Mumbai Court July 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.
Oriole (Exports) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-1993
Reported in: 1993LC587(Bombay); 1993(68)ELT724(Bom)
Pendse, J. 1. The Petitioner No. 1 are the holders of a import licence dated June 24, 1982 issued during the policy period April to March 1983. The licence was revalidated on December 25, 1983 during April - March 1984 policy. The petitioners imported float glass and tendered 12 Bills of Entry for home consumption. The Customs Authorities served a query memo dated September 1, 1984 enquiring as to under which provisions of licence the goods are imported and whether the import is under OGL. The petitioners filed reply immediately setting out how the import was effected and how it is permissible under the licence which was revalidated. The petitioners also sent a reminder on September 14, 1984. The Customs Authorities did not take any action thereon butt also did not clear the consignment. The petitioners thereupon preferred the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. The petition was admitted on October 8, 1984 and the petitioners were permitted to clear the cons...
Metalman Pipe Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-1993
Reported in: 1993(43)ECC171; 1993LC186(Bombay); 1993(68)ELT285(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. The petitioners No. 1 is a company manufacturing steel pipes and tubes. For manufacture of pipes and tubes the petitioners import boiler Hot Rolled Coils which are used for re-rolling. Import of Hot Rolled Coils was permitted under O. G. L. Appendix X of the relevant Import Policy. The company placed an order on February 17, 1984 for supply of 800 metric tonnes of Hot Rolled Coils. On February 28, 1984 the company Bombay on August 17, 1984. The company filed a bill of entry and sought clearance under Entry No. 73.08 of the Customs Tariff Act. The entry reads as follows. 'Iron or steel coils for re-rolling'. The rate of duty is 60%. The Department declined to accept the claim and felt that the relevant entry is 73.13 of the Customs Tariff. Entry 73.13 reads as follows : 'Sheets and plates, of iron or steel, hot-rolled or cold-rolled'. and the duty payable is 100%. Being aggrieved by the assessment order endorsed on the bill of entry demanding duty under Entry No. 73.13, the...
Motani Industries Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-1993
Reported in: 1993(43)ECC172; 1993LC187(Bombay); 1993(68)ELT25(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. The petitioner firm imported Polyester Metallised film against import licence issued to Messrs Mehra Leonardt Pens Pvt. Ltd., with a letter of authority in favour of the petitioners. The licence was issued for items covered by Appendix VIII of April-March 1983 import policy end-product i.e. end- product mentioned in the said licence viz., stationery and general engineering. On import of the consignment, the petitioners filed Bill of Entry on October 7, 1982. The Customs Authorities served show cause notice dated December 15, 1982 on the petitioners to explain why the consignment should not be confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. The Department claimed that the goods imported did not appear to be required for the end-product mentioned in the licence. The petitioners filed reply to the show cause notice and the Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay, by order dated May 12, 1983 confiscated the consignment under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act read with Sec...
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. T.A. Gavandee and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-1993
Reported in: [1994(68)FLR543]; (1994)ILLJ78Bom
S.W. Puranik, J.1. Heard Mr. C.J. Sawant for the Petitioner Corporation. Mr. R. J. Kochar for Respondent employee. 2. Respondent-employee was a Conductor employed by the Petitioner - Transport Corporation and in a raid, he was checked. The Inspecting Officer reported that the Respondent-Employee had indulged in malpractices by not issuing tickets and collecting money. A regular departmental enquiry was conducted and it was held that the employee has in fact indulged in malpractice. He was therefore, charge-sheeted, departmental enquiry held and was accordingly dismissed. The Respondent-employee challenged the said dismissal and sought reference of his dispute before the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court upon investigation found that the enquiry conducted by the Petitioner Corporation was just and fair but however, the conclusion reached against the employee were not founded on any evidence on record. He, therefore, set aside the order of dismissal. During...
Bharat Textiles Mills Vs. Datt Ramalaxman Gore and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-1993
Reported in: (1995)ILLJ92Bom
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner Company seeks to challenge the order of the Industrial Court dated August 21, 1989 passed under Section 84 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 in Appeal (IC) No. 12 of 1985. By the said order, respondent No. 1 is ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service and payment of 40% of the back wages from the date of termination of service till reinstatement. 2. The facts giving rise to this writ petition are as follows:- (a) Pursuant to the charge-sheet dated November 29, 1982 the petitioner was charged for resorting to and continuing with the strike from January 18, 1982. The said strike was declared as illegal by the Labour Court on February 12, 1982 in Application (LCB) No. 91 of 1982. According to the said charge-sheet, after the declaration of the strike as illegal by the Labour Court, the management brought to the notice of the workman the fact that the strike is declared as il...
Ananda Sakharam Jadhav Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-1993
Reported in: 1994(1)BomCR17
Ashok Agarwal, J.1. Criminal Appeal No. 61 of 1990 is filed by original accused No.1 and Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 1990 is filed by original accused No. 3 At the trial, four accused were charged under section 307, 323 and 504 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for having in furtherance of their common intention, on 3rd of November, 1988, at about 10.30 p.m., on the Table Land at Panchgani, accused No. 1 stabbed P.W. 4 Dnyandeo alias Vinayak Dagadu Shinde and thereby attempted to commit his murder and all the accused voluntarily caused hurt and gave provocation to the said injured Vinayak. Pending the trial, accused No. 4 absconded. His trial was separated. The trial against accused Nos. 1 to 3 proceeded. By judgment and order, passed on the 27th of December, 1989, in Sessions Case No. 33 of 1989, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Satara was pleased to convict accused Nos. 1,2 and 3 under sections 307, 323 and 504 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. For the offenc...
Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1993
Reported in: 1993(68)ELT34(Bom)
Pendse J. 1. The petitioners filed 14 different applications for refund of duty paid in respect of import of (a) Sorbitol (b) Propylene Glycol and (c) Paraphenetidine. The petitioners were claiming that the three items were drug intermediates entitled to the benefit of Notification dated March 1, 1975. The Assistant Collector of Customs by order dated September 12, 1980 dismissed all the applications on the ground that the three items imported are not drug intermediates and are not entitled to exemption under the notification. The Assistant Collector further held that all the applications were filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 27 of the Customs Act. 2. The petitioners preferred appeal before the Appellate Collector of Customs and by order dated December 18, 1980 the appeal was partly allowed. The Appellate Authority held that sorbitol was a drug intermediate and was entitled to the benefit of exemption notification and the duty recovered in respect of impor...
Suaibo Ibow Casamma Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1993
Reported in: 1994(1)BomCR64; 1995(80)ELT762(Bom)
ORDER1. This case presents a picture of total indifference on the part of the Customs Officer to the basic provisions and fundamental rights dealing with the detention of an accused in police custody beyond the period of 24 hours. Not only are the provisions of Section 57 and Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure violated, but there is also a clear breach of the fundamental rights of an accused enshrined under Article 21 and Article 22 of the Constitution of India. In is all the more unfortunate that this should have occurred in a case concerned with the menace of smuggling of narcotics. I have heard Shri Prem for the petitioner, Shri Patwardhan for respondent No. 1 - Union of India and Smt. Pingulkar for respondent No. 2 - State of Maharashtra. 2. The petitioner has been charged with offence punishable under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 as also under Section 8(c) read with Sections 21, 23, 28 and 9 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short,...
Bank of Baroda Vs. Fairgrowth Financial Services Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1993
Reported in: [1994]80CompCas857(Bom)
ORDERS.N. Vakiava, J.1. By this application, the applicant seeks permission to appropriate and/or set off a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs. The applicants had on April 10, 1992, undertaken to pay to the first respondent the said sum of Rs. 50 lakhs. This was to be out of the total collection made by the applicants on behalf of the third respondent.2. The facts briefly stated are that the applicant had granted to the first respondent a cash credit facility on May 10, 1991. In respect of the said cash credit facility the usual documents such as promissory notes, letter of continuing security, deed of hypothecation, etc., all dated August, 1991, have been executed by the first respondent. Under the documents, the applicants have all the usual powers and rights taken by banks and financial institutions including (a) a charge on all assets and equipment purchased from monies borrowed ; (b) the right to see that the first respondents were to utilise monies advanced ; (c) the right to adjust accounts an...
Ramchandra S/O Vasudeo Patankar Vs. Smt. Mandakini W/O Purushottam Tap ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1993
Reported in: 1994(1)BomCR517
N.P. Chapalgaonkar, J.1. Mandakini w/o. Purshottam Tapaswi leased out a premises situated on Municipal Plot No. 5-25-75 at Tilak Path, Aurangabad, to the petitioner Ramchandra s/o. Vasudeo Patankar on a monthly rent of Rs. 350/-. Petitioner Ramchandra had advanced Rs. 10,000/- for some construction on the said premises and it was accordingly constructed. An application was moved by the landlady under section 15 of the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction & Lease) Control Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'Hyderabad Rent Act' for the purpose of brevity) before the Rent Controller at Aurangabad for eviction of the petitioner--tenant on the ground that tenant has committed default in the payment of rent, landlady requires the suit premises for expansion of her business titled as 'Tapaswi Travels' and on the ground that tenant had claimed permanent tenancy. Landlady had issued two notices on 19th October, 1985 and on 8th February, 1986 terminating the tenancy and the tenant had replied sai...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »