Mumbai Court September 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.
Assistant Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Extrusion Processes Private Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-1991
Reported in: 1991(56)ELT514(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the respondents. He declared that the proviso to Excise Exemption Notification No. 193/81 dated 3rd December, 1981 was unconstitutional, illegal and null and void. He prohibited the respondents, that is to say, the Union of India and the Excise authorities, from acting upon the said proviso and directed them to refund to the petitioners the amount of excise duty collected from the petitioners on the basis of the said proviso. The learned Judge accepted the argument on behalf of the petitioners that, by virtue of the said proviso, the Union Government had created two classes, namely, a class of manufacturers who had paid higher excise duty on the raw material and a class of manufacturers who had paid less excise duty on the raw material. As a result of the classification, a manufacturer who had paid higher excise duty on the raw material had to pay higher excise duty on the finished product whereas a manufacturer...
Vinayak Poma Tarkar Vs. Jacinto Santa Gorgenio and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)BomCR475
E.S. Da Silva, J.1. The petitioner is challenging by this writ filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution the judgment of the Administrative Tribunal dated 13-6-1991 which has unsettled the judgment of the Addl. Rent Controller dated 26-2-1986 whereby he rejected with costs the respondent No. 1's (hereinafter called the respondent) application seeking for the recovery of possession of the suit house on the ground of bona fide personal requirement.2. It was the case of the respondent that the property called 'Galoum' situated at Mapusa and consisting of a residential house had been rented to the petitioner by his late father sometime in the year 1953. On his death the same was inherited in co-ownership by him and his three brothers who, by Deed dated 26-3-1976 effected the partition of the estate of their father and as a result whereof the suit house was allotted to him and to his brother Leonardo. Subsequently Leonardo gifted his rights to the house in favour of the responden...
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs. Indequip Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-1991
Reported in: 1992(2)BomCR501
A.A. Cazi, J.1. This is defendants ' Chamber Summons for an order dismissing the plaintiffs' suit under the provisions of Order 11, Rule 21 of the Civil Procedure Code.2. The suit was filed on 18 the July, 1988. On 21st November, 1988 a write of summons of the suit was served upon the defendants. In order to prepare their written statement, the defendants sought inspection of certain documents from the plaintiffs. In that connection the defendants sent as many one of those five letters, except that on 11th October, 1989 the plaintiffs' advocate wrote to the defendants Advocate: 'We may point out that there is a factual error in the calculation of selling price of paraffin wax as stated in paragraph 6 of the Plaint. We are taking out appropriate proceedings for the amendment of the same. Please note that inspection would be given as soon as the error is rectified. Ultimately the defendants were constrained to take out Chamber Summons No. 518 of 1990 for an order directing the plaintiffs...
Suryakant Yadao Gaikwad Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-1991
Reported in: 1991(4)BomCR603
B.U. Wahane, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by Shri Velati, Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, on 19-2-1987 in Sessions Case No. 107 of 1985, convicting the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for 31/2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default, further R.I. for 3 months.2. The facts giving rise to the prosecution are in nutshell as under.The appellant/accused Suryakant Yadao Gaikwad and the prosecutrix Ku. Rekha were living in the same village Yellapur within the jurisdiction of Gadchandur Police Station, Tahsil Rajura, District Chandrapur. On 29-10-1985 Ku. Rekha was living in the field house near village Yellapur with her parents, brothers, etc. On the day of incident i.e. on 29-10-1985, after sun set, Rekha's mother had sent Rekha to purchase kerosine oil at Village Yellapur. According to her, she had gone in the village and purchased kerosine oil from...
SaifuddIn Nalwala Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-1991
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT640Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal directed against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) bearing No. 50/87, dated 22-7-1987.2. The facts of the case are that the appellants business premises was searched. As a result of the search, 31 nos. 18" size and 105 nos. of 8" size zip fasteners were seized along with 6 nail-cutters and one pair playing cards totally valued at Rs. 504/-. These goods were ordered confiscation by the Asstt. Collector absolutely and a penalty of Rs. 100/- was imposed on the appellant. When the matter was taken up in appeal before the Collector (Appeals), he released the nail-cutters and playing cards but sustained the order of confiscation of zip fasteners and also the penalty of Rs. 100/-.3. Shri Berarwalla, the ld. Advocate pleaded that the appellant is doing embroidery work and also getting the zip fasteners on approval basis. He produced the bills for acquisition of these zip fasteners.The Collector (Appeals) has however rejected these bills date...
