Mumbai Court March 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.
Jaju Exports Private Limited Vs. M.S. Puranik, Assistant Collector of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1992
Reported in: 1992(41)LC542(Bombay)
Sujata Manohar, J.1. The appellants are the original petitioners. The dispute in the writ petition relates to the import of Palm Oil by the appellants under a Bill of Lading dated 14th October 1977. According to the petitioners they held valid import licence dated 1st March 1977 for the import of Palm Oil.2. Under a public notice dated 11th October 1977 attention of the public was invited to a notice dated 20th September 1977 issued by the Ministry of Commerce under which during the period April 1977 to March 1978 import of Palm Oil refined for direct human consumption was banned. On a further review of the position it was decided that all licences issued for Palm oil refined for direct human consumption, including those, if any, issued under para 3 of the instant Public Notice, against which shipment was not made wholly or partly on or before the 15th October 1977, would stand automatically invalidated for further imports.3. The palm oil imported by the petitioners under the Bill of L...
Reliance Textile Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1992
Reported in: 1993(63)ELT67(Bom)
M.L. Pendse, J.1. We informed the Counsel for the Respondents as soon as the petition was called out for hearing that one of us (Pendse J.) is a share-holder of Petitioner No. 1-Company. The Counsel for the respondents, after taking instructions from the officers, stated that the respondents have no objection to this Bench hearing the petition. We proceeded to hear the petition only after the assurance was given. 2. The question which falls for determination in this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is the rate of duty leviable on partially oriented yarn of 132 denier age at the time of clearance from the factory gate. The facts giving rise to the filing of the petition are not in dispute and are required to be briefly stated to appreciate the grievance of the petitioners. 3. Petitioner No. 1 is a public limited company and its factory unit is situated at Patalganga where polyester filament yarn of the type known as partially oriented yarn (POY) is manufactu...
Dattatray Trimbak Kulkarni Vs. State Bank of India, Bombay and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1992
Reported in: (1993)ILLJ547Bom
M.L. Pendse, J. 1. The petitioner joined the services of State Bank of India as Cashier in the year 1960. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Head Cashier on July 23, 1978 and posted at Talasari Branch. The petitioner was charge sheeted along with the Branch Manager and joint custodian on December 17, 1979. The three charges framed against the petitioner were (a) While working as Head Cashier, in collusion with the Branch Manager, the Petitioner misappropriated an amount of Rs. 10,500/- from the cash held by him in joint custody; (b) The petitioner as Head Cashier of Talasari Branch failed and neglected to perform his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence; and (c) The petitioner has borrowed large amounts from the Bank's constituents and other parties in contravention of Rule No. 41(1) of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules. 2. Respondent no. 1-Bank appointed S. G. Yardi as the Enquiry Officer and the statements of witnesses were r...
Shri Kishorilal Govindram Bihani Vs. Sou. Dwarkabai Kishorilal Bihani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1992
Reported in: 1992(2)BomCR143; (1992)94BOMLR365
M.F. Saldanhs, J.1. This appeal involves a rather intricate angle of the law relating to desertion. The proceedings, now in the second round, involve a review of the case that was tried by the Family Court at Pune. Under the law, an appeal lies to the Division Bench of the High Court where the parties are represented by Counsel and are subject to being circumscribed to the pleadings and the record of the Trial Court. With recurring regularity, we are faced with a situation of both learned Counsel making a strong grievance that the case has either gone by default or that it has been seriously jeopardised because the parties were deprived of legal assistance before the Family Court. A remand at this stage would be inhuman to the parties and it is, therefore, essential that corrective steps be taken forthwith. First, the facts.2. The appellant before us, the original petitioner before the Family Court at Pune in petition No. A-812 of 1989, has presented this appeal which is directed again...
Kishorilal Govindram Bihani Vs. Sou. Dwarkabai Kishorilal Bihani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1992
Reported in: II(1992)DMC578; 1992MhLJ997
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. This appeal involves a rather intricate angle of the law relating to desertion. The proceedings, now in the second round, involve a review of the case that was tried by the Family Court at Pune. Under the law, an appeal lies to the Division Bench of the High Court where the parties are represented by Counsel and are subject to being circumscribed to the pleadings and the record of the trial Court. With recurring regularity, we are faced with a situation of both learned Counsel making a strong grievance that the case has either gone by default or that it has been seriously jeopardized because the parties were deprived of legal assistance before the Family Court. A remand at this stage would be inhuman to the parties and it is, therefore,essential that corrective steps be taken forthwith, First, the facts.2. The appellant before us, the original petitioner before the FamilyCourt at Pune in Petition No. A-812 of 1989, has presented this appeal whichis directed against ...
Datta Bandu Sadale and Others Vs. Sridhar Payagonda Patil and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-1992
Reported in: AIR1992Bom422; (1992)94BOMLR180; 1992(1)MhLj784
ORDER1. This Civil Revision Application filed by the original defendants in Special Civil Suit No. 34 of 1991, instituted by the respondents in the Court of the Civil Judge, Sr. Dn., at Kolhapur, raises two questions oflaw as under :i) Whether the counter-claim under O. VIII Rule 6A of the Code of Civil Procedure must satisfy the conditions which govern the claim in the nature of a set off under 6. VIII R. 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure;' ii) Whether such a counter claim can be raised under O. VIII R.6A of the Code of Civil Procedure after the written statement has been filed?The Revision Application has been filed against the order dated 2nd December 1987 rejecting the petitioners' application for amendment of the written statement.2. On 16th March 1981, the respondents/ plaintiffs filed a suit claiming specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 2nd April 1978 executed by the petitioners in their favour in respect of the land Gut No. 395 measuring 1 H.66 R, situated at villa...
Western Indian Texturizers Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-1992
Reported in: 1992(60)ELT200(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. The petitioners are a Public Limited Company and are engaged in processing, that is draw text rising of, inter alia, partially oriented yarn and other types of nylon yarn. The partially oriented yarn is processed by the petitioners after receiving the same from the factory of Nirlon Synthetic Fibers and Chemicals Limited. The petitioners are engaged in the work of processing in their factory at Thana. The partially oriented yarn is classified under Tariff Item 18-II(i)(a), and after further process of draw texturising is classified under Tariff Item 18-II(i)(a). The Nirlon Synthetic Fibres and Chemicals Limited had availed of provisions of Rule 56B of the Central Excise Rules and were permitted to pay the duty at the subsequent point of time, that is after the same is textures by the petitioners. The finished textures yarn is chargeable to excise duty at the rate applicable to the base yarn, namely partially oriented yarn plus Rs. 5/- per Kilogram, and that is so provided ...
Ravindra Umesh Gokarn and ors. Vs. Guest Keen Williams Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-1992
Reported in: 1992(2)BomCR606; [1992(65)FLR360]; (1992)IILLJ847Bom
1. These two writ petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, impugn Part 1 Award dated April 30, 1985 and Part 11 Award dated April 30, 1986 made in Reference (IDA) Nos. 108 and 111 of 1978 (Writ Petition No. 6005 of 1986) and Part I Award dated July 30, 1984 and Part II Award dated April 30, 1986 made in Reference (IDA) Nos. 109 and 110 of 1978 (Writ Petition No. 2067 of 1987). Since the facts and circumstances giving rise to the present writ petitions are common and the contentions are identical, it would be convenient to dispose of both these writ petitions by a common judgment. 2. The petitioners in both the writ petitions were employed as workmen in the Industrial Establishment of the first Respondent in both the writ petitions. Writ Petition No. 6005 of 1986 pertains to two workmen, R. U. Gokarn and N. B. Dhamdhere, while Writ Petition No. 2067 of 1987 pertains to other two workmen, V. R. Thakurdesai and A. K. Maini. 3. The two Awards impugned by the petitioners i...
The Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd. and Another Vs. the S ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-1992
Reported in: (1992)94BOMLR230
M.L. Pendse, J. 1. The question which falls for determination in this petition filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India is the correct interpretation of the provisions of section 15A-I of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. Petitioner No. 1 is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1913 and carries on business of manufacture of commercial vehicles. The company is a registered dealer, both under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. 2. Section 3 of the Act deals with incidence of tax, and, inter alia, provides that every dealer whose turnover either of all sales or of all purchases made during the year has exceeded or exceeds the relevant limit shall be liable to pay tax under the Act on his turnover of sales and on his turnover of purchases. Section 6 of the Act provides that every dealer shall be liable to pay tax livable in accordance with the provisions of Chapter II. Section 32 of the Act requires every registered dealer to furnis...
Dnyaneshwar Khushali Naik Vs. A. Venkatratnam, Distirict Magistrate an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)BomCR269
B.V. Chavan, J.1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who is the brother of the detenu Sanjiv Naik has challenged the detention order dated 16.10. 91 issued by respondent No. 1 and confirmed by respondent No. 2 vide order dated 18.10.91 and has prayed that the detenu be released from detention.2. The relevant facts, which give rise to this writ petition are : The detenu was arrested on 27.9.91 in connection with an incident of assault on one Anthony Fernandes a reporter of a local news-paper by name 'Herald'. The offences charged were under sections 143, 147 and 307 I.P.C. On behalf of the detenu on 30.9.91, an application for bail was made to the Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Judge rejected the said application on 1.10.91. A second bail application dated 9.10.91 on behalf of the detenu also came to be rejected on 10.10.91. Thereafter a fresh bail application came to be presented on 14.10.91 in this Court. While the said applicat...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »