Mumbai Court January 1957 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.
Steelage Industries Ltd. Vs. the State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-1957
Reported in: [1957]8STC376(Bom)
Shah, J. 1. Messrs. Steelage Industries, Ltd., whom we will refer to as 'the assessees' are registered dealers under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1946, and also under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953. The assessees carry on the business of manufacturing and selling steel furniture. In the application submitted by the assessees for registration as dealers, sales in motor cars was not mentioned as one of the lines in which they were dealing or intended to deal. On 15th July, 1948, the assessees purchased a motor car and paid Rs. 604 as sales tax on the purchase. The motor car was purchased or the use of the managing director of the assessees. This motor car was subsequently sold by the assessees on 14th December, 1951, at a small profit. The Sales Tax Officer, Bombay, included the sale price of the motor car in the assessment of the assessees for the period between 1st April, 1951, and 31st October, 1952, as part of the taxable turnover and subjected the price to sales tax. Against that order...
Bombay Cycle Stores Co. Ltd. Vs. the State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-1957
Reported in: [1957]8STC455(Bom)
Gokhale, J.1. This is a reference made by the Bombay Sales Tax Tribunal at the instance of the applicants, Messrs Bombay Cycle Stores Co. Ltd., and two questions have been referred to us, viz., (1) whether the petitioner is a dealer within the meaning of section 2(c) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, and (2) whether sub-section (5) of section 11 or section 11A of the Act was the proper provision to be applied in this case. There is no dispute that the Sales Tax Act referred to in these questions is the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1946. The applicant assessee wanted the Tribunal to refer to us two other questions which are mentioned by the Tribunal in its judgment in the application for reference. But the Tribunal refused to refer those questions on the ground that no question of law could be said to arise in respect of those questions out of the order of the Tribunal. Against this part of the Tribunal's order the assessee has filed an application under section 34 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953...
Steelage Industries Ltd. Vs. State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Bom160; (1957)59BOMLR347; ILR1957Bom474
Hah, J.1. Messrs. Steelage Industries, Ltd., whom we will refer to as 'the assessees' are registered dealers Under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1946, and also under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953. The assessees carry on the business of manufacturing end Belling steel furniture. In the application submitted by the assessees for registration as dealers, Bales in motor cars was not mentioned as one of the lines in which they were dealing or intended to deal. On 15th July, 1948, the assessees purchased a motor car and paid Rs. 604/- as sales tax on. the purchase. The motor car was purchased for the use of the Managing Director of the assessees. This motor car was subsequently sold by the aseessees on 14th December, 1951, at a small profit. The Sales Tax Officer, Bombay, included the sale price pf the motor car in the assessment of the assessees for the period between 1st April, 1951, and 31st October 1952, as part of the taxable turnover and subjected the price to sales tax. Against that orde...
Shantaram Ganpat and ors. Vs. Lalji Vithal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Bom162; (1957)59BOMLR382; ILR1957Bom614
Dixit, J.1. This revisional application rafses an interest-ing question under Section 47 (1-A) of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act, 1947. The question arises in this way.2. The opponent to this application obtained against one Ganpat an award in the Court of the Civil Judge. Junior Division, Dapoli. The award provides that the debtor was to pay a sum of Rs. 10,904-3-0 by instalments. The first instalment was of a sum of Rs. 2000/- to be paid on 25th November 1950. The second instalment was of a sum of Rs. 1000 to be paid on 31st May 1951 and the balance with interest was to be paid in two annual instalments, the first of which was to be paid on 31st May 1952 and the other on 31st May 3953. Ganpat paid from time to time sums aggregating to Rs. 5250/- towards the amount declared by the award, and as Ganpat failed to pay the instalments in time, the opponent filed a darkhast (No. 11 of 1955) to recover the amount due by sale of the property of the debtor. It is not clear from th...
Popatlal Ratansey Vs. Kalidas Bhavan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom1; (1957)59BOMLR860; ILR1957Bom688
Vyas, J.1. These revision applications raise a point of Jaw whether a consent decree by which the standard lent of certain premises is fixed would operate as res judicata in a subsequent application by the same tenant for fixing the standard rent for the same premises.2. Civil Revision Application No. 1924 of 1955 relates to two shops and Civil Revision Application No. l925 of 1955 is in respect of a cabin. The two shops were leased by the respondent-landlord to the applicant-tenant on the 14th June 1948 and the rent which was fixed under the lease was Rs. 136 per month, The tenant filed an application under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, for fixation of standard rent for the shops. It was Application No. 633 of 1949. The landlord filed a cross-suit, which was Suit No. 70 of 1950, for possession and the grounds upon which he sought possession were (1) that the tenant was in arrears of rent and (2) that the tenant had sub-let the premises. The trial C...
State of Bombay Vs. Purshottamdas Dwarakadas Patel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-1957
Reported in: [1957]8STC379(Bom)
Shah, J.1. In this reference we are concerned with a question about the authority of the Sales Tax Officer to grant refund of sales tax paid under an order of assessment on a certain view of the law, the law being thereafter differently interpreted by the Supreme Court. 2. Messrs. Purshottamdas Dwarakadas Patel, whom I will hereafter refer to as the assessees, are wholesale and retail dealers in grocery. On 28th November, 1952, the Sales Tax Officer, Patan, in the District of Mehsana assessed the assessees to sales tax for the period between 1st May, 1949, and 31st March, 1951. Under the assessment order made the assessees were liable to pay Rs. 14,185-8-0 as sales tax. The Sales Tax Officer gave credit for Rs. 13,925-11-9 which had already been paid by the assessees as tax and called upon them to pay the balance of Rs. 259-12-3. On 11th December, 1952, the balance of Rs. 259-12-3 was paid by the assessees. Against the order of assessment no appeal was preferred by the assessees. It ap...
M.N. Gobhai and Co. Vs. the State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-1957
Reported in: [1957]8STC575(Bom)
Shah, J.1. Messrs. M. N. Gobhai & Co., whom I will hereafter refer to as the assessees, are a firm carrying on business in cloth at Bombay and at Madras. The principal place of business of the assessees is in Bombay and they have a branch office at Madras. The assessees are registered dealers under the Bombay Sales Tax Act (V of 1946) and holding registration certificate No. BC 2296, in C Ward, Bombay. The assessees purchased cloth of the value of Rs. 30,712-12-6 on the strength of a certificate registering them as dealers in the State of Bombay after executing the requisite undertaking. As the assessees were registered as dealer they were not liable to pay sales tax on the goods purchased by them for resale in the State. Contrary to the undertaking given by them the assessees despatched the goods to their Madras office. The Sales Tax Officer in making assessment for the period between 1st April, 1949, and 31st March, 1951, included the amount of Rs. 30,712-12-6 being the price paid by...
Andheri Marol Kurla Bus Service Vs. the State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-1957
Reported in: (1958)60BOMLR1098
Tendolkar, J.1. This is a petition by the Andheri Marol Kurla Bus Service, a partnership registered under the Indian Partnership Act, for an appropriate writ, direction or order quashing an order refusing transport permits to the petitioners passed by the Regional Transport Authority, substantially upheld, with a variation that is not material for the purposes of this petition, by the State Transport Authority, and confirmed in second appeal by the State of Bombay. Respondents Nos. 1 to 5 were members of the Regional Transport Authority at different relevant times. Respondents Nos. 7 to 12 are the members of the Appellate Committee of the State Transport Authority. Respondent No. 13 is the State of Bombay and respondent No. 14 is the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay in its capacity as the Corporation that runs the B.E.S.T. Bus Services in Bombay, to whom a permit for the routes for which the petitioners were also applicants was granted by the Regional Transport Authority.2. A li...
Pratapsinhji Naransinhji Vs. State of Bombay and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Bom155; (1957)59BOMLR339; ILR1957Bom656
Shah, J.1. The petitioner is the holder of 17 villages which are collectively known as the 'Patdi Estate'; some of these villages are situate in the Viramgaum Taluka of the Ahmedabad District. The petitioner claims to hold the Estate by virtue of a resolution passed by the Government of Bombay dated 11-12-1903. On 14-5-1951, the Government of Bombay issued a, notification under Section 44 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, assuming management of the Patdi Estate. By the operation of Section 45 of that Act the estate vested . in the State Government. The Government of Bombay appointed the Mamlatdar, Viramggum Taluka. to be the manager of the estate. In the month of August 1951, the manager published in the official gazette a notice calling upon all persons having claims against the Estate to notify the some in writing to the manager. In pursurance to that notification several claims were lodged with the manager. Even though the claims were required to be lodged with...
Arvind N. Mafatlal Vs. Income-tax Officer, North Satara
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Bom134; (1957)59BOMLR268; ILR1957Bom428; [1957]32ITR350(Bom)
Shah, J.1. The firm of Mafatlal Gagalbhai & Sons consisted of four partner : Navinchandra Mafatlal, Arvind N. Mafatlal, Yogindra N. Mafatlal and Hemant Bhagubhai. The respective shares of the four partners in the profits and assets of the firm were five annas, three annas, three annas and five annas. The firm was registered under the Indian Income-tax Act. The firm owned forty shares of a private limited company, Mafatlal, Apte and Kantilal Ltd., registered under the Phaltan State Companies Act, which had its registered office at Sakarwadi in the former Phaltan State. Out of these forty shares, ten shares stood in the name of Navinchandra Mafatlal, ten shares stood in the name of Arvind N. Mafatlal and the remaining twenty shares stood in the name of Hemant Bhagubhai minor by his guardian Mrs. Sharda Bhagubhai. Mafatlal, Apte and Kantilal Ltd., which I will hereafter refer to as 'the company', were the managing agents of Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd., which was also a company registered und...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »