Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-09-1988
Reported in : AIR1988Bom416; 1988(3)BomCR292; (1988)90BOMLR88
ORDER1. This petition invokes the writ jurisdiction to quash a 'no flying' order and to restore all benefits of which the petitioner has been deprived as a consequence thereof.2. Respondent No. 2, the Union of India, owns and operates the 1st respondent which shall hereinafter be referred to as 'the Air India' or 'Corporation'. Petitioner is a Pilot who served the Indian Air Force from 1962 to 1976 and for distinguished service received the Vayu Sena Medal in 1971. In 1976 he joined the Air India and until mid-1984 underwent the usual progression. Came June 1984 and the entry of the Army into the Golden Temple on 6 June, 1984. Agitated by this entry, the Petitioner addressed a letter on 10 June 1984 to the Dadar Gurudwara Prabhandak Samiti to forward his protest and the return of the Vayu Sena Medal to the Governor of Maharashtra. The letter emphasised Petitioner's not being actuated by political considerations and his aversion to the protest being publicised. The caution notwithstandi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-21-1988
Reported in : [1991]72CompCas388(Bom); 1989(24)ECC12; 1989(20)LC408(Bombay); 1989(41)ELT47(Bom)
V.S. Kotwaj, J.1. Heard Shri. N.H. Gurusahani with Shri. S. H. Gurusahani, Shri A. A. Irani and Dr. Ashok Bathija as also A.K. Desai and Shri H. E. Mooman, learned counsel for the petitioners is all the petitions, and Shri M. K. Patwardhan, senior counsel, Central Government, for respondent No. 1, Customs Department, and Smt. K. D. Ranadive, learned Public Prosecutor, for respondent No. 2, the State.2. Perused the relevant papers and previous orders.3. For obvious reasons this bunch of petition can well be disposed of by a common order, more so since the pattern of allegations and the pattern of submissions are more or less identical and actually most of the orders recorded by the learned trial Magistrate are not only identical but are common. This would not cause prejudice to either of the sides and learned counsel for both the sides have accepted this position.4. The petitioners in all the petitions run certain jewellery shops in this metropolis under different styles and names. They...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-23-1988
Reported in : AIR1989Bom237; (1989)91BOMLR506; 1990(25)ECC263
ORDER1. This petition seeks to challenge the order dated the 8th Sept. 1986 passed by the Assistant Director. Enforcement (FERA), the respondent No.2 purporting to be one under S. 33(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act . 1973. By an amendment to the petition it further seeks to challenge the order of adjudication dated the 20th June 1988 passed under Sec. 63.2. The petitioner is a Travel Agent carrying on business in the firm name of Alshaya Nassar Travels. Respondent No. 1 is the Union of India and the respondent No.2 is the Assistant Director (Enforcement) Respondent No.3 is a Bank authorised by the Reserve Bank of India to deal in foreign exchange.3. The petitioner, in the course of his business, in the month of June/July 1986 has arranged the passage of two groups of passengers to Hai. The first such group consisting of 200 passengers were scheduled to travel on the 20th July 1986 and the second group of 269 passengers on the 27th July 1986. On the 8th July 1986 the petition...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-09-1988
Reported in : 1989(39)ELT199(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. The Joint Secretary to the Government of India by order dated April 28, 1988 passed in exercise of powers conferred by Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereafter referred to as 'Act') directed detention of Aslam Ahmed Zahir Ahmed Shaikh with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the argumentation of foreign exchange. The order of detention was served on June 2, 1988 and the grounds of detention were furnished. The grounds of detention recite that information was received by the Bombay Zonal Office of the Enforcement Directorate that the detenu was indulging in receiving and making payments in India on instructions of persons staying abroad. On the basis of information, the residential and the business premises of the detenu were searched under Section 37 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 on January 7, 1988. As a result of the search of the business premises, two bun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-28-1988
Reported in : 1988(4)BomCR585; [1990(60)FLR315]; (1990)IILLJ217Bom; 1989MhLJ825
V.A. Mohta, J.1. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Maharashtra and Goa passed order dated March 3, 1987 under Section 7-A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provision Act. 1952 (the Act) determining Rs. 24,282.90 as the amount from M/s. Jaswala Tiles and Pipes Works. Chandrapur (the employer) for the period January 1983 to September, 1986 and issued a demand notice dated April 20, 1987 on that basis. Aggrieved thereby the present petition has been filed.2. Undisputed position seems to be that the employer was given Code No. MH/22116 under the Act. A summons to appear at Bombay on October 7, 1986 was issued for the purposes of determining the amount due under the Act. Repeated applications for adjournments were made from time to time by the employer. Enquiry was last fixed on March 3, 1987. None appeared even on that date. Evidence of Smt. N. P. Satghar. Provident Fund Inspector, was recorded. On the basis of her evidence, the returns submitted by the employer, and ...
Tag this Judgment!