Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-09-1985
Reported in : AIR1986Bom288
ORDERDhabe, J.1. These are two connected writ petitions arising out of the same order passed under the provisions of the C. P. & Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (for short, 'the Rent Control Order'). The reference to the names of the parties would, however, be as in the writ petition No. 820/1982.2. It is necessary to state the facts in some detail for the purpose of appreciating the controversy raised in these petitions. One Shri M. V. Gokhale was the owner of the suit block in the instant case. In 1938 he let out the suit block to one Anandkumar Nigam for the purposes of running a shop named 'Chitra Arts Studio' which was a photo studio. The aforesaid Shri A. K. Nigam was the proprietor of the said studio. It was agreed between the said Shri M. V. Gokhale and the proprietor of the Chitra Arts Studio Shri A. K. Nigam that the latter should deposit the rent of the suit block in the Savings Bank Account No. 612 of the said Shri M. V. Gokhale with the United Commerci...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-24-1985
Reported in : (1986)88BOMLR114
C.S. Dharmadhikari, J.1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioners who were detained under Section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as amended by Maharashtra Act No. VII of 1981.2. According to the petitioners, they are active and whole-time members of an All India organisation known as 'Chhatra Yuva Sangharsha Vahini' (hereinafter referred to- as 'Vahini'}, a social action group. This organisation was formed with a view to inculcating the spirit of freedom and selfless service among the weaker sections of the people and bringing about a total revolution in the society by peaceful and non-violent means as envisaged by Mahatma Gandhi. Consistent with their objectives, the Vahini started a number of units in the rural areas. One of such units has been functioning since about 1977 at Mhaswad in Man Taluka of Satara District. Man Taluka is a dry area with minimum rainfall, nearly 70 per cent of the population being of land-Jess labourers. In view of the large scale under-employme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-13-1985
Reported in : 1985(2)BomCR419; 1987(11)ECC207
Kurdukar, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the orders passed by the authorities below in the adjudication proceedings taken up under the Customs Act, 1962 and the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. The impugned orders are annexed to this petition at Exhs. C, D, E and F.2. The petitioner is a resident of Pune and it is his case that during the partition in the year 1947 he migrated from Pakistan to India along with his family members. Respondents 2 to 5 are the officers of the Central Excise and Customs in the Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue of Government of India. It is not disputed before us that on December 9, 1976, the residential premises of the petitioner at Pune were raided by the Gold Control Officers. During this raid, 27 gold coins weighing 600.600 gms. (sovereign) valued at Rs. 27,100/- were seized. Those coins were seized on the assumption that the petitioner has contravened the provisions of the Gold (C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jun-18-1985
Reported in : 1986(7)ECC31; 1991LC147(Bombay); 1986(26)ELT904(Bom)
Dharamadhikari, J.1. As all these writ 'petitions involve common questions of law and fact they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. It is an admitted position that the petitioners are manufacturers of sugar. Initially under the notifications issued by the Government in exercise of powers conferred upon it by Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, an exemption or rebate was granted to them in terms of Notifications No. 203 of 1972 dated 28th September, 1972 and No. 189 of 1973 dated 4th October, 1973. Since the argument before us is based solely on these notifications, it would be worthwhile if the said notifications are reproduced in extenso:Notification No. 203/72 dated 28th September, 1972.'Government of India Ministry of Finance(Department of Revenue and Insurance)New Delhi, dated the 28th September, 1972NotificationCentral ExcisesG.S.R. In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-14-1985
Reported in : 1986(1)BomCR428; (1986)53CTR(Bom)4; [1987]165ITR537(Bom); [1986]27TAXMAN90(Bom)
Smt. Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. The petitioner is a public limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. It carries on business of manufacture and sale of hume pipes. In the course of its business over the years, the petitioner has acquired considerable technical knowledge, information and skill relating to manufacture of all types of concrete pipes - plain, reinforced, prestressed, etc. The petitioner also has a research and development department for development of its own designs for manufacture of prestressed concrete pipes.2. An organisation known as 'The Water and Power Development Consultancy Services (India) Ltd.' (hereinafter referred as 'WAPCOS') is established by the Government of India with the object of providing consultancy services in connection with planning, development of irrigation, water supply, power, flood control and integrated agricultural development. In or about October, 1974, the Rangoon City Development Committee requested WAPCOS to provide consulta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jun-19-1985
Reported in : AIR1986Bom64
V.A. Mohta, J.1. By these three writ petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution by tenants of houses used for residential purpose and constructed on sites lying vacant on 1st January 1951 within Corporation/ Municipal limits, Contitutional validity of notification No. 659-66-II dated 6th February 1952 issued by the then Provincial Government of C.P. and Berar in pursuance of an authority conferred on it by clause 30 of the Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 ('The HRC Order') issued under section 2 of the Central Provinces and Berar Regulation of Letting of Accommodation Act, 1946 ('The Act') is challenged. The notification reads thus :'In pursuance of clause 30 of the Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949, the State Government are pleased to exempt from the operation of all the provisions of the said Order any house used for residential purposes if the house is constructed on a site lying vacant on 1st Janua...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-03-1985
Reported in : 1986(9)ECC198; 1985(22)ELT5(Bom)
Couto, J.1. Whether rubberised tyre cord warp sheets should be classified for the purpose of levying excise duty under Item 16A(2) or under either Item 19I(b) or Item 22 of the Central Excise Tariff is the question that falls for determination of this Court. The petitioners indeed challenge in this writ petition the orders dated 15th October, 1982, and 6th December, 1982, made by the second and third respondents respectively, seeking to levy excise duty on rubberised tyre cord warp sheets employed in the manufacture of automobile tyres under Item 19I(b) or Item 22, instead of under Item 16A(2), of the Central Excise Tariff, as well as Tariff Advice No. 52/80, dated 22nd September, 1980.2. The petitioners are a company incorporated under the Companies Act, carrying on the business of manufacturing automobile tyres and rubber products in their factories, inter alia, at Usgao, Goa. They utilise tyre cord warp sheets and cotton fabrics viz., nylon tyer cord warp sheets, rayon tyer cord war...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-02-1985
Reported in : (1985)87BOMLR414; 1986MhLJ497
Bharucha, J.1. The question that arises for determination in this election petition, is: was the first respondent disqualified for being chosen as a member of Parliament on the date fixed for the scrutiny of his nomination paper. It is not in dispute, since he is the returned candidate, that the acceptance of his nomination materially affected the result of the election.2. On May 2, 1959 the first respondent was appointed a junior clerk in the Administration of the Union territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli. His appointment letter set out, inter alia, the following conditions:1. He will be governed by the Central Civil Service Rules.2. The appointment is purely on temporary basis and is liable to be terminated at ONE month's notice.. ... ... 6. Before resigning the post he shall have to give one month's notice to the Administration failing which he should have to remit one month's notice pay before he could be relieved from service.3. On November 13, 1984 general elections to Parliament...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-10-1985
Reported in : 1989(20)LC380(Bombay); 1989(39)ELT538(Bom)
1. What a glass bead is a question that has periodically exercised the Excise authorities. This is because of a notification dated 1st March 1961 issued under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, whereby the Central Government has exempted 'glass bangles and glass beads from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon.'2. The petitioners started manufacturing what they say are glass beads in 1967. They are meant to be used as chatons, i.e., to say as stones in setting, in artificial jewellery. Until 1977 they got exemption from the payment of excise duty under the terms of the said notification. In 1978 samples were drawn by the excise authorities and there was some correspondence. On 8th March 1978, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise wrote to the petitioners that, having duly considered the matter, he had come to the conclusion that the articles manufactured by the petitioners were glass beads falling under Item 23A of the 1st Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-30-1985
Reported in : 1986(2)BomCR222
Sharad Manohar, J.1. The present Notice of Motion had been taken out by original defendant No. 1 in the suit filed by the plaintiff. The Notice of Motion is for appointment of Receiver in respect of the suit premises. Mr. Varihawa, who was appointed as amicus curiae for assistance to the Court and who gave very real and very precious help to the Court described the suit as bizarreand frivolous. I will probably have occasion to examine that aspect of the question (whether it is a frivolous suit) in separate proceedings. At present, I am concerned mainly with the question as to whether defendant No. 1 (herein the defendant) was made out any case for the relief of Receiver's appointment and that too not in his own suit, but in the suit filed by the plaintiff. 2. I will first set out the facts which are either not disputed or are incapable of being disputed. Some legal position will also be referred while stating the facts for explaining the legal relevance of the fact question. (a) The su...
Tag this Judgment!