Mumbai Court December 1959 Judgments
Cloth Trading Co. Vs. the State of Bombay
Court: Sales Tax Tribunal STT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-22-1959
Reported in: 196011STC28Tribunal
1. In this case the only point taken by Mr. N.C. Mehta for the applicants is that the authorities below have erred in passing an order of assessment and also an order regarding penalty in the same order.His contention is that such an order was illegal and should be set aside. This point was not taken before the Sales Tax Officer, probably because the applicants did not know whether any penalty would be levied on them. On appeal against the order of the Sales Tax Officer it was contended that an officer acting under the Act cannot pass two such orders in the same order. The penalty has been levied under Section 39-A of the Act of 1953. This argument was rejected by the Assistant Collector. In revision it was again contended before the Additional Collector of Sales Tax that the order was bad in law as it had been passed under two separate sections. The Additional Collector noted that the applicants were unable to cite any authority in support of this view and he held it was permissible ...
Tag this Judgment!Natwarlal Chandulal Shah Vs. the State of Bombay
Court: Sales Tax Tribunal STT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-21-1959
Reported in: 196011STC23Tribunal
1. This is an application for revision against the order of the Additional Collector of Sales Tax dated 21st February, 1959.2. The applicant received a notice in Form XLI from the Sales Tax Officer demanding a sum of Rs. 2,348 being the tax and the penalty due on assessment for the period from 1st April, 1953, to 31st March, 1954, of the business called Messrs R. Maganlal & Co. Against this order an appeal was filed with the Assistant Collector of Sales Tax (Appeals), Range II, Ahmedabad, who dismissed the same. The Additional, Collector of Sales Tax who heard the revision application against the said dismissal order also confirmed the order of the Assistant Collector.The facts of the case are as under:- 3. One Maganlal Talakshi was carrying on a business in the name of R.Maganlal & Co. The business was of selling bidis and Messrs R. Maganlal & Co. had the sole agency to sell bidis manufactured by Messrs Thakur Savendekar & Co. The firm of Messrs R. Maganlal & Co. ...
Tag this Judgment!Mahomed Idris Rahimat Khan Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-21-1959
Reported in: (1960)62BOMLR216; 1960CriLJ1320
Datar, J.(1) On 16th October 1959 the Presidency Magistrate, 7th Court, Dadar, Bombay convicted one Mahomed Idris Rahimatkhan of the offence punishable under section 337 of the Indian Penal Code an sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment of two months.(2) Mahomed Idris Rahimatkhan has now filed the present appeal against the said order of conviction and sentence. The question is, whether the appeal is competent, in view of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Bombay Amendment ) Act, 1959 (Bombay Act LIV of 1959?(3) It is not disputed that the proceedings in which the order of conviction and sentence was passed were pending before the Presidency Magistrate since before the commencement of the Code of Criminal Pocedure (Bombay Amendment) Act, 1959. The Act came into force on 8th October 1959 and the proceedings were then pending before the Presidency Magistrate.(4) Before the Act was passed there was no appeal provided for against the order of conviction and sectence is passed in the pr...
Tag this Judgment!Valimahomed GulamhussaIn Sonavala and Co. Vs. C.T.A. Pillai, Additiona ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1959
Reported in: AIR1961Bom48; (1960)62BOMLR634; 1961CriLJ229
ORDER1. The Petitioners carry or. business in bullion and are licensed to refine precious metals. They have filed the petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction or order under Article 226 of the Constitution against the Additional Collector of Customs and the Union of India for quashing and) setting aside the order, dated 13th June 1959, passed by the Additional Collector of Customs confiscating certain quantity of gold and imposing fines in lieu of such confiscation. They have also prayed for a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order under Article 226 of the Constitution against the Additional Collector of Customs for lecturing possession of the gold weighing 452 tolas and 17 1/2 vals belonging to the petitioners which has been seized.2. The facts giving rise to the petition, briefly stated, are as follows; On 9th September 1957, 100 tolas of smuggled gold was seized from one Dina Mangtu, a sweeper employed by the Pakista...
Tag this Judgment!The ScIndia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. Vs. IsmaIn Lohmed Batatawal and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-1959
Reported in: (1960)62BOMLR265
ORDER(1) This is a revision filed by original defendant No. 1 Company against the decree directing it to pay an amount of Rs. 1,256-9-0 and professional costs to opponent No. 1 - original plaintiffs. Theplaintiffs are inion and potato merchants. On 3rd June 1952 they shipped 91 bags of onion by S. S. Jal Rajendra to Karachi on a bill of lading, The bill of lading was sent to the Habib Bank Ltd. at Karachi. According to plaintiffs, opponent No. 2 Messrs sargodha Traders were to get this bill of lading released from the bank on payment of the amount in respect of the price of the goods so shipped. Opponent No. 2 was mentioned as the notified party in the bill of lading. On 6th July 1952 the goods, it appears,arrived at karachi and defendant No. 1 petitioner, which is the Steasship Company owning S. S. Jal Rajendra delivered to opponent No. 2 (original defendant No. 2) the 91 bags of onion on 21st July 1952, on production of all documents, except the bill of lading. As the bill of lading ...
Tag this Judgment!Totaram Teckchand Vs. H.K. Choudhary, Regional Settlement Commissioner ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-1959
Reported in: (1960)62BOMLR439
Shelat, J. 1. The petitioner is a displaced person from Sind (West Pakistan). On the partition of the country he migrated to India leaving behind him immovable properties consisting of houses, shops & agricultural lands. Under the Displaced Persons (Claims) Act No. XLIV of 1950 the petitioner preferred his claim. In that claim he valued the houses and shops at Rs. 67,000. So far as agricultural lands were concerned, he did not place any pecuniary, value but declared them to be 7 acres 32/1-2 gunthas. The two claims were separately indexed each as S/IK-11/ 323. The first claim was verified and valued at Rs. 29,631-10-0 and the second relating to agricultural lands was verified as being equivalent to 5 Standard acres 134 annas. The residential buildings and shops were indexed, verified and valued as one unit having an aggregate value of Rs. 29,631-10-0, In other words, the buildings and shops were not treated as separate claims but as forming one claim under the aforesaid Index number. T...
Tag this Judgment!Shriram Sardarmal Didwani Vs. Gourishankar Alias Rameshwar Joharmal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-15-1959
Reported in: AIR1961Bom136; (1960)62BOMLR336
Raju, J.1. This is an appeal by the original Plaintiff Shriram Sardarmal Didwani, against the judgment and decree of the Additional District judge, Khamgaon, in Civil Suit No. 16-B of 1952, dismissing with costs his suit against the Defendant Gourishankar for the recovery of the principal amount of Rs. 9,368-2-3, together with interest amounting to Rs. 2,051-1-0. In the plaint it was alleged that the Plaintiff and his brothers Satyanarayan and Ratanlal, who are sons of one Surajmal, formed a joint Hindu family, that the Plaintiff Shriram who is the manager of this joints Hindu family, has filed the suit as manager and that the plaintiff had been adopted by the brother of Surajmal. In the plaint it is also alleged that this joint Hindu family was carrying on business in the name of the firm 'Gangaram Premsukh' at Khamgaon and that the Defendant's family was carrying on business in the name of 'Mitanandji Joharmal'' shop at Fattekhedi. The Defendant was adopted into the family of Mitanan...
Tag this Judgment!Vinayak Shripatrao Patwardhan Vs. State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-1959
Reported in: AIR1961Bom11; (1960)62BOMLR735; ILR1961Bom101
Naik, J. 1. The suit giving rise to this appeal was filed by the plaintiff originally against Miraj State for the following reliefs : 1. A full and detailed account be taken of defendant's management of the Saranjam Estate from 1915 to the data of suit in respect of income from all items of income such as court fee, registration, stamps, fines, Abkavi, excise, opium and other items received or deemed to have been received by the State in its capacity as the Manager of the Estate. 2. A declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to the income from the date of suit from such items as Abkari, excise opium and such other items as have no relation to the exercise of civil and criminal jurisdiction rights over the villages. The plaintiff's case may be outlined as follows : The plaintiff's ancestor, Moro Ballal Patwardhan, was a member of the Branch of Govind Had Patwardhan, who founded tile Miraj Saranjam. The Peshwas granted a 'Tainat' or a Saranjam in favour of Govind Hari in 1764 for a su...
Tag this Judgment!Dayabhai Nathubhai Vs. the State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-1959
Reported in: (1960)62BOMLR348
Shelat, J. 1. The petitioners are brothers and form a joint and undivided Hindu family. The said family owned Survey Nos. 91/2, 75/1, 60-P, 149/1, 153, 95-96, 110 and 136 of village Pardi in Taluka Olpad. These lands were managed by petitioner No. 1 as the Karta and the manager of the said family. Sometime back the petitioners partitioned these lands in accordance with their respective shares. As a result of the said partition, Survey Nos. 91/2, 75/1, 60-P, 61, 149/1 and 153 came to the share of petitioners Nos. 1 and 3 while the rest of the survey numbers came to the share of petitioners Nos. 2 and 4. It is not. in dispute that the petitioners partitioned these lands at a time when a notice under Section 15 of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) had already been served by the officer appointed under the Act. The Prant Officer, Surat, found that this partition had taken place during the continuance of ...
Tag this Judgment!Trambaklal Harinarayan Jani Vs. Shankarbhai Bhaijibhai Vagri
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-09-1959
Reported in: (1960)62BOMLR261
Shelat, J. 1. This Special Civil Application raises an interesting question as to the interpretation of Section 84B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.2. The petitioner is the owner of Survey No. 181/1-2 situate at Sardarpura in the Taluka of Anand. Prior to 1949, respondent No. 1 was the owner of this survey number. It appears that in 1949 the petitioner lent and advanced a sum of Rs. 2,000 to respondent No. 1 and thereupon respondent No. 1 executed in favour of the petitioner a deed of conditional sale. Respondent No. 1 continued to be in possession of the survey number inspite of that conditional sale though as a tenant of the petitioner. The case of respondent No. 1 was that during the monsoon of the year 1955-56 the petitioner threatened him not to go to the land in question telling him that if he entered the land he would see that he was sent to jail. It was also the case of respondent No. 1 that the petitioner obtained possession of the land in question from ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »