)
A.V. Savant, J. 1. The first petitioner is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, and the second petitioner is a share-holder of the first petitioner-company. The first petitioner-company manufactures Wysolone Tablets falling under Tariff Item 14-E as patent and proprietary medicine. During the period 13th November, 1975 to 20th November, 1979, the Excise Authorities loaded the price-list filed by the petitioners by 5% in terms of the Tariff Advice No. 8 of 1968. At the relevant time the first respondent itself had fixed the retail price of the said medicine at Rs. 91.89 under Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1970. The Superintendent of Central Excise approved the retail price as above as the assessable value. Under the terms of the excise Notification 147 of 1970 dated 25th July, 1970 the petitioners opted to have their assessable value determined at 25% below the retail price. Since the Government approved retail price of Rs. 91.89 was loaded by 5%, the d...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›