Devidas Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-1991
Reported in: [1993]200ITR697(Bom)
V.A. Mohta, J. 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. Is an assessee under the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the I.T. Act'), entitled to a reasonable opportunity of hearing and a reasoned order when his application calling in question the jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer and for transfer of a case to the other Assessing Officer is rejected 3. In this matter, the above question falls for determination against the following factual matrix. 4. The petitioner resided and carried on business at Gondia (District Bhandara) where he was assessed to income-tax up to the assessment year 1986-87. Since he did not file the return of income for the subsequent years at Gondia, he was served with notices under section 142 of the Income-tax Act, by the Assessing Officer, Gondia. The petitioner had not filed the return for the assessment year 1987-88, anywhere. But for subsequent years he filed the return at Nagpur. He raised an objection to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer, Gondia, t...
Miraj Taluka Girni Kamgar Sangh Vs. Manager, Shree Gajanan Weaving Mil ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-1991
Reported in: (1992)IILLJ686Bom
1. This petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, impugns the orders dated April 8, 1986, and January 19, 1987, made by the Labour Court, Sangli, in Application (B.I.R.) No. 12 of 1984 as confirmed by the order dated August 10, 1989, made by the Industrial Court, Kolhapur, in Appeal (IC) No. 12 of 1987. The proceedings before both the courts were under the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act.') 2. The petitioner was employed as a Weaver in the service of the first Respondent, a Textile Mill, from the year 1980. On January 25, 1984, he was given a chargesheet. The charges alleged against him were as follows : '(1) You do not keep clean the loom on which you are working. (2) Despite the jobber telling you, you do not put the oil in the loom and work it without caring for the fact that the bearing gets hot. (3) Before going to the bath-room you do not give indication to the jobber or your department helper...
Colour-chem. Limited and ors. Vs. A.L. Alsapurkar, Member, Industrial ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-1991
Reported in: (1993)IIILLJ838Bom
B.N. Srikrishna, J.1. These are two cross petitions impugning the orders of the Labour Court, Thane dated 31st December, 1987, and the order of the Industrial Court, Thane dated June 27, 1989, made under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Though these petitions are described as petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, in my view, the relief prayed for can be substantially granted under Article 227 and I have entertained them as such.2. Since these are cross petitions, instead of referring to the parties as petitioners and respondents, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3863 of 1989 shall be henceforth referred to as 'the employer' and the respondents 3 and 4 as 'the workmen'.3. The employer is a company manufacturing pigments, dyestuffs, intermediates for pesticides and chemicals etc. at its factory at Thane. The workmen were employed as Operat...
Balkrishna Tukaram and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)BomCR398
M.F. Saldanha J.1. This criminal writ petition is directed against the common judgment and order passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 120 of 1989 and Criminal Revision Application No. 204 of 1989. This order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, dated 3/4 July, 1991 disposes of the two Criminal Revision Applications that were filed before him in respect of a dispute concerning a small tailoring shop situate at CTS 269, Ganesh peth, Pune. Briefly stated, the premises originally stood in the name of Tukaram Shankar Kalbare, and it is also relevant to mention that the licence in respect of the disputed premises stood in his name. Tukaram died on 6-5-1985, after which on 13-6-1985 the licence was transferred to the name of his widow Sundrabai. It is more or less common ground that the widow Sundrabai is advanced in years and her age as shown in the proceeding is 85 years. It is unnecessary for me to recount the genesis of the dispute that has ultimately culminated in this ...
Vidyaprasarak Samaj and anr. Vs. State of Goa and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)BomCR705; (1991)93BOMLR971
K. Sukumaran, J.1. This writ petition challenges the order dated 4-6-1990 (Exhibit `B') passed by the second respondent Director of Education permitting the fourth respondent to open a new Standard VIII Class from 1990 onwards. Incidental reliefs also have been sought for. On 14-6-1990 rule was issued, with a direction for expedition. Ultimately it came up for final arguments on 22-8-1991. In the light of the arguments advanced at the Bar, we had our reservations about the supportive materials justifying the impugned order. A further affidavit was directed, by our order dated 22-8-1991, to assist the Court to advert to and evaluate the materials so called for. The affidavit has accordingly been filed. The petitioners filed a rejoinder. Arguments were continued on 9-9-1991.2. It is unnecessary to refer to the details of the contentions in view of the course we propose to adopt. We may, however, indicate even for that purpose, an earlier order (Exhibit `A') dated 9-7-1986 passed by the D...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »