Mumbai Court January 1992 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.
Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-1992
Reported in: 2(1993)ACC345
V.A. Mohta, J.1. This appeal by the Union of India represented by the General Manager, Central Railway and the General Manager, Northern Railway, is directed against the judgment and decree for damages to the tune of Rs. 88,300/- with consequential reliefs passed in favour of the respondent-plaintiff, the United India Insurance Company Ltd.2. M/s. Sagarmal Newatia and Sons (hereinafter referred to as 'the Firm') had despatched from Shegaon a Central Railway Station--100 bales of cotton to M/s. Jagajit Cotton Textile Mills Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Mills') at Phagwara, a Northern Railway Station, under two different Railway receipt Nos. D-114698 and D-114699, both dated 25th May, 1979 and each for 50 bales. The Firm was shown as the consignor and the Mills as the consignee in the Railway receipts. The goods despatched were insured with the plaintiff-Insurance Company. All the 100 bales were booked in one covered wagon No. CR-25562. When the goods reached the destination on 1...
Gujarat Narmada Auto Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-1992
Reported in: (1992)(59)ELT67Tri(Mum.)bai
1. For hearing the applicants' appeal on merits, they are required to deposit a sum of Rs. 54,68,472 towards duty and a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards penalty. Their plant and machinery has also been ordered confiscation.2. Shri Willingdon Christian, the Ld. advocate, on behalf of the applicants, pleaded that they have a case on the ground of time bar. He mainly emphasized that the unit has been declared as Sick Unit by BIFR and referred to the declaration order No. 162/89 declaring the unit as Sick Unit. Even during the year 1990, the unit has incurred a loss of Rs. 9.80 lakhs. The balance sheet of the year 1991 is not ready.According to him, the loss has increased during 1991. In view of the fact that the unit has been declared as sick unit, they may not be in a position to make any cash deposit or furnish bank guarantee.3. Smt. Lipika, the Ld. SDR for the respondent pleaded that the applicants may be directed to deposit the duty amount.4. After hearing both the sides, since the unit h...
Union of India Vs. Chemical Process Equipments Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-1992
Reported in: 1993LC297(Bombay); 1992(59)ELT377(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the Union of India against judgment dated March 21, 1983 delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bharucha in Writ Petition No. 1243 of 1981. By the impugned judgment, the learned Judge made the petition absolute and directed Union of India to refund a sum of Rs. 80,477.92 to the respondents. The facts giving rise to passing of this order are as follows :The respondent No. 1 is a joint stock company of which respondent No. 2 is the Director. Respondents are carrying on business of manufacturing articles of plastics, i.e. pipes of fittings, ducting chimney etc. in a factory situate at Chembur, Bombay. The articles manufactured by the respondents are liable to payment of excise duty and the respondents have paid excise duty in accordance with the rate prescribed under Tariff Item No. 68 during period commencing from March 1, 1975 and ending on December 31, 1978. It is the claim of the respondents that the March 1978, it was realised that duty was paid ...
Trade-wings Limited Vs. Prabhakar Dattaram Phodkar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-1992
Reported in: 1992(2)BomCR624; (1993)IIILLJ299Bom
Ashok Agarwal, J.1. The petitioners are Trade Wings Limited, a company, carrying on the business of Travel Agents as also Clearing and Forwarding Agents.2. Respondents No. 1 to 9 were employed with the petitioners as Junior Assistants, Respondents No. 10 and 11 are the Presiding Officer and Member of the Labour Court and Industrial Court respectively whose decisions are impugned in the present petition.3. Sometime in November, 1984 the management of the petitioners changed hands. It is the case of the petitioners that there were huge accumulated losses in respect of their Bombay Office. There was excess staff in the Accounts and Administrative Department. The petitioners, therefore, on 7th January, 1985 retrenched the services of Respondent No. 9 and one other, who is not before the Court. Similarly on 19th February, 1985 the petitioners retrenched the services of Respondents No. 1 to 8. Taking exception to the said order of retrenchment each of the Respondents No. 1 to 9 filed separat...
Palmon Exports Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-1992
Reported in: (1995)(78)ELT295Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Though, this day, only the stay application was listed for hearing, after hearing both the sides and with their consent, we have decided to take up the appeal itself for disposal.2. The above appeal is directed against the Order-in-Original No.KDL/ADDL./COLLR./120/91, dated 30-7-1991 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, Kandla.3. The undisputed facts of the case are that the appellants who are having a manufacturing/export unit in the Kandla Free Trade Zone, imported materials for utilisation in the Export Product. Out of the imported materials, goods valued at Rs. 73,005/- were not utilised, despite the fact that the normal period allowed for export was over and even after getting the extension, aforesaid goods were not utilised for the export product. Hence, in the adjudication proceedings held by the Additional Collector of Customs, Kandla, he ordered confiscation of the goods valued at Rs. 73005/- under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, but allowed the same to be red...
Indian Petrochemical Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex. and Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-1992
Reported in: (1992)(59)ELT53Tri(Mum.)bai
1. For hearing the applicants appeal on merits, they are required to deposit a sum of Rs. 6,09,768/- towards duty and Rs. 25,000/- towards penalty. Their plant and machinery have been ordered confiscation but allowed redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 20,000/- in lieu of confiscation.2. Shri Willingdon Christian, the Ld. Advocate on behalf of the applicants, referred to the relevant portion of the show cause notice dated 26-11-1990 covering the period from 1-3-1986 to 31-12-1987, pointing out that the disputed item, namely Slop Oil and Clorinated Slop Oil were already classified under T.I. 68 and after 1-3-1986 under T.I. 38.01 and they were paying duty accordingly. Based on chemical test conducted on drawal of sample in the year 1987, the proceedings have been initiated. There were no suppression of facts or any misdeclaration. They had declared the excisability of the product as per their understanding. It was open for the Department to draw the sample for test even during the ear...
Surat Cotton Spg. and Wvg. Mills Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-1992
Reported in: (1992)41ITD458(Mum.)
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 31-1-1990 of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) for the assessment year 1984-85.2. The assessee is a company. For the assessment year 1984-85, its relevant valuation date is 31-3-1984.3. As regards motor cars, the assessee declared the value of such cars at Rs. 18,50,000. This was based on the report of approved valuer dated 4-2-1985 and the same was claimed to have been done by replacement cost method of valuation. According to the Assessing Officer, the insured value of the cars with the insurance company represented their reasonable market value. He, therefore, took their insured value at Rs. 23,60,000 as the assessable value and added the difference of Rs. 5,10,000 to the net wealth returned by the assessee. As regards the immovable property, the assessee returned the value as follows :-(1) Mangalam (Dumas) Property Rs. 8,48,000(2) Staff quarters in Surat Cotton Mills Compound Rs. 9,46,000(3) Altamount Proper...
Shripad Vasudeo Vatve and anr. Vs. Narhar Bhargav Karmarkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-1992
Reported in: 1992(2)BomCR630; (1992)94BOMLR84
A.V. Savant, J.1. This is a petition by the original plaintiffs-landlords arising out of proceedings initiated by them for bona fide requirement of the premises in question under section 13A1 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Bombay Rent Act'). The premises in question are a one room tenement admeasuring about 120 sq.ft. bearing C.T.S. No. 1370/A, suitable at Sadashiv Peth, Pune. Admittedly, the respondent was a tenant of the premises before the petitioners acquired the premises under a registered Sale Deed dated 24th December 1970. The evidence on record shows that the premises were acquired by the two petitioners jointly for a consideration of Rs. 23,000/-, out of which Rs. 20,000/- were paid by the first petitioner who is a member of the Armed Forces of the Union of India. The second petitioner is the brother of the first petitioner. The suit was instituted in the year 1977 on the ground that the first petitioner who is a landlord ...
Amirchand Tulsiram Gupta and ors. Vs. Vasant Dhanaji Patil and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-1992
Reported in: 1992(2)BomCR22; (1992)94BOMLR965
M.L. Pendse, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the original plaintiffs against judgment dated April 30, 1981 delivered by learned Single Judge in Suit No. 260 of 1974 dismissing the plaintiffs' suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession with the incidental reliefs in respect of six pieces of lands situated at Bhandup in Greater Bombay. The appellants are the Trustees of the Tulsiram Devidayal Charitable Trust, a Trust registered on July 9, 1953 under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. Respondent No. 11 is the brother of appellant No. 1 and is a co-trustee and was joined as defendant No. 11 to the suit in pursuance of an order dated January 6, 1981 passed by the learned Judge granting amendment of the plaint.2. The plaintiffs claimed that by registered Deed of Conveyance dated August 14, 1957 a piece of land admeasuring 14,017 sq. yards situated at Bhandup was purchased from Dwarkadas Hiraji Keni for a consideration of Rs. 42,501/-. The sanction for purchase of the prop...
Damyanti Kirit Jani (Smt.) Vs. Kirit Lalubhai Jani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-1992
Reported in: 1992(2)BomCR620; (1992)94BOMLR61
H.H. Kantharia, J.1. The appellant is the wife of the respondent. They were married on May 4., 1980 at village called Ruvath in Gujrat according to Hindu vedic rites. The marriage was not registered. It appears that they filed M. J. Petition No. 980 of 1988 under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 as amended uptodate (hereafter referred to as the 'Hindu Marriage Act) in the City Civil Court at Bombay for divorce by mutual consent. The learned Judge of the City Civil Court, by a Roznama dated March 20, 1989, passed a decree of divorce. The appellant-wife, being aggrieved by the said judgement and decree passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, filed the present appeal on the ground that a fraud was committed on her in as much as she was taken from the matrimonial house to the City Civil Court by her respondent-husband saying that they were to shift to a new house regarding which she would-be asked certain question by the Judge and she must answer in the affirmative....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »