Mumbai Court January 1960 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.
A.K. Shah and Co. Vs. the State of Bombay
Court: Sales Tax Tribunal STT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-1960
Reported in: 196011STC29Tribunal
1. This appeal arises from an order passed by the Additional Collector of Sales Tax, Northern Division, Ahmedabad, upon an application made by the appellants under Section 27(d) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 (amended) and the short question is whether "hessian" comes within the classes of goods mentioned in Schedule I to the Bombay Sales Tax Laws (Special Exemptions) Act, 1957.2. Section 27, so far as material, provides that if any question arises otherwise than in a proceeding before a court or a proceeding under Section 14 or 15, whether or not, for the purposes of this Act,-(d) any tax is payable in respect of any particular sale or purchase, the Collector shall make an order determining such question and the learned Additional Collector of Sales Tax held that a tax is payable under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, on the sale of hessian. It is the correctness of this conclusion which Mr. Mehta for the appellants challenges on this appeal.3. Before I refer to the Bombay Sales Ta...
Baburao Pandharinath Jahagirdar Vs. Bhikachand Tulsiram Marwadi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-1960
Reported in: (1960)62BOMLR845
Miabhoy, J. 1. This matter has been referred to me by the learned Chief Justice tinder Section 5(2) of the Court-fees Act. Before I mention the points which have got to be dealt with in this reference it is necessary to state very briefly the facts which have led up to it.2. Suit No. 50 of 1945 was filed in the Court of the Civil. Judge (Senior Division), Nasik, for possession of two fields bearing S. Nos. 90 and 93, and for recovering past and future mesne profits. Appellants were some of the defendants in that suit. Ultimately, a decree for possession was made, as also an order underO. XX, Rule 12, Civil Procedure Code, directing inquiry into past and future mesne profits. Appellants filed their memo.. of appeal on June 15, 1959. The appeal was directed only against the decree for possession. The appellants stamped the memo. of appeal on this basis, and there is no doubt that the memo. of appeal has been correctly stamped, if the same is held to be an. appeal against the decree for p...
Dada Savla Yadav Vs. Vasant Anant Sultane
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-1960
Reported in: (1960)62BOMLR471
Gokhale, J.1. This is an application in revision filed by the original defendant against the rejection of his application by the trial Court that an issue as to whether he is a tenant or not should be raised and the matter be sent to the Mamlatdar in accordance with the procedure laid down in Section 85A of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, as amended by Act XIII of 195(3. The respondents, who are plaintiffs, filed Special Civil Suit No. 19 of 1957 on March 20, 1957, in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Kolhapur for possession of two lands bearing R. S. Nos. 582 and 583 admeasuring 6 acres 17 gunthas and 9 acres 34 gunthas respectively situated at Mouje Shirole, Taluka Hatkanangale, District Kolhapur. According to the plaintiffs, the said lands belonged originally to respondent No. 2, original plaintiff No. 2, who passed a gift-deed on February 26, 1949, in favour of respondent No. 1-plaintiff No. 1, reserving to himself the right of maintenance till ...
Jagmohandas Tribhuvandas Vs. the State of Bombay
Court: Sales Tax Tribunal STT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-1960
Reported in: 196011STC26Tribunal
1. This is an application for rectification made under Section 35 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953.2. On 14th August, 1958, this Tribunal delivered a judgment in Revision Application No. 93 of 1958 and dismissed the said application. Two points were taken in the application, as will appear from the judgment.It was contended that a reasonable opportunity was not given to the applicant by the Assistant Collector of Sales Tax when a proceeding was pending before him. That contention was disposed of by the Tribunal which observed that the applicant had made seven applications for adjournment before the Assistant Collector of Sales Tax the last of which was not granted. On the 30th May, 1957, the learned pleader for the applicant appeared before the Assistant Collector. It was contended before the Tribunal that it was wrong for the Assistant Collector to fix the hearing on the day in question since 30th May, 1957, was a holiday. As pointed out by the Tribunal, the Assistant Collector's of...
Dattatraya Shankar Joshi Vs. Deore (R.M.) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-1960
Reported in: (1961)IILLJ4Bom
Chainani, C.J.1. The petitioner is the proprietor of a printing press, in Ahmednagar. Respondents 2 to 6, to whom we will hereafter refer as respondents, were employed in this press in 1956. On 18 January 1956, a notification under the Minimum Wages Act was issued by Government, by which the minimum rates of wages were fixed for certain classes of workers employed in the printing industry. Different rates were fixed for different zones. Ahmednagar, in which the petitioner's press is situated, is in Zone IV. This notification came into force from 1 July 1956. On 18 June 1956, another notification was issued in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (2) of Section 28 of the Act, directing that for a period of 5 years with effect from 1 July 1956, the provisions of the Act shall not apply to compositors, cylinder pressmen and treadle-pressmen or platemen, who did not fulfil the tests specified in this notification. On 26 December 1956, an application was made on behalf of the fiv...
Mahomed Tayoob Daruwala Vs. the State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-1960
Reported in: (1960)62BOMLR657; [1960]11STC612(Bom)
S.T. Desai, J.1. This petition for a writ of certiorari in a case arising under the Sales Tax Act has been argued before us by Mr. S. P. Mehta, learned counsel for the assessee, with his usual lucidity and discernment. The amount involved in the petition is small, but we are told and readily believe that the determination of the question of construction that arises on this petitions must affect many other cases under the Sales Tax Act. The petitioner has been carrying on business in partnership under the name of Liberty Silk Mart. One of the partners died, and the petitioner continued the business as its sole proprietor. The firm was registered as a dealer under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The assessment periods are 20th April, 1954, to 14th October, 1954, and 15th October, 1954, to 31st March, 1955. The Sales Tax Officer completed the assessments for the two periods and passed an order levying a penalty of Rs. 393-2-0 and Rs. 200-7-0 respecti...
Madhusudan Prabhakar Chitale Vs. Trimbak Vyankatesh Joshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Bom23; 1961BomCR(Cri)23; (1960)62BOMLR599; ILR1960Bom523
ORDER1. This is an application by the decree-holder for the revision of an order passed in execution by the Small Cause Court at Poona, directing the arrest of the petitioner under Order XXI Rule 37 Sub rule 2, C. p. c.2. The opponent obtained a decree for Rs. 417-8-0 against the petitioner on 4-8-1955. As the petitioner did not pay the decretal amount the opponent filed an application for execution of the decree. By that application the opponent sought the arrest and detention of the petitioner in a civil jail. After the application was made the court issued a notice to the petitioner under Order XXI Rule 37 Sub-rule (1), C. P. C. The petitioner attended the court in obedience to the notice and filed his written statement. The matter was then adjourned and the petitioner failed to attend on the date of the adjourned hearing. According to Mr. Pendse, the petitioner's counsel put in his appearance on his behalf in court on the date of the adjourned hearing. As the petitioner was not pre...
State Vs. Radhamal Sangatmal Sindhi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1960
Reported in: 1960CriLJ1575
ORDERGokhale, J.1. This is a reference made by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No. 1, Kolhapur, Under Section 341 of the Cr.PC The accused Radha mal Sangatmal Sindhi was alleged to have stabbed one Parumal on 2nd December 1958 as; a result of which the said Parumal ultimately died in the Civil Hospital at Kolhapur. That is why committal proceedings were started against the accused before the learned Judicial Magistrate. It appears that before the prosecution led evidence in tne committal proceedings it was discovered that the accused was deaf and dumb and could not be made to understand the nature of the proceedings against him and the Public Prosecutor, therefore, submitted a report to the learned Magistrate on 3 2 1959 to that effect. In support of his report, the father as well as the father in law of the accused were examined, as also one more witness by name Madhumal Dholumal, who was a neighbour of the accused for several years. On the basis of this evidence t...
Kajaria Traders (India) Ltd. Vs. Foreign Import and Export Association
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Bom65; (1960)62BOMLR753
ORDER1. This matter has come up before me under Clause 36 of the Letters Patent for the determination of the questions following:--'Whether in view of the provisions contained in Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, the present petition is maintainable and what provisions should be made for the costs of the parties to the Petition.'There has been a difference of opinion between Mr. Justice Mudholkar and Mr. Justice Naik as regards the answers to be given to the aforesaid questions.2. I shall briefly state the facts giving rise to the aforesaid questions. The Petitioners are a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act, VII of 1913. The Petitioners carry on business as dealers in Manganese Ore. In or about July 1955, the Petitioners agreed to sell to Messrs. Phillip Brothers India Ltd., an American Company, 10,000 tons of manganese ore of 16/48 grade for shipment abroad during the period January to June 1956. The terms of shipment provided that 5,000 tons of manganese ...
Aga Abbas Haji AmIn Anwari Vs. Haji Mohomed Haji Ali Jeerahiyan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-1960
Reported in: (1960)62BOMLR465
Mudholkar, J.1. This is the plaintiff's appeal from an order returning the plaint for presentation to the proper Court in a suit instituted by him in the City Civil Court.2. The suit out of which this appeal arises was instituted by the plaintiff in the City Civil Court after valuing it at Rs, 7,001. According to him a partnership was formed between him and the defendant on May 5, 1949; and that this partnership owned a number of establishments in Bombay and inAhmedabad. In his suit he sought for the dissolution of the partnership and accounts thereof, a declaration to the effect that certain establishments which were admittedly being run at Ahmedabad by the defendant also belonged to the partnership and a direction that the profits arising from this establishment should be taken into account when the accounts of the partnership were being taken. Another declaration which the plaintiff sought was that the sale proceeds of certain establishments at Bombay belonged to the partnership and...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »