Mumbai Court April 1956 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
May and Baker Ltd. Vs. the State of Bombay
Court: Sales Tax Tribunal STT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-1956
Reported in: 19567STC448Tribunal
1. This is an appeal against, a decision of the Collector of Sales Tax, Bombay, made under Section 27 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, that the supply of the goods by the appellants Messrs May & Baker Ltd. to Messrs May & Baker (India) Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the company) under six specified consignment notes constituted sales for the purposes of the said Act. The firm of the company was established in Bombay in 1928. It used to receive goods manufactured in the appellants' factory in Dagenham, England, and to sell them. In 1944 the method of supply was altered to a system on a consignment basis. On 31st March, 1944, the appellants sent a cable to the company in which it was stated, "we propose take over your stocks specialities chemicals as at April first, and make all future supplies on consignment basis.... System we propose operating is as follows. For supplies specialities will issue consignment invoices for customs purposes at arrange consignment value basis ...
Babu Pasu and Co. Vs. the State of Bombay
Court: Sales Tax Tribunal STT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-1956
Reported in: 19567STC507Tribunal
1. In this case the Assistant Collector of Sales Tax required the applicants to make a part payment of Rs. 1,000 before their appeal could be entertained, but as the said payment was not made, he summarily rejected the appeal. The applicants filed a revision application against this order which was heard by the Additional Collector of Sales Tax. That application was again late beyond the period of limitation by 12 days, and the Additional Collector of Sales Tax dismissed the application on the said ground. In the second para of his order, however, he decided to hear the application "on suo motu grounds" and he reduced the total tax and penalty due from Rs. 9,018-6-3 as fixed by the Sales Tax Officer to Rs. 3,385-11-0, which was no doubt a substantial reduction. This case is similar as regards this point to the case of V.C. Desai & Co. v. The State of Bombay 2 S.T.D. 57, in which the Collector who, after upholding the order of dismissal passed by the Assistant Collector and rejecti...
D.B. Godbole Vs. Kunwar Rajnath
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Bom652; (1956)58BOMLR779; ILR1956Bom865
Chagla, C.J. 1. A short but rather important point affecting the rights of third parties under the Evacuee Property law arises in this appeal. On 12-9-1951 the _ properties of Messrs. Ahmed Abdul Karim Bros. Ltd., were declared evacuee properties. These properties consisted of Woolen Mills at Ambernath, a bobbin factory at Tardeo, and certain other moveable. The respondent to this appeal was appointed manager by the Custodian to manage these properties. He was appointed on 1-8-1952 and he continued as manager till 30-8-1952. On that date an arrangement was arrived at by which the lease of evacuee properties was granted by the Custodian to a partnership of three persons of whom the respondent was one, and pursuant to this arrangement possession of the properties was given to the partnership on 31-8-1952. The lease was terminated by the Custodian on the 25th May 1954. After the lease was granted the respondent continued to be the manager for the purpose of collecting the dues and dischar...
Balkrishna Kashinath Khopkar Vs. the District Magistrate
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-1956
Reported in: (1956)58BOMLR614
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. This is a petition by a person detained under the Preventive Detention Act and the ground on which the order of detention is challenged is that the grounds furnished to the detenu are vague.2. Now, before we consider the merits of the petition, it is necessary to lay down what the correct position in law is with regard to the furnishing of grounds to the detenu under the Preventive Detention Act, Section 7 of the Act provides that when a person is detained in pursuance of a detention order, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, but not later than 5 days from the date of detention, communicate to him the grounds on which the order has been made, and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order, in a case where such order has been made by the Central Government, to that Government, and in a case where it has been made by a State Government or an officer subordinate thereto, to the State Government, and Secti...
The Hospital Mazdoor Sabha Vs. the State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-1956
Reported in: (1956)58BOMLR769
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. The petitioners Nos. 2 and 8 were employed in the J.J. Group of Hospitals as Ward-servants and their services were terminated, in the case of petitioner No. 2 from November 1, 1954, and in the case of petitioner No. 3 from December 1, 1954. The petitioners have filed this petition challenging the order passed terminating their services and contending that their services were wrongly terminated.2. It appears that a notice was served upon the two petitioners and in that notice it was stated that as certain people had been retrenched from the Civil Supplies Department and as room had to be made for them, the services of the two petitioners were being dispensed with and in their place two others from the Civil Supplies Department were employed. The contention put forward by the petitioners is that in law this is a case of retrenchment and the retrenchment is bad because the conditions precedent laid down in the Act before which a valid retrenchment could be made had not...
Pralhad Keshav Atre Vs. the Commissioner of Police
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-1956
Reported in: (1956)58BOMLR602
M.C Chagla, C.J.1. These are several petitions made by persons who have been, detained under the Preventive Detention Act in connection with the agitation that was carried on for Samyukta Maharashtra with Bombay, and in these petitions certain common questions arise and these questions have been argued before us, and we proceed to give our decision on these common questions leaving it later to apply the principles laid down in this decision to each individual petitioner on the particular facts of that petition.2. We will deal with these common questions in the light of the petition presented by Mr. Pralhad Keshav Atre. He was detained by an order made by the Commissioner of Police on January 26, 1956, and the grounds of his detention were communicated to him on January 29, 1956, and the order of detention was approved by the Government of Bombay on February 6, 1956. Before we deal with the questions which have been argued with considerable ability at the Bar, it will be perhaps desirab...
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Premlal S/O Lalkaji and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-1956
Reported in: 1957CriLJ212
ORDER1. This revision comes before a Division Bench upon a reference made by our learned brother Mudholkar J. by his order dated 23-1-1956. He was of the view that the question involved is of considerable importance.2. The circumstances in which the revision arises are as follows : A challan was presented by the Lalbarra police on 16-11-54 and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Waraseoni, passed a preliminary order under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against non-applicants 1 and 2 (who will be referred to hereafter as party No. 1) and the non-applicant No. 3 (who will be referred to hereafter as party No. 2). Upon the police report the Magistrate found that there was a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace, existing between the parties.He therefore passed the preliminary order under Section 145(1), specifying certain lands at the Village Chatera and fixed the case before him for 10-12-1954. Before that date a further application was presented to him by the counsel f...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›