Mumbai Court July 1997 Judgments
Kanji Moorarji Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1997
Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT204Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants imported a consignment of High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) 350 MT for clearance of which they filed Bill of Entry in January, 1989 in the Mumbai Custom House. They declared the value of the goods as US $ 1,200 PMT on the ground that the goods were offered to them at that price by the Yugoslav supplier on 19-12-1988. On further enquiry it was found that the goods were originally shipped to M/s. Bombay Oil Industries @ US $ 1,400 PMT as per contract dated 3-9-1988 for 350 MT for shipment during September-October, 1988 against payment by confirmed irrevocable letter of credit. The goods had also been shipped as per terms of contract. The related Bill of Lading was dated 28-10-1988. Letter of Credit had also been opened for the value of the goods @ US $ 1,400. However, due to certain discrepancies in the shipment Bombay Oil Industries cancelled the L/C and their bankers returned the shipping documents to the Yugoslav suppliers by which time the goods had already been shi...
Tag this Judgment!Bajaj Tempo Limited and Another Vs. the Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)ALLMR503; 1998(1)BomCR745
ORDERA.P. Shah, J.1. The first petitioner Bajaj Tempo Limited (hereinafter called the 'Company') is a company registered under the Companies Act and the second petitioner is its Managing Director. The Company is carrying on business of manufacture and sale of light commercial vehicles in different models such as mini-bus, station wagon, utility van, ambulance, pick-up truck, dual cabin pick-up truck, delivery van, autorickshaw etc. Their manufacturing unit is located at Akurdi within the municipal limits of the first respondent Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation. The first respondent Corporation was constituted on 5th October, 1982 under a notification issued by the State Government under section 3(2) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949. Prior to the constitution of the Corporation it was a municipality and were governed by the Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Council, constituted under the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965. The Company imports within the municipa...
Tag this Judgment!M. Visvesvarya Industrial Research and Development Centre Vs. Mr. Dili ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)BomCR759
ORDERR.M. Lodha, J.1. The concurrent orders passed by the 2nd Labour Court, Bombay on 24-11-1994 and Industrial Court on 9-6-1995 are challenged in this writ petition filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The 2nd Labour Court by the order dated 24-11-1994 in the complaint filed by respondent No. 1 Mr. Dilip Madhavrao Vaidya (employee) against the petitioner M. Visvesvarya Industrial Research and Development Centre (employer) declared that the employer has committed unfair labour practice under Item 1(b) and 1(d) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act. 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act) and directed the employer to reinstate the employeewith continuity of service with effect from 1-11-88 with full back wages and continuity of service and all other consequential benefits. The 2nd Labour Court thus quashed and set aside the employee's termination dated 31-10-1988. The employer carried the o...
Tag this Judgment!Ganpatrao Bhosale and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)ALLMR499; 1998(1)BomCR778; 1997(3)MhLj798
ORDERA.P. Shah, J.1. The petitioners are the Sarpanchs of Gram Panchayats of Bhuinj, Kikli, Chindhavli and Jamb, Taluka Wai, District Satara. There was a demand for creation of a separate Gram Panchayat of Kisanveernagar. The Standing Committee of Satara Zilla Parishad had passed a resolution on 27th July, 1984 for formation of the separate Gram Panchayat for Kisanveernagar. The proposed Gram Panchayat was to be formed out of the areas of the existing four Gram Panchayats. Section 5 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 contemplates a Panchayat for each village, but section 4(1) thereof authorises the Government to declare any local area or group of revenue villages as one village for this purpose and thereafter include or exclude any part of such area after consulting (1) the Panchayat concerned and (2) the Standing Committee of the Zilla Parishad. Pursuant to the resolution passed by the Zilla Parishad, Satara, the Commissioner, Pune Division, the respondent No. 2 herein, had iss...
Tag this Judgment!Yogesh Pratap Singh Vs. Government of Maharashtra Through the Addition ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1997
Reported in: 1998(2)BomCR1
ORDERA.V. Savant, J.1. We have heard the petitioner in person and all the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.2. The petitioner belongs to the Indian Police Service (I.P.S.). He challenges the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short - Tribunal) Mumbai Bench, Mumbai on 26th May, 1997 (Exh. A page 82) dismissing his Original Application (O.A.) which was filed against the order of his transfer, dated 1st April, 1997 (Ex. B page 93) which was issued by the State Government transferring him from the post of Asstt. Inspector General of Police (Administration), Maharashtra State Mumbai to Nagpur as the Commandant of the State Reserve Police Force. The principal challenge that was raised before the Tribunal was on the ground of mala fides as also on the ground of violation of guidelines contained in Chapter I - para 30 of the Bombay Police Manual, Vol. I viz. that the proposal for his transfer ought to have been initiated by the Director General of Police and b...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shah Construction Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1997
Reported in: [1998]230ITR51(Bom)
Dr. B.P. Saraf, J.1. By this reference under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following questions of law to this Court for opinion at the instance of the Revenue : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the business of construction of industrial undertaking is by itself not eligible to investment allowance under s. 32A(2)(b)(iii) 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that the business of construction carried on by the assessee is an industrial undertaking 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the assessee's business activity is also business of constructing of 'thing' to be entitled to investment allowance under s. 32A(2)(b)(iii) 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that the dumpers used by the assessee in the execution of civil engineering contract work w...
Tag this Judgment!international Research Park Labs. Ltd. Vs. Collr. of Cus., Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1997
Reported in: 1997(96)ELT513(Bom)
T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J. 1. Petitioners were granted a licence to export in terms of the licence dated 6th August, 1985. The licence was issued on the premises that the petitioners could import the Assorted Cosmetics, Perfumery and Toiletary Products, provided the petitioners exported the goods valued added of 20 per cent of the imports. By a letter dated 6th May, 1986, Exhibit 'J' to the petition, the Department had prohibited the petitioners from making any further imports stating therein that the petitioners had exceeded the prescribed limit under the licence. 2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the Standing Counsel for the Central Government. The letter dated 6th May, 1986, Exhibit 'J' to the petition, states that the petitioners had executed orders worth Rs. 7.55 crores and that was the reason for ordering them to stop further imports. It will be seen that though the prescribed limit under the contract was in terms of a quantity of 3,000 tonnes, there ...
Tag this Judgment!Divisional Controller, M.S.R.T.C. Division Office, Amaravati Vs. Vinay ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1997
Reported in: 1998(4)ALLMR186; (1998)IILLJ1118Bom
S.S. Dani, J. 1. The petitioner-Corporation challenges the order of the Industrial Court, Amaravati, dated February 17, 1995, in Revision ULP No. 180 of 1987 under Section 44 of the MRTU and PULP Act, hereinafter 'the Act', setting aside the order dated October 15, 1987, of the Labour Court, Amaravati, in Complaint ULP No. 223 of 1986, and directing the reinstatement of the present Respondent on his former post as a fresh candidate. 2. The Respondent was inducted in the service of the present Petitioner-Corporation as a Conductor. On July 23, 1984, the Respondent, while on duty as conductor on the S.T. bus, on the route of Bhokardi to Amaravati, did not issue tickets to certain passengers. On Checking the bus, bearing registration No. 6877 at Seema Doh, it was found that 35 passengers were travelling, and out of them, 8 were without tickets. It was further found that 4 passengers out of these 8 were travelling from Mangiya to Seema Doh, and had paid each Re. 1.50 Ps. as fare at the tim...
Tag this Judgment!Viswesvarayya Industrial Research and Development Centre Vs. Dilip Mad ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1997
Reported in: (1998)IILLJ142Bom
1. The concurrent orders passed by the 2nd Labour Court, Bombay on November 24, 1994 and Industrial Court on June 9, 1995 are challenged in the writ petition filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The 2nd Labour Court by the order dated November 24, 1994 in the complaint filed by Respondent No. 1 Mr. Dilip Madhavrao Vaidya (employee) against the petitioner M/s. Visvesvarayya Industrial Research and Development Centre (Employer) declared that the employer has committed unfair labour practice under items 1(b) and 1(d) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU and PULP Act) and directed the employer, to reinstate the employee with continuity of service with effect from November 1, 1988 with full back wages and continuity of service and all other consequential benefits. The 2nd Labour Court thus quashed and set aside the employee's termination dated October 31, 1988. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Public at Large Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1997
Reported in: 1997(4)BomCR171
M.B. Shah, C.J.1. This Court suo motu took notice of an Article that appeared in the daily Indian Express dated 13th January, 1996. The said report disclosed a very shocking and alarming state of affairs regarding sex workers operating in the city of Mumbai. The report indicated that minor girls were illegally confined and were forced to be sex workers. As per the said newspaper report :i) Girls who are rescued from the brothel houses are harassed and their guardians are required to pay large sums for providing protection;ii) Large sums are regularly extorted from brothel owners and prostitutes for giving them protection;iii) There are no efforts by the State Government to rehabilitate 40,000 and odd sex workers;iv) Minors are procured by local agents as prostitutes and are illegally confined in brothel house;v) Many prostitutes whose blood was tested were having HIV positive. In so far as the report about AIDS amongst sex workers, it is stated that out of the 70,000 prostitutes in the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »