Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jun-10-1982
Reported in : (1982)84BOMLR427
S.K. Desai, J.1. I have had the benefit of perusing the erudite and exhaustive judgment prepared for the purposes of this appeal by my brother Rele. He has dealt with all the points arising in the appeal as also with the arguments advanced and authorities cited by the counsel arrayed for the respective patties at the Bar. Whilst I agree broadly with the ultimate conclusions reached, there are certain nuances, intermediate steps, and not so pertinent observations, in my view, with which 1 am unable to agree with my brother. Accordingly, 1 propose to give a separate judgment making it clear that on all conclusions not touched by me, I must be taken to have concurred fully with my brother. For the purpose of this separate judgment, as I have made it clear, 1 propose to restrict my discussion only to one of the important points, according to the, which arises in this appeal. The other points may be mentioned in passing, if at all.2. This is an appeal under the Letters Patent from the decis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-12-1982
Reported in : AIR1983Bom88; 1983(2)BomCR185; (1982)84BOMLR509
Pendse, J.1. This group of five appeals is preferred by the Board of Trustees of the Post of Bombay and its Officers, and raises an interesting question as to whether the Trustees of the Port Trust constituted under the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 have a general lien for their dues over the consignment imported by the importers at the Bombay Port. As identical question arises in all these appeals and as the facts given rise to these appeals are almost similar, we propose to dispose of all there appeals by common judgment.2. The respondent in all these five appeals are importers and have imported various consignment from time to time. The respondent imported woollen rages and after the consignments arrived at Bombay Port, there was dispute between the respondent and the Customs authorities as to whether the imported goods were woollen rage or woollen garments. After a considerable period, the Customs authorities confiscated the imported goods and under the provisions of S. 111(d) of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-22-1982
Reported in : 1982(10)ELT885(Bom)
1. In this miscellaneous petition a short but interesting question regarding the application of Rule 56-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, arises. The said Rule has undergone slight changes and hence we will have to consider the rule as it stood when the petitioners applied for a refund of the amount of Rs. 77,587/- which they did in 1970. In order, however, to understand the nature of the petitioners' claim and in order to consider whether the same is required to be upheld or repelled, I may sate a few facts.2. Petitioner No. 1 is a company inter alia carrying on business as manufacturers and dealers in fertilizer mixtures. Petitioner No. 2 is its shareholder and Managing Director. I shall refer to Petitioner No. 1 hereinafter as 'the Company' for the sake of brevity.3. The Company manufactures granulated compound fertilizers and for the purposes of manufacture uses as raw material certain base fertilizers. These base fertilizers are manufactured by other persons and certain excise ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jun-18-1982
Reported in : 1983(1)BomCR319
D.M. Jamdar, J.1. The petitioner is the wife of Kantilal Jain who is detained by virtue of an order bearing No. S.P.L. 3(A)/PSA-0181/256 dated 6th January, 1982 passed by the Government in the purported exercise of its powers under section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act, 1974.2. The circumstances which led to; the detention of Kantilal Jain are narrated in para 1(a) of the grounds of detention, which reads as follows : 'On receipt of a secret information, Custom Officers maintained a discreet surveillance in the vicinity of Nagppada area from where the suspect was supposed to come with contraband wrist watches on 1-10-81. The informer was also with the Custom Officers. At about 7.35 p.m the informant pointed out the Scooter No. MMC-9878, with you driving it along with a pillion rider behind you who was holding two jute bags in his hands. At Cafe Sagar Junction your scooter started moving towards Maulana Azad Road, when two officers on a scooter follow your scooter and two officers followed i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-12-1982
Reported in : 1982(1)BomCR475
D.P. Madon, J.1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order dated February 6, 1982 passed by the learned Principal Judge of the Bombay City Civil Court, Bombay, as the judicial authority appointed under section 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (Act No. 10 of 1955), whereby he dismissed the appeal filed is the petitioner, namely, Miscellaneous Appeal No. 6 of 1982, as being barred by limitation.2. The petitioner is a dealer in edible oil and owns two shops, one at Ghatkopar and the other at Chembur in Greater Bombay, both being shops under the trade name and style of Ratna Stores. Under Clause 3 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Oil Seeds and Oils (Dealers and Millers) Licensing Order, 1973, read with Clause 3 of the Pulses, Edible Oil Seeds and Edible Oils (Storage Control) Order, 1977, any trader storing more than 500 kilograms of edible oil is required to take out a licence under the said orders in addition to a gumaste licence...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-16-1982
Reported in : AIR1982Bom563; 1982(1)BomCR590
CHANDURKAR, J.1. These two petitions have been referred to the Division Bench on an order of reference made by a learned single judge, who experienced some difficulty in following decision of Jahagirdar, J. In Gulabchand v.Noorbeg, : AIR1980Bom307 . The questions referred relate to the construction of the provisions of section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rent Act') and the determination of the correct ratio of two decisions of the supreme court in Dhansukhal chhaganlal v.Dalichand Virchand, : [1968]3SCR346 and Harbanslal jagmohandas v.Prabhudas shivlal, : [1976]3SCR628 . Since the only points on which the decisions of both the petitions will really turn related to the construction of the provisions of sections 12(3)(a) and 12(3)(b) of the Rent Act, we have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents in these cases not only on the questions of law referred but also on the merits of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-16-1982
Reported in : (1982)84BOMLR485; 1982MhLJ512
M.N. Chandurkar, J.1. These two petitions have been referred to the Division Bench on an order of reference made by a learned Single Judge, who experienced some difficulty in following decision of Jahagirdar, J., in Gulabchand v. Noorbeg, : AIR1980Bom307 . The questions referred relate to the construction of the provision of section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rate Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rent Act') and the determination of the correct ratio of two decisions of the Supreme Court in Shah Dhansukhlal Chhaganlal v. Dalichand Virchand Shroff, : [1968]3SCR346 , and Harbanslal Jagmohandas and another v. Prabhudas Shivlal, : [1976]3SCR628 . Since the only points on which the decisions of both the petitions will really turn related to the construction of the provisions of sections 12(3)(a) and 12(3)(b) of the Rent Act, we have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the respondents in these cases not only on the questions of law re...
Tag this Judgment!