Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-10-1989
Reported in : 1989(24)ECC37
H. Suresh, J.1. These two applications, made by the Superintendent of Customs, are for the purpose of cancellation of the order of anticipatory bail granted to each of the respondents on December 26, 1988.2. It appears that on or about November 10, 1988 the custom authorities confiscated about 750 gold bars of ten tolas each, contained in an unaccompanied baggage at the Sahar Airport. When the customs authorities started investigation, the respondents came to this Court and made an application that they apprehended that they would be arrested by a customs authorities and that, therefore, they be released on anticipatory bail.3. The learned Judge, who heard these applications, observed that there was nothing to connect them with the discovery of the said suit-case containing the contraband and that, therefore, in those circumstances he passed an order that if they are arrested they shall be released on bail in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 each with one surety each.4. But, the customs authori...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-12-1989
Reported in : 1989(1)BomCR467; (1989)91BOMLR840
V.S. Kotwal, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for both the sides.2. Perused the relevant papers.3. 'Dharam Kanta' symbolises the 'scale of justice'. However, the irony is that the producer of the film 'Dharam Kanta' has himself to knock the doors of the Court to get justice. The said film is produced by the second respondent herein who is original complainant and who enjoys a wide reputation in the film world as a renowned Producer and Director of celluloid films and there are several of such highly acclaimed films to his credit. He produced this film in the year 1980-81 with an imposing star-cast and also with an equally imposing grandeur. The first petitioner is a registered partnership firm carrying on the business at Calcutta while the second and third petitioners who are the husband and wife are the partners of the said firm. It is in relation to the said film that certain disputes ultimately obliged the respondent-complainant to file a criminal complaint in the Court of the learned Add...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-12-1989
Reported in : 1989(24)ECC40; 1989(22)LC242(Bombay); 1989(41)ELT185(Bom)
H. Suresh, J.1. This is an application by Accused Nos. 1 and 2 to have the prosecution against them quashed on the ground that in a Customs enquiry they have been let off.2. The brief facts are as follows : On 18th August 1979, the Police Officers of Bhiwandi Police Station accosted the Accused while they were in an Ambassador Car. They were arrested under the Customs Act and a complaint has been filed against them under Section 135(1)(a) and 135(1)(b) punishable under Clause(ii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 135 of the Customs Act. The case has been filed after obtaining a sanction in that behalf on 16th October, 1981. In the meanwhile, in the enquiry proceedings held by the Customs authorities, the Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay, initially imposed a penalty of Rs. 2000/- on each of the Accused. The Accused preferred an Appeal and by an Order dated 11th December, 1981, the Order of imposition of the penalty was set aside and the Appeal was allowed.3. Relying on this Order, th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-12-1989
Reported in : 1989(22)LC640(Bombay)
S.K. Desai, Ag. C.J.1. In this appeal, the order of the learned single Judge dated 20th April, 1988 stands impugned. As we understand this order the learned single Judge has formed a view that the petitioners' have not paid the countervailing duty on the entire raw material used by the petitioners. In view of the rather loose phraseology employed in the petition particularly in para 9(k), we cannot say that the learned Judge is in any error. Even otherwise it appears from Exhibit 'F' that only certain' information is being sought from the petitioners. We are sure that if the petitioners show and demonstrate that the necessary duty has been paid on the entire raw material used by the petitioners either imported by them or' brought from the market, they will be entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification. If and when any adverse order is passed against them it would be then open to the petitioners to carry the matter in appeal or to impugn those orders by appropriate writ proce...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-12-1989
Reported in : 1(1989)ACC509
G.F. Couto, J.1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 31st January, 1985, whereby the learned Presiding officer of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Margao, dismissed the application for compensation filed Under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act by the appellant.2. On 30th June, 1982, an accident took place on the Margao-Vasco road. The appellant sustained injuries in that accident. He was travelling on that particular date in the bus GOT-2366 and proceeding from Margao to Vasco, when the vehicle reached Senaulim and at the turn of a road, pick-up boaring registration No. GDZ 5447 came in opposite direction. The appellant was sitting on the driver's side and on the last seat at the rear of the bus. It appears that, at the time of crossing each other, the vehicles were too near to one another, and therefore, there was an impact between the rear part of the bus and the body of the pick up, and in the process, the appellant got some injuries to his right arm which re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-13-1989
Reported in : 1990ACJ411
G.F. Couto, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 3rd May, 1985, whereby the learned Presiding Officer of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Margao, dismissed an application for compensation filed under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act by the original appellant Antonio Milagres Fernandes.2. The said application was filed pursuant to an accident that occurred on 17th April, 1982 at Navelim and as a result of which the original appellant sustained serious injuries which made him unconscious for a long period of time. The case of the original appellant was that he was standing with his cycle by the roadside at Navelim when a motor cycle driven by the first respondent came to the place with two pillion riders and dashed against the appellant who, as a result, was thrown in a ditch and became unconscious. On the basis of these facts, the original appellant claimed a compensation of Rs. 27,000/-.3. The learned Presiding Officer of the Claims Tribunal after discussi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-16-1989
Reported in : II(1989)ACC141
V.A. Mohta, J.1. This judgment shall dispose of first Appeal Nos. 103/1979, 104/1979, 105/1979, 106/1979 and 107/1979 under the Motor Vehicles Act against the Award passed by the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Amravati dismissing the claims for compensation arising out of an accident as a result of beadon collision between Ambassador Car No. MHX 5765 and the Motor Truck No. UTW-4241 at 11 am. on 161-1977 on Amravati-Morshi Road.2. All the 6 occupants of the Car namely (1) Dinkar Bhaurao Hingmire (2) Laxman s/o Annaji Tamboli (3) Ku. Shanta d/o Annaji Tamboli (4) Smt. Sunandabai w/o Annaji Tamboli (5) Smt, Sulbha w/o Namdeo Tamboli and (6) Ramkrishna Sukdoji Khetal, the driver died. The males who were occupying the front side died instantaneously and the females afterwards, but all in an unconscious condition. The truck was owned by Kuldeepsingh Sardar singh Punjabi, (respondent No. 1) and driven in the regular course of employment either by Rajbahadur Singh Punjabi or Gurudayal Singh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-18-1989
Reported in : [1991]70CompCas231(Bom)
A.D. Tated, J. 1. These two Appeals Nos. 631 of 1981 and 632 of 1981 have been preferred by the complainant, Shri B.N. Chikarmane, Deputy Chief Officer, Department of Non-Banking Companies, Reserve Bank of India, Bombay Regional Office, against the judgment and order dated August 18, 1980, in Criminal Cases Nos. 298/S of 1979 and 299/S of 1979 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 19th Court, Esplanade, Bombay, and the third Appeal No. 989 of 1981 has been filed by the State of Maharashtra against the judgment and order in Criminal Case No. 298/S of 1979.2. In Criminal Case No. 298/S of 1979, the accused were charged for the offence punishable under Sections 58B(5)(a) and 58C of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, for collecting Rs. 43,000 by way of deposits by the accused Nos. 1 to 12 between November 1, 1977, and January 28, 1978, in contravention of the prohibitory order dated November 1, 1977, issued by the Reserve Bank of India. In Criminal Case No. 299/...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-18-1989
Reported in : I(1989)ACC541; 1990ACJ854
G.F. Couto, J. 1. This appeal by the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident is directed against the judgment dated 31st July, 1987, whereby the learned Presiding Officer of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, South Goa, allowed the application filed by the respondents herein and granted a compensation of Rs. 29,000/- to be paid exclusively by the appellant.2. On 5th March, 1982, at 7.30 a.m., an accident took place near Sulkorna. One small boy by name Vishwas, son of the respondents, was proceeding at that time to school from his house situated at Sulkorna. He was walking on the left side of the tarred road when the appellant came from the opposite direction driving the scooter No. CDC 4143. He dashed against the said Vishwas and caused him several injuries, and in particular, fracture of his right leg. An application for compensation under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to get compensation for their son, as according to them, t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-18-1989
Reported in : (1989)91BOMLR111
M.S. Ratnaparkhi, J.1. The order passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Akola on February 28, 1984 recording the finding on the preliminary issue that the suit is maintainable, in spite of the non-issuance of notice under Section 164 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, has been challenged in this revision.2. The respondent No. 1 -- State Bank of India, instituted Special Civil Suit No. 20/71 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Akola for recovery of Rs. 1,00,000/- and odd against the petitioners and respondent Nos. 2 to 7. The petitioner No. 1 is a Society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, carrying out its business at Akola. A defence has been raised by the contesting defendants that no suit can be instituted against the Society for any act touching the business of the Society without a notice contemplated under Section 164 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. The plaintiff did allege that he had issued a notice contemplated un...
Tag this Judgment!