Mumbai Court June 1995 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.
Dai-ichi Karkaria Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-1995
Reported in: 1995(80)ELT24(Bom)
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. By this petition, the petitioners seek a declaration that the petitioner No. 1 Company is not liable to pay any customs duty or additional duty of customs for the imported material cleared between December 30, 1986 and January 21, 1987. The company also seeks a declaration that they are entitled to clear the material imported prior to December 30, 1986 and lying in bond without payment of any customs duty or additional duty of customs. The facts briefly are as follows :- The petitioner No. 1 Company is infer alia engaged in the manufacture of speciality chemicals used in oil industry in connection with oil exploration viz. Flow Improver under the trade name 'Daitrolite'. In respect of the said chemical, respondent No. 1 from time to time offered diverse incentives to promote exports from the country. However, in September 1982 new Policy was introduced by Union of India and the incentives of duty free imports were also extended to deemed exports viz. supplies of dive...
Sampat Ramrao Shelke Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)BomCR224
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. The appellant aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 31-7-1993, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati, in Sessions Case No. 20 of 1992 convicting and sentencing him to under-go 7 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000 and in default to further suffer 2 years rigorous imprisonment, under section 304, Part I I.P.C., has come in appeal before us.2. The prosecution case in brief runs as under :The informant Rajendra (P.W. 1) runs a grocery shop known as 'Tushar Kirana Stores'. The aforesaid shop is located in village Khamgaon, Taluka : Daund, District Pune. On 5-3-1991 and 6-3-1991 there was a fair in the informant's village. On 6-3-1991 between 7.30 and 8.00 p.m. while the informant was in his grocery shop, the acquitted accused Ashok Baban Nagawade and his friends came there and started threatening him and his brother Sanjay who also happened to be there. Sanjay is alleged to have lodged an F.I.R. at Police Station Yewat pertaining to...
Popat Dhondiram Katare Vs. Laxman Manohar Waghmare
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-1995
Reported in: 1995(4)BomCR545
R.G. Vaidyanatha, J. 1. This is a writ petition directed against the order dated 20th January, 1995 in Civil Appeal No. 333 of 1992 on the file of 3rd Additional District Judge, Solapur. Heard both the sides.2. The respondent-landlord filed an eviction petition against the petitioner-tenant on three grounds. After trial, the trial Court accepted all the three grounds and granted an order of eviction. The petitioner took up the matter in appeal before the learned District Judge who concurred with the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the order, the tenant has come up with this writ petition.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has questioned the correctness and legality of the impugned judgments. It was argued that the landlord has failed to make out any of the three grounds and the order of eviction is bad. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent supported the order of eviction.4. The main ground of eviction is one of person...
P.J. Balani Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-1995
Reported in: 1996(83)ELT275(Bom)
Pendse, Acting C.J. Rule, returnable forthwith. Shri Siodia, learned counsel for the respondents waives service. By consent petition called out for hearing. Heard counsel. 1. The petitioner preferred appeal before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal to challenge the order dated March 31, 1992 passed by the Collector of Customs imposing a penalty of Rs. 25,00,000/-. The petitioner filed an application for dispensing condition of pre-deposit of the penalty amount. The petitioner claimed that his financial condition was not sound. The Tribunal directed deposit of Rs. 10,00,000/- by order dated November 20, 1992. The deposit was not made and notice was issued to the petitioner to show-cause why appeal should not be dismissed. 2. The petitioner preferred writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in this Court and by order dated June 7, 1993 passed in writ petition No. 951 of 1993, the petitioner was directed to furnish bank guarantee of Rs. 10,00,000/- instea...
Chief General Manager, Telecom Factory and Another Vs. Karlekar S. S. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-1995
Reported in: 97(1995)CCR377; (1997)IIILLJ1145Bom
1. These writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India impugn an order dated July 11, 1990 made in Applications Nos. LC 2/768 to 886 of 1989 and an order dated August 6, 1990 made in Applications Nos. LC-2/1003 to 1019 and 2201 to 2203 of 1989 by the Central Government Labour Court No. 2, Bombay, under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Since both the writ petitions raise identical issues as to facts and law, they can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment and order. 2. The Petitioners in both writ petitions are the Chief General Manager of the Telecom Factory at Deonar, Bombay, and the Union of India. The Respondents are the workmen employed in the Telecom Factory. 3. The Telecom Factory at Deonar is registered under the Factories Act. It is stated that there are two buildings in the Deonar factory - one in which the manufacturing activity on shop floor is carried out and another in which the clerical and administrative work is ca...
Jayprakash Gangadhar Jadhav Vs. Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-1995
Reported in: (1997)IIILLJ506Bom
1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order of the Labour Court, Nasik, dated September 7, 1991, made in Application (IDA) No. 140 of 1988 under the Provisions of Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The Petitioner was in the employment of the First Respondent and, on an allegation of lo misconduct, he was suspended from work with effect from September 1, 1987 and served with a charge-sheet. A lengthy domestic enquiry was held against the Petitioner, which resulted in the Enquiry Officer finding the Petitioner guilty of the charges alleged against him. Under the Standing Order 28(c) applicable to the First Respondent establishment, the employer is required to give the delinquent workman a reasonable opportunity of making representation on the penalties proposed. Accordingly, the Petitioner was given a show cause notice dated July 29, 1987 informing him that he has b...
Milan Products Vs. Sumanbai Nivrutti (Smt.) and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-1995
Reported in: (1997)IIILLJ1079Bom
1. This writ petition is directed against an Award of the First Labour Court, Pune dated April 26, 1985 made in Reference (IDA) No. 25 of 1980 under Section 10(1)(c) read with Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The Petitioner had an establishment in which the activity of manufacturing and sale of plastic bags was carried out. The First Respondent was employed in the manufacturing activity from July 1, 1976. The First Respondent's service was terminated on June 5, 1979 on the ground that the Petitioner had lost confidence in her, though in the termination order no reason was given for the termination of service. The First Respondent raised an industrial dispute for reinstatement in service, which came to be referred to the Labour Court, Pune, vide Reference (IDA) No. 25 of 1980. After recording evidence and hearing the parties, the Labour Court by the impugned Award held that the service of the First Respondent was illegally ter...
Dr. J.C.N. Joshipura Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-1995
Reported in: (1996)56ITD424(Mum.)
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XVII, Bombay, and pertains to the assessment year 1987-88.2. The solitary ground raised in this appeal relates to the question whether the travel grant of Rs. 15,000 received by the assessee from Jaslok Hospital is exigible to tax.3. Briefly the facts : The appellant is an Orthopaedic Surgeon mainly attached to Jaslok Hospital. During the relevant assessment year, the appellant received a grant of Rs. 15,000 from the said hospital. This grant said to have been paid to the senior and deserving doctors attached to Jaslok Hospital once in three years for attending conferences or for study tour for advancement of knowledge and experience. A certificate dated 16-10-1986 bearing Ref. No.DRC/TG/86-87, was issued by the Jaslok Hospital & Research Centre. The scope of the grant was further elaborated as under: In continuation of our certificate DRC/TG/86-87 dated 16-10-1986, this is to ...
Mrs. Maria Rosa Costa Dias and Others Vs. Communicate of Chicolna and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-1995
Reported in: 1998(1)BomCR377
ORDERT.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. Original defendants Nos. 1 to 9 in SpecialCivil Suit No. 143/92 on the file of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Vasco-da-Gama, filed Appeal No. 75/93 (the original defendant No. 10 being their mother since died). Defendant No. 11 in the said suit filed Appeal No. 80/93. The appellants in both the appeals are challenging the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Vasco-da-Gama, in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 254/93 dated 25-5-1993. Since these two appeals arise out of a common order, I propose to dispose of these two appeals by this common judgment. 2. The Special Civil Suit No. 143/92 was filed by the Communicate of Chicolna, through its Attorney, for the reliefs of granting the declaration of title of the suit property and recovery of possession thereof. It also contained prayers for a declaration of annulling a sale deed executed by the defendants Nos. 1 to 10 in favour of defendant No. 11 and also cancellation of the mortga...
Samar Timber Corporation Vs. Asstt. Collector of Customs, Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-1995
Reported in: 1995(79)ELT549(Bom)
M. L. Pendse, Acting C.J. 1. M/s. Universal Products had imported from Singapore a consignment of timber load in the month of October 1986. The Petitioners claim to have purchased the consignment on 'High-Seas' basis. On November 5, 1986, the Customs House Agent of the Petitioners prepared a Bill of Entry for home consumption and tendered the same in the Customs office. It is the claim of the Petitioners that the Bill of Entry was returned as the weight of the consignment did not tally with that shown in the Import General Manifest. The Petitioners had taken away the Bill of Entry and lodged it on November 19, 1986. The duty payable on 19th November, 1986 had increased by virtue of notification. The Petitioners claim that the duty should be charged as prevailing on November 5, 1986. The Petitioners approached this Court, seeking clearance of goods on payment of duty which was payable on November 5, 1986. The Petitioners were permitted to clear the goods on payment of duty prevailing on...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »