Mumbai Court June 1993 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.
Baburao Raghu Patil and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-1993
Reported in: 1993(3)BomCR334; (1993)95BOMLR550; 1994CriLJ192; 1993(2)MhLj1299
ORDER1. Heard Shri Marwadi for the petitioners and Smt. Pingulkar, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This is an application for bail. The charge is under section 302, of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners had earlier applied to the Sessions Court for bail on 26th October, 1992 on the ground that though they were arrested on the 10th July, 1992, the remand was obtained on the 11th day of July, 1992 and the charge-sheet was filed on the 91st day i.e. to say on the 9th October, 1992. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Chaganti Satyanarayana v. The State of Andhra Pradesh reported in : [1986]2SCR1128 , it is clear that the period of 90 days begins to run from the date of the order of remand and not from any earlier date when the accused was arrested. It does appear that the charge-sheet was despatched on the 8th October, 1990, which was the 90th day, taking 11th July, 1992 as the first day. However, the learned Sessions Judge took the view that afte...
Shrawan Waman Nade and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-1993
Reported in: 1994(2)BomCR668; 1994CriLJ780; 1994(1)MhLj220
ORDER1. The applicants along with some others came to be arrested in Crime No. 45 of 1993 registered at Police Station Hingna under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code for murdering one Rajesh and causing serious injuries to one Bahadur on 1-2-1993. A report in that respect came to be made to the Police Station Officer on 1-2-1993 at about 11.15 p.m. The applicants came to be arrested on 1-3-1993 and produced before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 10th Court, Nagpur on 2-3-1993. The prosecution sought police remand. The said application was signed by one K. G. Patil as Investigating Officer and it came to be granted up to 6th March, 1993. Another application came to be submitted on 6th March, 1993 signed by P.S.O., Police Station Hingna before the learned J.M.F.C., 10th Court, Nagpur, seeking magisterial custody remand. The learned Magistrate granted M.C.R. up to 20th March, 1993. Again on 20th March, 1993, another application came to be filed for extensi...
Mohammad Aslam BadruddIn Shaikh Vs. S.K. Bapat, Commissioner of Police ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-1993
Reported in: (1993)95BOMLR545
M.L. Dudhat, J.1. The only important point which is to be decided in this criminal writ petition is as to whether failure on the part of respondent No. 2, the State Government, to send the document on the basis of which the grounds of detention were formulated vitiate the order of detention on the ground of non compliance of Section 3(5) of the National Security Act, 1980.2. The petitioner-detenu was served with the order of detention on November 25, 1992 (which was dated November 5, 1992, passed by the Commissioner of Police respondent No. 1, under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act. 1980). Mr. Tripathi, appearing on behalf of the petitioner-detenu, contended in his petition, more particularly in ground No. 5(J) at page 7 of the petition, that respondent No. 2 after its approval failed to send the documents on the basis of which the grounds of detention were formulated and, therefore, it was not possible for respondent No. 3 Union of India, to exercise its power under Section 1...
R.R. Todiwalla Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-1993
Reported in: (1993)115CTR(Bom)52; [1994]208ITR65(Bom)
V.A. Mohta J. 1. Under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred to this court the following questions at the instance of the assessee : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the consideration which was to be taken into account while computing the capital gains included the compensation for the land acquired, as also the 15 per cent. solatium awarded under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act (2) Whether, in law, the consideration received for the acquisition of the property is to be taken as the compensation fixed by the Government for the compulsory acquisition of the land and nothing more ?' 2. The relevant assessment year is 1974-75. Capital gains pertain to the amount actually received by the assessee in consideration of the acquisition of land under the Land Acquisition Act. As provided under section 23(2) of the said Act, in addition to the market value of th...
Cipla Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-1993
Reported in: 1993LC38(Bombay); 1993(67)ELT61(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. Petitioner No. 1 is a joint stock company incorporated on August 17,1935 under the provisions of the Companies Act. The company runs its factory at Bombay and manufactures medicines known as `Patent and proprietary medicines' falling under Tariff Item No. 14E of the First Schedule of Central Excise Act and the goods are liable to pay excise duty at prescribed rate. The excise duty on patent and proprietary/medicinal preparations was imposed with effect from March 1,1961. The medicines manufactured by the company are not advertised but it is customary that free supply of medicinal preparations and drugs is made to hospitals, nursing homes and medical practitioners to enable them to get familiarise with such preparations. The samples handed over to the hospitals and medical practitioners are free and the company does not recover any charges for the value thereof. 2. The Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) published exemption notification dated Ap...
