Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-08-1990
Reported in : [1991(61)FLR492]; (1991)IILLJ191Bom
Dhabe, J.1. The Petitioner, who is an employee of this Court, has challenged the punishment of reduction in rank permanently meted out to him by the Additional Registrar, i.e., the respondent No. 1, by his order dated 29th August, 1985. The appeal filed against the said order being dismissed by the Honourable the Administrative Judge of this Court, as communicated to the petitioner by the Additional Registrar by his letter dated 4th December, 1986, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition in this Court. At the time of the admission of this petition on 10th April, 1987, the rule is restricted only to the question of punishment. Hence what has to be considered in the instant writ petition is whether the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is legal and proper and whether it is imposed by an authority which has power to inflict the same.2. Briefly, the facts necessary to consider the question of punishment, are that the petitioner was charge-sheeted on 26th March, 1985 for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-09-1990
Reported in : 1990(1)BomCR451; (1990)92BOMLR122; 1990CriLJ2201; 1990LC4(Bombay)
ORDER1. The five accused are alleged to have committed the offences punishable under S. 21 r/w. S. 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, hereinafter referred to as 'the N.D.P.S. Act' and Sections 135(1)(a) and 135(1)(b) both r/w. S. 135(1)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Applicants herein Ashak Hussain Allah Detha alias Siddique and Riyaz Ahmed Afzal are, respectively, accused Nos. 4 and 5. They are hereinafter referred to as the applicants of Ashak and Riyaz. They apply for bail.I. THE PROSECUTION CASE2. The accused No. 1 Hamid Khan was residing in Room No. 301 and the applicants in Room No. 210 of R.K. Hotel, Lamington Road, Bombay. Saidulla, who is in Pakistan, despatched a large consignment of narcotic drugs on 19th July, 1989. A lorry, driven by Shersingh, carried the contraband. Accused No. 1 Hamid Khan met the Applicants in Room No. 201 and inquired of them whether the consignment had arrived. Meanwhile, Shersingh met the applicants and told them that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-09-1990
Reported in : (1990)92BOMLR138
T.D. Sugla, J.1. These two references are at the instance of the department. The references relate to the assessment to sales tax for the period covering from July 1, 1965 to June 30, 1966 and July 1, 1966 to June 30, 1967. The questions of law referred to this Court for opinion are :(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the 'service pool charges' recovered by the opponent-assessee from its distributors at the rate of Rs. 10 per vehicle did not form a part of the sale price of the vehicle as defined in section 2(29) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 ? (ii) When the opponent-assessee bought raw materials against a certificate in form 15 issued under section 11(1A)(b) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 and used the same in the manufacture of motor vehicles which were not sold but were capitalised, was the Tribunal justified in coming to the conclusion that such use of the raw materials did not amount to use for anot...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-10-1990
Reported in : 1990(3)BomCR192; (1990)92BOMLR186
T.D. Sugla, J.1. Besides two common questions of law involved in all these three references, there is an additional question raised in Sales Tax Reference No. 21 of 1986. The references cover in all a period of 8 years from April 1, 1964 to March 31, 1972. Sales Tax Reference No. 20 of 1986 covers a period of three years from April 1, 1969 to March 31, 1972, Sales Tax Reference No. 81 of 1980 of two years from April 1, 1967 to March 31, 1969 and Sales Tax Reference No. 21 of 1986 of three years from March 1, 1964 to March 31, 1967.Common questions of law are :'(1) Whether, on a true and proper interpretation of rule 3 of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959, the process of converting raw hides into finished tanned goods amounts to manufacture as far as the tanning materials, viz., chemicals, oils, lime, etc., are concerned, so as to entitle the applicant to set-off under rule 41-A of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959, in respect of such materials ? (2) If the answer to the aforesaid questio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-11-1990
Reported in : 1990(1)BomCR661
M.S. Ratnaparkhi, J.1. A decree passed by II joint Civil Judge, Senior Division Pune on 4-1-1977 in Special Civil Suit No. 45 of 1970 decreeing plaintiff's claim for partition and separate possession of one-eighth share in the property described in paragraphs 2-A to 2-E of the plaint has been challenged in this appeal2. The facts giving rise to this litigation may briefly be stated as followsPlaintiff and the defendants 1 to 7 are the close relations. The genealogical tree disclosing their relationship is shown in paragraph 1 of the judgement of the trial Court. Enough to point out at this stage that Trimbakrao Pawtekar a resident of Yeola was person who had three sons Narahari, Kashinath and Keshavrao. Kashinath's branch become extinct. Narahari's branch is represented by Ramchandra defendant No. 1, Digambar-defendant No. 2, Dattatraya-defendant No. 3 and Gajanan-defendant No. 7 (son of Ranganath deceased) and Anant deceased. Keshavrao's branch is represented by Vinayak (the plaintiff...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-12-1990
Reported in : [1990(60)FLR647]; (1990)IILLJ484Bom
1. The petitioner is a registered trade union claiming to represent the majority of workmen employed in Vegetable Vitamin Foods Company Limited, which is respondent No. 3 in this petition Respondent No. 2 is also a registered trade union and it also claims to represent the majority of workmen of respondent No. 3 Respondent No. 2 will be hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent union' and respondent No. 3 will be hereinafter referred to as 'the company' Respondent No. 1 in the petition is the Industrial Tribunal at Bombay. Whose order is impugned in this petition. It should also be stated that neither of the unions is a recognised union under any law.2. The respondent union submitted a charter of demands upon the company in respect of several industrial matters. Pursuant to the said charter of demands, conciliation proceedings were held. During the pendency of the conciliation proceedings, the petitioner union, which had participated in the conciliation proceedings arrived at a settle...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-12-1990
Reported in : [1990]77STC110(Bom)
Sujata Manohar, J.1. In all these references the applicant is Gujarat Export Corporation Limited. The applicant at all times material for the reference was a registered dealer under the provisions of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. During the financial years 1973-74 and 1974-75, the applicant imported chemicals. These chemicals were sold by the applicant to various dealers at Bombay.2. One such contract of sale was between the applicant and Ashok Traders. It is dated 18th April, 1973. This contract has been relied upon, by the consent of parties as the contract which can be considered as representative of all such contracts, for the purposes of these references. The buyers paid the customs duty on the goods and cleared the goods from the customs. The sales tax authorities have included the customs duties so paid in the sale price of the goods. This is disputed by the applicant. The Tribunal has, therefore, referred the following questio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-15-1990
Reported in : [1990]77STC165(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. The Sales Tax Tribunal has referred a common question of law to this Court opinion in these two references. The question reads thus :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the transactions were sales and not transactions in the course of agency ?'2. The assessee-company is a dealer in electrical motors, pumps, diesel engines, heavy machine parts, etc., holding R.C. No. NIA 1385. The assessments involved are sales tax assessments both under the Bombay Sales Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act covering the period from 1st January, 1974 to 30th June, 1975. Exemption from payment of tax was claimed and allowed in respect of transactions amounting to Rs. 15,15,874 as sales in the course of import by the Sales Tax Officer.Subsequently, the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax Administration, Bombay, issued a notice in form No. 40 seeking to revise the order of the Sales Tax Officer so as to treat the aforesaid transa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-15-1990
Reported in : 1990(1)BomCR479; (1990)92BOMLR133
H.H. Kantharia, J.1. The suit premises in this case described as an open space admeasuring 57 x 33 ' situate at C.T.S. No. 688/89 in Raviwar Peth, Pune City, were owned by one Bhagwant Vishnu Purandare, now represented by his legal heirs and representatives, out of whom his son Govind Bhagwant Purandare also died and, therefore, represented in turn by his legal heirs and representatives (hereinafter referred to has 'the plaintiffs'). The premises were let out originally by Bhagwant to the respondents, respondent No. 1 being a partnership firm and respondent Nos. 2 to 4 being the partners, (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendants') under a registered rent note dated October 19, 1931 at yearly rent of Rs. 451/- initially for a period of five years. According to the plaintiffs, the suit premises were open land on which the defendants constructed a temporary shed for a godown and a stable and used the same yearly for the purpose of their business. They also contended that the yearly ren...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-16-1990
Reported in : 1990(2)BomCR295; (1990)92BOMLR191
M. Fathima Beevi, J.1. By the impugned order dated May 18, 1989 the Designated Court, Pune, directed the respondent to be released on bail. The respondent was accused of having committed offence under Section 3(1) of the Territorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', besides the offences punishable under Sections 148, 149, 120-B and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The respondent was the member of the Shiv Sena Party and the Chief of the Thane District Unit. In consequence of the defeat of the party in Mayoral election held on March 20, 1989 the party felt that there was cross-voting and there were traitors among them. There had been a declaration by the respondent that such traitors would not be spared. The respondent was arrested in connection with the murder of one of the Corporators Shridhar Khopkar on April 21, 1989 on registering Crime No. 1348/89.3. In releasing the respondent on bail while investigation was pending, the Design...
Tag this Judgment!