Mumbai Court April 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.
Chunilal Pranjivandas and Co. and anr. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Gr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)BomCR401
A.A. Cazi, J.1. The respondents have rejected the petitioners' application for refund of octroi duty paid by them on goods being polyester yarn and hence this writ petition.2. The provisions of sections 192 and 195 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act make it clear that octroi is levied at the time of entry of the articles into Greater Bombay, when the articles are for consumption, use or sale within Greater Bombay. When, at the point of entry octroi is paid, and thereafter the goods are exported then a refund is claimable by the party under sub-section (1) of section 195 which reads as follows:'Section 195(1)---When any article upon which (octroi) has been paid shall be exported from (Greater Bombay) (such amount of (tax) levied as is specified in sub-section (1A) shall, subject to the provisions contained in sub-sections (2) and (3), be refunded).'It is undisputed that the petitioners exported the goods. However, the refund has been disallowed by the respondents on the condition t...
Alka Adhesive (P) Ltd. and anr. Vs. Mahadeo Ramji Gholam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-1992
Reported in: 1993ACJ873
P.S. Patankar, J.1. Heard the learned advocate for appellants at length.2. This appeal arises out of application which was filed by the respondent under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for loss that was caused to him because of the accident.3. The appellant No. 1 is the owner of vehicle involved and the appellant No. 2 is the insurance company with which the said vehicle was insured. The vehicle involved was Fiat car bearing No. MMY 7116. The accident took place on 9.2.1987 at about 10.00 a.m. near Western Express High- way, Vile Parle, Bombay. The respondent suffered serious injuries in the accident for which he was hospitalised for a long time and could not attend his office for very long time. The various contentions which were raised on behalf of the appellants came to be negatived by the court below and ordered that respondent was entitled to get compensation of Rs. 33,085/- with 12 per cent interest per annum. The said order is under ...
In Re: C.J. Gelatine Products Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-1992
Reported in: [1994]81CompCas890(Bom)
S.M. Jhunjhunuwala, J.1. C.J. Gelatine Products Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the company') has been incorporated and registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), having its registered office situated at Bombay. 2. By a tripartite agreement entered by and between the petitioners, the company and one Bharat Carbon and Ribbon ., on August 24, 1988, the company agreed to pay to the petitioners the sum of Rs. 12,00,000 due and payable by the company to the said Bharat Carbon and Ribbon ., together with interest thereon. Since, despite repeated requests and demands, the company failed and neglected to pay the said amount to the petitioners, the petitioners by their advocate's letter dated September 8, 1989 duly served a statutory notice of demand upon the company under the provisions of section 434 of the said Act and demanded payment of Rs. 20,50,946 with further interest from the company as mentioned therein. The company did n...
In Re: Karam Chand Thapar and Bros. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)BomCR14
S.M. Jhunjhunuwala, J.1. C.J. Gelatine Products Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ''the Company') has been incorporated and registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') having its registered office situated at Bombay.2. By a tripartite Agreement entered by and between the petitioners, the Company and one Bharat Carbon & Ribbon . on 24th August, 1988, the company agreed to pay the petitioners the sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- due and payable by the Company to the said Bharat Carbon & Ribbon . together with interest thereon. Since, despite repeated requests and demands, the Company filed and neglected to pay the said amount to the petitioners, the petitioners by their Advocate's letter dated 8th September, 1989 duly served a statutory notice of demand upon the Company under the provisions of section 434 of the said Act and demanded payment of Rs. 20,50,946/- with further interest from the Company as mentioned therein. The Company did not ...
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)BomCR416; 1993LC654(Bombay)
Sujata Manohar, J.1. The appellants are the original respondents. They are hereinafter referred to as the respondents. The respondents to the appeal are the original petitioners. They are hereinafter referred to as the petitioners.2. The petitioners are engaged, inter alia, in the manufacture of jeeps, tractors and similar vehicles. In the course of manufacture the petitioners are required to make certain engine parts. The parts in question are cast by pouring molten metal into sand moulds. The sand moulds for these parts are prepared by the petitioners with the help of machines known as jolt and squeeze machines. The pattern for the mould is first mounted on the jolt and squeeze machine. A moulding box is mounted around the pattern and sand is poured over the pattern. This sand is squeezed by the jolt and squeeze machine for the purpose of producing the sand moulds for making these engine parts.3. The patterns and allied equipment in the present case are made of an aluminum alloy. The...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›