Mangla Brothers Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-1993
Reported in: 1993LC378(Bombay); 1993(67)ELT466(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. The petitioner secured import licence dated May 12, 1981 for import of diamonds unset and uncut and which was endorsed for import of OGL items under Para 185 of the Import Policy 1982-83 subject to the conditions laid down. The import of beef tallow was canalised with effect from June 5, 1981 and from that date onward beef tallow could not be imported against the licence secured by the petitioners. 2. The petitioners booked an order for importation of beef tallow in March 1983 and the Bill of Lading was issued on April 8, 1983. The imported goods arrived at Bombay on May 3, 1983 and the petitioners filed bill of entry for home consumption. The petitioners realising that the customs authorities are likely to confiscate the imported goods on the ground that the import of beef tallow as not permissible, approached the customs authorities and requested to issue show cause notice. The petitioners waived service of show cause notice and the Assistant Collector by impugned order ...
Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-1993
Reported in: 1993LC252(Bombay); 1993(67)ELT65(Bom)
Pendse J. 1. The petitioners are a public limited company and are engaged in the business of woollen materials. The petitioners, in course of the business, imported synthetic waste under OGL-4 AM 1983-84 (Appendix 16) and sought clearance. The petitioners claimed that the goods imported were destroyed in Customs Warehouse at Ludhiana due to fire. The customers authority declined to clear the goods by asserting that OGL-4 Appendix 16 of Import Policy 1983-84 has no application. The petitioners thereupon preferred the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking direction to the Collector of Customs to clear the consignment. The learned single Judge while admitting the petition directed the department. The clear the consignment after provisional assessment and by securing requisite bank to complete adjudication proceedings in pursuance of the show cause notice issued on June 23,1985 under Section 124 of the Customs act. 2. Accordingly, the petitioners cleared the consig...
Victory Plastics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-1993
Reported in: 1993LC381(Bombay); 1993(67)ELT467(Bom)
Pendse, J. 1. The short question which falls for determination in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is whether the Assistant Collector of Customs, Refund Department was justified in rejecting the refund application filed by the petitioners on the ground that the exemption sought from payment of duty was not available. Only few, facts ar required to be stated to appreciate the grievance of the petitioners. The petitioners imported PVC resin which is liable to payment of customs duty under Tariff Item No. 39.01/06 of First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The Central Government in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Customs Act had published exemption notification providing that PVC resin falling under Chapter 39 when imported into India shall be exempted from the whole of duty of customs leviable thereon. The exemption notification from the whole of duty of customs leviable thereon. The exemption notification was to remai...
Assocn. of Engineering Workers Vs. Air Workers (India) Engineering Pvt ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-1993
Reported in: (1994)ILLJ1136Bom
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. By this writ petition the union seeks to challenge Award of the Industrial Tribunal in the matter of reinstatement of 21 retrenched workers dated November 21, 1988. By the said Award, the Reference came to be rejected.2. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are as follows:(a) Respondent No. 1-Company is a Partnership Firm, carrying on business of servicing and repairing air-crafts. It also carried on business of air supply drop, Infra and scanning, aerial photography, aerial spraying etc. (b) During the period 1971 to 1978, 160 workers were engaged by the Company and during that period, the Company was servicing air-crafts belonging to private sector Companies viz. Birla & JK Group, Border Security Force, N.S.R.A., D.G.CA. and I.G.R.O., a Government Organisation. In addition, the Company was also carrying on airlifting activity, regarding perishable cargo to the Gulf Countries. (c) In August, 1979, however, the 1st respondent-Company lost Border Security Forc...
Shivraj S/O Ramji Paul-shete Vs. Prayagbai W/O Mahadu Shete Died - Thr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-1993
Reported in: 1994(1)BomCR561; (1993)95BOMLR681
N.P. Chapalgaonker, J.1. When two or more persons put forth their claim as sole heir of the deceased plaintiff, what would be the scope of the enquiry under Order XXII, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure is the question which arises for determination in this revision application. 2. Prayagbai w/o. Mahadu Shete filed a Regular Civil Suit No. 216 of 1986 for perpetual injunction against Prabhuappa and Narayan. During the pendency of the said suit, Prayagbai died on 24-7-1986. On 8-10-1986, the learned trial Judge passed order that suit has abated since the heirs of the plaintiff were not brought on record in time. On 13-10-1986, Bapurao s/o. Banderao Shete filed an application for setting aside abatement and bringing him on record as legal representative of deceased Prayagbai, since Prayagbai allegedly executed Will deed in his favour on 11-3-1984. It was also contended by him that suit cannot abate before expiry of 90 days period from the date of death and hence order of the learned ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »