Mumbai Court July 1959 Judgments
Sharda Prasad Tiwari and ors. Vs. Divisional Superintendent, Central R ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1959
Reported in: AIR1961Bom150; (1959)61BOMLR1596; ILR1960Bom545
Raju, J. 1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by the three petitioners who are non-gazetted employees of the Central Railway, foe writs of mandamus, certiorari and other appropriate writs, orders or directions in the matter of disciplinary inquiries which are being held against them, by respondent who is the Divisional Superintendent of the Central Railway at Nagpur. Petitioner No. 1 is also the Honorary President of the Co-operative Society called the Central Railway Employees' Consumers Co-operative Society, Limited, Ajni, Nagpur, which will hereinafter be referred to as the Society- Petitioner No. 2 is the Honorary Secretary of the Society. In the petition it is averred that petitioner No. 3 was a member of the Society and worked as a Treasurer only for 12 days from 18-6-56 to 30-6-56 when he was relieved of his charge as Treasurer by one Ramnarayan, that new office-bearers of the Society were elected on 31-8-58, and that the new Committee of the Soci...
Tag this Judgment!Shardaprasad Onkarprasad Tiwari and ors. Vs. Central Railway (Division ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1959
Reported in: (1960)ILLJ167Bom
Raju, J. 1. This is a petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution by the three petitioners, who are non-gazetted employees of the Central Railway for writs of mandamus, certiorari and other appropriate writs, orders or directions in the matter of disciplinary inquiries which are being held against them, by respondent who is the Divisional Superintendent of the Central Railway at Nagpur. Petitioner 1 is also the honorary president of co-operative society called the Central Railway Employees' Consumers' Co-operative Society, Ltd., Ajni, Nagpur, which will hereinafter be referred to as society. Petitioner 2 is the honorary secretary of the society. In the petition it is averred that petitioner 3 was a member of the society and worked as a treasurer only for 12 days from 18 June, 1956 to 30 June, 1956, when he was relieved of his charge as treasure by one Ramnarayan, that new office-bearers of the society were elected on 31 August, 1958 and that the new committee of the society so...
Tag this Judgment!Gangaram Baliram Vs. Dharamchand Phulchand Raniwale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1638
Kotval, J.1. This is an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the then High Court of Judicature at Nagpur upon leave granted by Mr. Justice P.P. Deo. The appeal comes before this Court pursuant to a certificate issued by the learned Chief Justice of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh under Section 59 of the States Reorganization Act.2. The subject-matter in dispute in appeal is a field, survey No. 23, area 29 acres 25 gunthas, situated in the village Walki, tahsil and district Amravati. This field belonged to the respondent Dharamchand who is a resident of Calcutta. The appellant Gangaram was at all material times the working patwari of the village Walki. Under Section 140 of the Berar Land Revenue Code, the Deputy Commissioner, Amravati, having certified that the respondent was in arrears of land revenue amounting to Rs. 58-15-3 in respect of the year 1940-41, the said field was put to auction by the revenue authorities on April 24, 1941, at Badnera. At the auction the appella...
Tag this Judgment!R.G. Shastri Vs. Rajkot Borough Municipality
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1959
Reported in: (1960)62BOMLR94
Miabhoy, J. 1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by 26 plaintiffs, who are the appellants in this Court, for a declaration that the levy of a license fee on lodging and boarding houses by the Municipal Borough of Rajkot was illegal. The appellants did not ask for a permanent injunction in the plaint. This defect was noticed by them in the lower appellate Court, and they made an application in that Court for amendment of the plaint by adding a prayer for a permanent injunction. The amendment was granted by the learned appellate Judge, and no question is raised about that amendment in this Court. The trial Court held that the levy was legal and dismissed the suit on. January 13, 1958. The appellants preferred an appeal to the District Court. The learned District Judge, by his judgment, dated December 26, 1958, dismissed the appeal.2. The plaintiffs-appellants, who are owners of lodging and boarding houses, carry on business in the limits of Rajkot Borough Municipality They ...
Tag this Judgment!Mahavirprasad Badrida Vs. M.S. Yagnik
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1433
Shah, J.(1) By this petition the competence of the Union Parliament to enact the Wealth-Tax Act (Act XXVII) of 1957, in so far as that Act seeks to levy Wealth-tax on Hindu undivided families, is challenged. The petitioner, who is the karta of a Hindu undivided family and is being assessed to wealth-tax in the status of Hindu undivided family was, by notice dated 12-7-1958 issued in exercise of powers conferred by section 14(2) of the Wealth-Tax Act, called upon by the Second Wealth-Tax Officer. C-II Ward, Bombay, to furnish a return of the net wealth of his undivided Hindu family. The petitioner claims that the notice is invalied because section 3 of the Wealth-tax Act is ultra vires the Union Parliament in so far as that section authorises the levy of wealth-tax on the net wealth of a Hindu undivided family.(2) By section 3 of Act 27 of 1957 liability to pay for every financial year commencing on and from the 1st day of April, 1957, a tax referred to as the Wealth-tax in respect of t...
Tag this Judgment!Eardley Dudley Baxter Vs. T.L. Bhagtiani and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1959
Reported in: AIR1961Bom69; (1960)62BOMLR651
ORDER1. This Petition challenges an order dated the 10th of May 1958 passed by the 1st respondent under Section 19 of the Displaced Persons(Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954.2. The Petitioner claims to be an occupant or flat No. 22 in a building known as 'Haji Mahomed Court', Clare Road, Byculla, where he alleges he has been residing since 1950. The building 'Haji Mahomed Court' was owned by one Haji Mahomed, who was declared an evacuee under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act and thereupon the property became vested in the Custodian of Evacuee Property. On or about the 10th of June 1955 by virtue of a notification issued under Section 12 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act of 1954 the property became acquired property whereupon the said property became vested absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances. Thereafter the property was sold by public auction to one Hardasmal Hemrajmal of Bhandara. At the material time however ...
Tag this Judgment!Manordas Kalidas Vs. V.V. Tatke
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1560; [1960]11STC87(Bom)
Shah, J.1. Messrs Manordas Kalidas, who will hereafter be referred to as 'the assessees', carry on business in cloth in Bombay, and are registered dealers under the Bombay Sales Tax Act. For the assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50, corresponding to the assessment period from 7th October, 1948, to 31st March, 1950, the Sales Tax Officer, C-I-J Ward, Bombay, assessed the assessees on 4th May, 1951, under section 11 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1946. The Sales Tax Officer accepted the gross turnover returned by the assessees at Rs. 1,15,50,858-10-3 and determined the sales tax payable thereon. On 13th June, 1958, the Assistant Collector of Sales Tax issued a notice to the assessees informing them that they had suppressed sales of Rs. 20,00,000 from their regular books of account for the year 1948-49 and it was proposed to revise the order passed by the Sales Tax Officer for the said year by incorporating and adding sales of Rs. 20,00,000 to the turnover, and subject the same to sales tax...
Tag this Judgment!Laxman Dhulshet Narayanpure Vs. Ganpat Nata Shete
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1591
Tarkunde, J.1. This reference has been made by the Taxing Officer under Section 5 of the Court-fees Act, and the learned Chief Justice has directed us to decide the question so raised. The question relates to the Court-fees chargeable on four appeals, each arising from an order passed under Section 24 of the Bombay Money-lenders Act, 1946. In three of the four cases, applications filed by judgment debtors under Section 24 of the Act for making the decretal amounts payable by instalments were rejected by the Courts below. In the fourth case, the application of the judgment-debtor was partially granted and the judgment-debtor has come in appeal on the ground that the relief granted to him was inadequate. The Taxing Officer was of the view that no appeal could be filed from a decision under Section 24 of the Bombay Money-lenders Act and that the appellants in the four appeals may, if they so desired, convert the appeals into civil revision applications and that Court-fees may then be levi...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Sales Tax Vs. Kanthadbhai and Popatlal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-1959
Reported in: [1959]10STC516(Bom)
S.T. Desai, J.1. This reference raised a rather interesting question under the Sales Tax Act. The necessary facts are these : The opponents submitted two questions to the Collector of Sales Tax under section 27 for determination. Those questions were : (1) Whether the opponents were dealers within the meaning of the Act and (2) Whether the transactions mentioned in their application were sales To their application, they attached two exhibits in which were mentioned transactions relating to two of their customers. That was for the purpose of showing the modus operandi followed by the opponents. The transactions relating to the customers were inter-related and the accounts constituted an integrated account. The way the opponents maintained their books of account was this. In a book described as their sonavahi, there were entries containing the accounts of gold brought by customers or gold supplied to the customers out of their own stock. The other book contained what was called the majur...
Tag this Judgment!Plastella and Co. Vs. State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-1959
Reported in: [1959]10STC511(Bom)
Shah, J.1. These two references raise common questions and we propose to dispose of the same by a common judgment. The two references relate to two periods 1st of November, 1952, to the 31st of March, 1953, and the 1st of April, 1953, to the 31st of March, 1954. For the first period upto the 24th March, 1953, the liability to tax was to be assessed under the Sales Tax Ordinance (No. 2) of 1952 and for the remaining seven days it was governed by the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953. For the second period the liability to tax was to be assessed under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953. At the relevant time, the goods sold which were rendered liable to sales tax were charged with payment of general tax and certain goods were liable to payment of special tax as well. There is no dispute in this case that the sales in respect of plastic combs are liable to pay general tax and the only dispute is about the liability to pay special tax. On 1st of November, 1952, under the Bombay Sales Tax Ordinance (No...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »