Mumbai Court January 1994 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.
Apar Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-1994
Reported in: (1994)(72)ELT561Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The above listed Reference Application seeks to raise certain questions of law with regard to the findings given by this Bench in Para 9.4 of this Bench's Order No. 976-77/93-WRB, dated 17-6-1993 reported in 1993 (67) E.L.T. 364 (Tri.). In the appeals filed by the applicants M/s. Apar Ltd., many issues were dealt with and were finally disposed of by this Bench in the said order. One of the issues decided by this Bench relates to eligibility of MODVAT Credit of duty paid on molybdenum wire (hereinafter referred to as "Molywire") used as a core (mandrel) for winding tungsten wire and the said Molywire was removed from the coil by dipping in acid bath. This Bench in Para 9.4 of the above order held as below : 2. This Bench held the issue on merits against the applicants but allowed their appeal on the ground of time bar of the demand. The department have not filed any Cross Objection to the application moved by the assessee. Hence we are to confine ourselves to the questions proposed ...
Mohamad Ahmed YasIn Mansuri Vs. State of Maharashtra Through D.C.B., C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-1994
Reported in: 1994CriLJ1854
Ashok Agarwal, J.1. The question of law that arises in the case and which has been argued before us at great length is, whether the Court has power and discretion while remanding the accused to custody under Section 309, Criminal Procedure Code to remand him into police custody. To put the question in other words, whether the Court has to remand an accused, while dealing with an offence which it has taken cognizance of, only to judicial or jail custody and has no discretion whatever under any circumstances to remand him to police custody. A further question that has been agitated is in respect of the powers conferred on the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The question, being, whether the limitations in respect of jurisdiction of Courts, as provided in Section 19 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 No. 28 of 1987 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred as 'TADA Act') would affect the exercise of the power or the ju...
Rasta Peth Education Society Vs. Pethkar Udhao Bhimashankar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-1994
Reported in: 1994(4)BomCR410; (1995)IILLJ908Bom; 1994(1)MhLj725
B.P. Saraf, J. 1. This revision application is directed against the order of the Civil Judge, Pune dated September 11, 1990 rejecting the preliminary objection of the applicant to the maintainability of the suit on the ground of availability of alternate remedy under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 ('the Act') and the rules framed thereunder and bar of res judicata. 2. The applicant, Rasta Peth Education Society, runs a number of educational institutions at Pune. The respondent was employed as a teacher in a school run by the applicant since 1965. In the year 1984 an enquiry was instituted against him on various charges in which he was found guilty. It appears that by a letter dated April 19, 1984 addressed to the Head Master of the School, the respondent applied for voluntary retirement and also sought permission to take up any other employment in the meantime. By a letter of the same date to the Chairman of the Enquiry Committ...
Babarao Son of Namdeorao Gedam Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-1994
Reported in: 1994(3)BomCR375
A.A. Desai, J.1. The Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, recorded a finding of conviction for the offence punishable under section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant/accused for having on 14-12-1986 at about 4-00 p.m. in village Tembha, given kicks and fists blows to deceased Disiram, knowing that his act would cause such bodily injury likely to result in death in the ordinary course of nature. Involvement of the accused in the incident could not seriously be questioned. Only debate is whether the act of crime was with such knowledge, envisaged by second part of section 304 of the Indian Penal Code.2. P.W. 12 Dr. Jaiswal conducted the autopsy on 16-12-1986. According to him, deceased Disiram suffered two contusions and three abrasions. One of the contusions was on central part of the chest. On internal examination, rupture of spleen, liver and kidney was noticed. The opinion of the doctor is that death was owing to these internal injuries.3. Shri Kankale, learned A.P.P....
The Indian Standard Metal Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. the Union of India (Uo ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-1994
Reported in: 1994(3)BomCR392
V.A. Mohta, J.1. Following entry in Exemption Notification No. 43/75 dated 1-3-1975, Exh. `B', issued under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 falls for consideration in this writ petition.Sr. Sub Description Duty ConditionsNo. ItemNo.2. (a) Aluminum in any crude Nil If manufactured fromfrom (including ingots, any of the followingbars, blocks, slabs, materials or a com-billets, shots, pellets, bination thereof, and castings. namely :--(a) old aluminumscrap;or(b) waste or scrap obtain--ed from virgin metalor virgin aluminiumin any crude form,or a combination of both on which appro--apriate duty ofexcise or the addi--tional duty leviableunder Section 2A of the Indian Tarrif Act, 1934(32 of 1934), as the case may be, hasalready been paid.By order dated 28-12-1981 passed by the Assistant Collector, exemption has been denied to the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners had used alloys like Silicon, Copper, Magnesium, Manganese and Nickel in the Aluminium' and hence the pro...
Mrs. Roshan D. Nariman Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1994
Reported in: (1995)52ITD269(Mum.)
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the C.I.T.(A)-XV, Bombay and pertains to the assessment year 1988-89.2. The short question neatly identified by Shri. M. Subramanian, Id.counsel for the assessee, is whether the sum of Rs. 23,67,835, being the convertible value in rupees of the prize money of 1,00,000 on Premium Savings Bond, held in the name of the assessee, of the face value of 50, alleged to have been received as gift consequent upon the declaration of prize, is exigible to tax 3. Briefly the facts:-The assessee is a citizen of India and domiciled in India. For the relevant assessment year, she was a resident in India. She is following mercantile system of accounting. Her accounting period ended on 31-3-1988. In her return, she reflected share of profit received from M/s. Zorashtrian Dairy. Along with the return of income, the assessee filed in ward remittance certificate number 00450 dated 23-12-1987 from Bank of India, Bombay. As per the certificate ...
Parvatibai and Another Vs. Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Bom19; 1994(2)MhLj1398
ORDER1. This is a Writ Petition on behalf of the original landholder Fulchand Jaiswal. The said landholder is now dead and is being represented by his legal representatives.2. The original landholder filed a return under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Ceiling Act'). He showed the total holdings of his family to be 58.54 acres. By order dated 11-1-1977 the proceedings were concluded by the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal who observed that certain lands were not shown by Fulchand in his return and ultimately it came to be decided that the total holding of Fulchand was 119.88 acres out of which 2.17 acres were excluded as Potkharab area. After allowing the limit of 54.00 acres of land to be retained, the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal declared 63.71 acres as surplus land. An appeal was filed against this decision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal by its or...
M/S. T.A. Darbar and Company and Others Vs. Union Bank of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1994
Reported in: AIR1994Bom217; (1994)96BOMLR32
ORDERM. T. Pendse, J.1. The respondent bank instituted Suit No. 1747 of 1976 against the appellants on the original side of this Court for recovery of sum of Rs. 48,494.05 along with simple interest on the principal sum of Rs. 46,520.31 at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the decree till realisation. On January 17, 1977 this Court passed a consent decree and the decretal amount as sought by the bank was made payable by instalments. The appellants were directed to pay the amount by monthly instalment of Rs. 1200/-, first of such instalment to be paid on or before February 10, 1977 and recurring instalments to be paid on or before tenth day of each succeeding month. The decree also provided that in the event of the appellants committing default of any three monthly instalments, the bank will be entitled to recover the entire decretal amount forthwith. The appellants committed default and on April 10,1977 the bank served notice upon the appellants informing of the commission of t...
Jai Hind Oil Mills and Co. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1994
Reported in: 1994LC324(Bombay); 1994(71)ELT902(Bom)
S.M. Jhunjhunwala, J.1. By this Petition, the Petitioners seek to challenge the orders dated 28th August, 1985 and 30th August, 1985 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise Division IV, Bombay II, the copies whereof are annexed as Exhibits 'Q' and 'T' to the Petition. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are as under : (i) The 1st Petitioners manufacture various types of vegetable oils at their factory at Vikhroli, Bombay. By a Notification dated 29th May, 1971, the Central Government exempted vegetable products made from indigenous Rice Bran Oil from Excise duty leviable thereon to the extent of Rs. 10/- per quintal subject to the conditions mentioned therein. (ii) The Petitioners were manufacturing vegetable products using indigenous Rice Bran Oil. The Petitioners claimed benefit of exemption under the said Notification dated 29th May, 1971 as amended by Notification No. 40/72-C.E., dated 17-3-1972. The Petitioners first paid the excise duty payable and thereafter claimed refund...
Gulf Air, Bombay Vs. S.M. Vaze, Member, Industrial Court, Maharashtra, ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1994
Reported in: (1995)ILLJ246Bom; 1994(2)MhLj1060
B.P. Saraf. J. 1. As both these writ petitions arise out of the same order of the Industrial Court dated 27 October, 1989 passed on complaint (ULP) No. 1074 of 1988, they are taken up together for hearing and disposal. 2. Writ Petition No. 163 of 1990 has been filed by Gulf Air, an Airline Company owned by the State of Baharain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Sultanate of Oman. United Arab Emirates, Sultanate of Oman. It carries on business in India since 1971. The petitioner in writ petition No. 176 of 1990 is Jet Air Private Limited. It is carrying on the business as General Sales Agents of several Airlines since 1974. The Respondents No. 2 in both the writ petitions is the Gulf Air Employees' Association, a registered Trade union representing the employees of Gulf Air. 2-A. The material facts giving rise to the controversy involved in these two writ petitions may briefly be stated as under : Gulf Air (hereinafter also referred to as 'the petitioner'), which has been operating as an Ai...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »