Mumbai Court February 1996 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.
Vadilal Embroidery Unit and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-1996
Reported in: 1996(85)ELT235(Bom)
Shah, C.J.1. Petitioner No. 1 is a registered partnership firm carrying on the work of embroidery on cotton fabrics. The petitioners bring cotton fabrics into their factory from other factories by following the procedure prescribed under Rule 96DD of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') without payment of duty, for the purpose of embroidery subject to the observance of procedure prescribed under the Rules. It is submitted that Rule 96DD of the Rules permits removal of cotton fabrics from one factory to another factory for embroidery without payment of excise duty after compliance with the procedure under Rule 156A. 2. It is the contention of the petitioners that for the purpose of carrying out embroidery work they bring into their factory premises cotton fabrics which may be either duty-paid or non duty-paid. After the embroidery work is over, if the petitioners intend to remove the said fabrics for home consumption they pay duty on the base fabrics u...
Premier Automobile Employees Union Vs. K.M. Desai and ors
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-1996
Reported in: 1996(5)BomCR4; [1996(73)FLR1614]; (1998)IIILLJ1024Bom
Majithia J. 1. Premier Automobile Employees' Union has challenged the order of the Industrial Court, Maharashtra Bombay, in Application (MRTU) No. 11 of 1983 dated January 5, 1989 cancelling its registration as a recognised Trade Union of the Premier Automobiles Ltd., in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. Premier Automobile Employees' Union (hereinafter 'the Union') was recognised as a registered Trade Union in Premier Automobiles Ltd. by the Industrial Court vide its order dated July 9, 1978. Association of Engineering Workers (hereinafter 'the Association') filed an application dated June 16, 1983 under Section 13 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act') for cancellation of recognition of the Union. The cancellation was sought on the ground that the membership of the Union had, for a continuous period of six calendar months, fallen below the minimum required under Sectio...
Excell Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. V. Union of India and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)BomCR447; (1996)98BOMLR257; 1996(85)ELT225(Bom)
A.V. Savant, J. 1. The 1st petitioner is a company manufacturing products known as 'INDOSTAT SF52' and 'INDOSTAT SF' which, the petitioners claim, are classifiable under Tariff Item 3402.90 and eligible for exemption from excise duty under Notification No. 101 of 1966 dated 17th June, 1966 as amended from time to time inclusive of the amendment by Notification No. 4 of 1968 dated January 20, 1968 which is at Exhibit 'E'. 2. The petitioners product is an organic surface active agent sold under the said brand names of 'INDOSTAT SF52' and 'INDOSTAT SF'. The said products were covered under old Tariff Item 15AA of the First Schedule to the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') However, by exemption Notification No. 101 of 1966 dated 17th June, 1966, the Central Government inter alia, exempted 'Emulsifiers, wetting out agents, softeners and other like preparations intended for use in any industrial process' subject to the conditions mentioned in the said No...
Hanmant Mahajan Thakur and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)BomCR384
N.P. Chapalgaonker, J.1. Heard Shri S.B. Talekar and Shri V.G. Sakolkar, Advocates for the petitioners; Smt. A.S. Rasal, S.K. Kadam, Shri S.S. Shinde and Shri P.B. Varale, Assistant Government Pleaders for the respondent-State and Regional Subordinate Services Selection Board; and Shri A.S. Golegaonkar and Shri E.P. Sawant, Advocates for the Zilla Parishads. 2. These are the petitions by Multipurpose Health Workers who have undergone training for 12 months period and thereafter were appointed by the Zilla Parishads as Multipurpose Health Workers for a period of 2 years. Since the petitioners' services are either terminated or likely to be terminated, they have approached this Court for quashing the termination order and for challenging the action of the Zilla Parishads. 3. Health Worker is a District Technical Service (Class III) (Health) Grade-III in the Zilla Parishad and the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1967 prescribe that for the appointment in ...
Kamgar Sabha, Bombay Vs. Hindustan Ciba Geigy Ltd., Goa and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-1996
Reported in: [1995(71)FLR228]; (1997)IIILLJ793Bom
Chandrashekhara Das, J. 1. Rule. Returnable forthwith. By consent heard both sides. Respondents waive service. The Petitioner is a Union under the establishment of the first respondent. The several demands have been raised by the Petitioner - Union with the first respondent. With reference to these demands, there was conciliation, and when the conciliation failed, the Petitioner - Union requested to the Government to refer these disputes the Industrial Tribunal. Even though the request was made for reference of these disputes, the State Government did not act in time. In that context, the Petitioner - Union filed a Writ Petition before this Hon'ble Court being Writ Petition No. 163 of 1995 seeking mandamus to direct the State Government to refer the disputes to the Industrial Tribunal. Accordingly, by the judgment dated June 26, 1995, this Hon'ble Court directed the State Government to refer the disputes to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication as contemplated under Sec. 10 of the I...
Shivendra Sansguiri Vs. M/S. Adineo and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-1996
Reported in: 1998(2)ALD(Cri)177; 1996CriLJ1816
ORDER1. Rule. By consent heard forthwith. 2. The only question that arises in this Revision Application is whether the prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the drawer of a post-dated cheque who, after issuing the cheque closed the account in the Bank, is sustainable, in the event of the cheque being dishonoured. 3. The bare facts of the case are that accused (the petitioner herein) was engaged in the distribution of liquors and wines to retailers and he used to purchase from the complainant (the respondent herein) bulk quantities of various types of liquors on credit basis from 1991 onwards. When the accounts between the petitioner and the respondents struck, the petitioner was liable to pay a balance of Rs. 6,03,893 as on 4-7-1992 towards the transactions of purchase of liquors and wines on credit basis. On a settlement arrived between the parties, towards the part payment of the said dues, 3 cheques were issued by the petitioner, one of the cheques ...
Agarwal G.N. Vs. Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation, Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-1996
Reported in: (1997)IIILLJ819Bom
1. The only question posed in this appeal is whether the appellant's establishment is liable under the Employees' State Insurance Act, hereinafter called the 'said Act', and whether the Head Office of the appellant, from where runs mining industry, which is exempted under the provisions of the said Act, can be treated as a 'shop' and thus liable under the said Act, in pursuance of the Notification dated June 21, 1977 issued by the Government of Coa, Daman and Diu. 2. The Court below rejected the contention of the appellant claiming exemption relating to its Head Office under the provisions of the said Act. By the impugned Judgment dated December 18, 1989, the Court below had held that though the mining industry is exempted under the E.S.I. Act, the Head Office of the appellant cannot be treated as a mine at it can only be treated as a 'shop' and, therefore the appellant is liable for contribution. 3. The short facts for the purpose of this appeal can be stated, thus : The Regional Dire...
Neoluxe India (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-1996
Reported in: 1996(84)ELT416(Bom)
ORDERA.V. Savant, J.1. The Petitioner seeks to challenge two orders, (i) dated 7th May, 1986 (Exhibit 'A') passed by the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise and (ii) dated 29th July, 1987 (Exhibit 'G') passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. Under the Impugned orders it is held that the Petitioner's product, namely, Decorative Laminated Sheets, is classifiable under Tariff Item 15(A)(2) of the Central Excise Tariff and not under Item 68 as claimed by the Petitioner. 2. The Petitioner is a Company manufacturing Decorative Laminated Paper Sheets/Boards used mainly for furniture. The process of manufacturing the said product has been described in paragraph 6 of the Petition as under : 'A reactive and unstable solution is prepared from Phenol Formaldehyde, Melamine and Meta cresel. Base paper is passed through the said solution. The said paper therefore gets impregnated with said solution. Sheets or layers of such impregnated papers as required are taken for lamination ...
Suvidhe Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-1996
Reported in: 1996(82)ELT177(Bom)
ORDER1. Rule. By consent rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard parties. 2. Show cause notice issued by the Superintendent (Tech.) Central Excise to the petitioner to show cause why the refund claim for Excise Duty and Redemption fine paid in a sum of Rs. 14,07,410/- should be denied under Section 11B of the Central Excise Rules and Act, 1944 (sic) is impugned in the present petition. The aforesaid amount is deposited by the Petitioners not towards Excise Duty but by way of deposit under Section 35F for availing the remedy of an appeal. Appeal of the petitioners has been allowed by the Appellate Tribunal by its Judgment and order passed on 30th of November, 1993 with consequential relief. Petitioners' prayer for refund of the amount deposited under Section 35F has not received a favourable response. On the contrary the impugned show cause notice is issued why the amount deposited should not be forfeited. In our judgment, the claim raised by the Department in the show cause notice is ...
The Management, M/S. Reptakos Brett and Co. Ltd. Vs. Employees of Peti ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-1996
Reported in: 1996(4)BomCR311; (1997)ILLJ593Bom
1. Rule, returnable forthwith Mr. S. D. Thakur, Advocate waives service on behalf of the respondent No. 1. Mr. Suresh Chawda, A.G.P. waives service on behalf of the respondent No. 3. All the learned counsel agree that the Industrial Court is a formal party and service of rule on the Industrial Court may be dispensed with. The learned Counsel further prays that the writ petition may be heard finally at this stage. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. Mr. R. E. Moharir, the learned Council for petitioner submits that the dismissal of Reference by the Industrial Court, Nagpur by its award dated February 17, 1994 was not proper and the Industrial Court, Nagpur ought to have gone into the question of validity of the notice dated August 13, 1991 given by the elected representatives of the workmen for terminating the Settlement dated September 13, 1990 even if the workmen at whose instance the dispute was referred to the Industrial Court, Nagpur under Section 73 of the Bombay Indu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »