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.
Colour Cartons Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-09-1993
Reported in: 1993(67)ELT71(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners are seeking quashing of order dated February 5, 1983, the copy of which is annexed at Exhibit 'H' to the petition. By the impugned order, the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Bombay, directed the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs. 54,477.38 within three days from the date of receipt of the letter. The Assistant Collector threatened that failure would lead to action under Section 11 of the Central Excise Act. The amount was demanded in pursuance of order passed by the Superintendent, Central Excise, on October 31,1981. Mr. Punwani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the impugned letter demanding amount from the petitioners no longer survives in view of the fact that the demand, which was based on the order passed by the Superintendent, Central Excise, was set aside in appeal by the Collector(Appeals). He submits that the order passed by the Superintendent, Cent...
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corpn. Vs. Conciliation Officer and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-09-1993
Reported in: [1994(68)FLR275]; (1994)IILLJ41Bom
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. In the instant petition, the order passed by the respondent No. 1 dated July 9, 1991 declaring the respondent No. 2 as the 'protected worker' is under challenge. This order has been passed under the provisions of Section 33(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act read with Rule 66(4) of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957.2. Few facts would help to understand the controversy. The Respondent No. 2 filed an application in the nature of a dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Akola under the provisions of Section 33(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act and more particularly under Rule 66(4) of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957 (for short, 'the Act' and 'the Rules').3. Rule 66 of the Rules provides that when there is a dispute regarding grant of status as a protected worker, the dispute could be referred to the Conciliation Officer. It seems that the said dispute has been filed at the instance of the respondent No. 2 who was not accorded the said...
Mrs. Rubabai Widow of Abdul-husseIn Mulla Mohomedally and ors. Vs. Mun ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-09-1993
Reported in: 1994(1)BomCR322
Sujata Manohar, J.1. The petitioner are the owners of a building bearing Ward No. 4874(1-2), Street No. 68-70, situated at Clive Road, Bombay-400 009. The building consists of a basement, a ground floor, a mezzanine floor and five upper floors. The ground floor and the mezzanine floor of this building were let out by the petitioners to the Post and Telegraph Department of the Union of India up to 30-6-1985.2. Under the Maharashtra Education and Employment Guarantee (Cess) Act, 1962, the Government of Maharashtra has levied with effect from 1st April, 1975 an Education Cess and an Employment Guarantee Cess on the said building. The petitioners received bills for property taxes including Education Cess and Employment Guarantee Cess for the period 1-4-1983 to 31-3-1985 from the 1st respondents. Despite notices of demand the petitioners did not pay the said bills and hence a warrant of attachment dated 11-12-1984 was issued and attachment levied on the said property for non payment of the ...
Amina Abdul Shaikh Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-09-1993
Reported in: 1993(3)BomCR549; (1993)95BOMLR829
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. An unusual but important aspect relating to the manner in which a search and seizure is required to be conducted in cases falling under the Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the N.D.P.S. Act') has been canvassed in the present appeal. Briefly stated, the question that is posed is as to whether in an exceptional situation where the accused happens to be a female and a personal search is required to be conducted when the raid has taken place 'on a crowded public road or some such place', whether it is not incumbent on the prosecuting authorities to proceed to a respectable and secluded area where the search may be conducted in confidence and in a manner that does not give rise to any doubt. It will be necessary to first set out a few relevant facts.2. On 6-10-1989, information was received by Police Sub-Inspector Khot (P.W. 3), who belongs to the Special Branch and was attached to the Khadak Police Station, Pune, about th...
Ram S/O. Sakharam Kolekar Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-09-1993
Reported in: 1993(3)BomCR714
N.P. Chapalgaonker, J.1. This writ petition raises an important question as to whether an order passed on the basis of a compromise can be challenged in an appeal before the District Judge under section 25 of the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954, hereinafter referred to as `the Hyderabad Rent Control Act' for the sake of brevity.2. In Rent Control Case No. 2 of 1990 praying for eviction of the tenant from a hall admeasuring 20' x 20' which is part of House No. 5-10-30 situated at Samadhan Colony in Augrangabad city, a compromise was filed and recorded on 11-1-1991. On the basis of this compromise, the learned Rent Controller, Aurangabad was pleased to pass an order on 10-2-1992 directing the eviction of the tenant petitioner from the disputed premises. This order came to be challenged before the learned District Judge, Aurangabad in Rent Appeal No. 4 of 1992 and he was pleased to hold that the appeal is not maintainable and, consequently, dismissed the appe...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Her Highness Maharani Vijaya Raje Scind ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-09-1993
Reported in: (1993)113CTR(Bom)452
V. A. MOHTA, J. :Following two questions have been referred to this Court under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 at the instance of the CIT, Bombay City :'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that 2/3rd of the income from the Gwalior Estate for the asst. yrs. 1970-71, 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1973-74 was assessable in the hands of the HUF consisting of Sri Madhavrao and his mother and the balance 1/3rd of the income was assessable in the hands of the AOP consisting of the legal heirs of the late Maharaja, Sir J. M. Scindia, and that no part of such income was assessable in the hands of Sri Madhavrao individually ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the partial distribution of the assets effected by the Administrator of the estate of the late Maharaja, Sir J. M. Scindia, on 1st February, 1968 was valid in law ?'2. The ultimate question is whether the Gwalior estate left ...
Neo-shine Varnishes Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-09-1993
Reported in: 1993(48)LC23(Bombay)
M.L. Pendse, J.1. The petitioners were served with show cause notice dated March 14, 1973 by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise for revision of excise duty for the period commencing from May 15, 1967 and ending with April 30, 1969. The show cause notice, inter alia, recites that during the course of investigation it was noticed that the petitioners had cleared paints and varnishes without proper documents. The enquiries revealed that the petitioners had issued paints and varnishes to various Government departments during the above period and total quantity supplied was 1,13,235 Ltrs. The petitioners, however, had shown the clearance from the factory of 16,712 Ltrs. The Department noticed against the production and clearance of the figures, the petitioners had cleared more goods than for what the duty was paid. The petitioners filed reply to the show cause notice raising various contentions including that the show cause notice was served after a period of limitation set out under...
Wefapros Workstroffs Deck and Co. Chdc Vs. Kingsley Industries P. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-08-1993
Reported in: 1994(1)BomCR311; 1993(2)MhLj1605
ORDERS.M. Jhunjhunwala, J.1. The disputes arising out of or relating to the Agreement for Transfer of Technology dated 5th June, 1986 entered between the petitioner and Respondent were referred to arbitration in accordance with the Arbitration Rules of the Indo-German Chamber of Commerce, Bombay and an Award dated 1st August, 1991 was made which was filed in this Court and numbered as Award No. 157 of 1991. Notice of filing of the said Award in this Court was served both upon the petitioner and Respondent. No petition to set aside, remit or remand the said Award was filed. On 24th March, 1992, Judgment and Decree in terms of the said Award was passed by this Court. At that time, no application was made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of interest on the decretal amount from the date of the decree till payment or realisation thereof. The present petition has been filed for review of the said order and decree passed on 24th March, 1992 so as to grant interest to the petitioner on th...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Herdillia Chemicals Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-08-1993
Reported in: [1995]216ITR742(Bom)
U.T. Shah J.1. The Tribunal has sent a consolidated statement of the case in respect of the three years under reference, as some of the issues raised in questions referred to us are common for the years under reference. 2. The assessee is a company and is engaged in chemical industry. The assessment years are 1969-70 to 1971-72 and the relevant previous years are the calendar years 1968, 1969 and 1970, respectively. 3. The issues involved in the first two questions referred to us are interlinked. The questions referred to us read as under: '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in directing granting of depreciation on the cost of plant and machinery, factory buildings and housing colony buildings as enhanced, respectively, by the sums of Rs. 10,41,016, Rs. 8,23,499 and Rs. 7,31,061 being the expenditure on land development, roads and fencing as allocated by the Tribunal among these three fixed assets, for the assessment years 1969-70, 19...
Duke and Sons Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-08-1993
Reported in: 1993(67)ELT76(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was filed on March 27, 1981 to challenge legality of ordered dated March 13, 1981, passed by Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Bombay Division. The petition was admitted on March 30, 1981. During the pendency of the petition, the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1983 (14) E. L. T. 1896 Union v. Bombay Tyers International was delivered setting out the scope and ambit of Section 4 of the Central Excise and Salt Act. The decision of the Supreme Court prescribes what deductions are permissible from the normal price to determine the assessable value. After the decision of the Supreme Court, the petition was placed before one of us (Pendse, J. ) and by order dated December 9, 1983, the proceedings were remitted back to the Assistant Collector with a direction to reconsider the matter in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court. The petitioners were permitted to file revised price list for proper deter...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »