Mumbai Court August 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.
Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Co. of India Ltd. Vs. the St ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-1960
Reported in: (1961)63BOMLR903
K.K. Desai, J.1. This is a suit for repayment and refund of the principal amount of Rs. 1,90,590-8-0 paid towards sales-tax levied under the Bombay Sales of Motor Spirit Taxation Act, 1946 (Bombay Act No. VI of 1946) and interest and costs.2. The plaintiffs' case is that between April 1, 1948, and September 30, 1952, as also subsequent thereto the plaintiffs had in accordance with and as required by Section 10 of the Act submitted every month statements of sales of aviation spirit and aviation oil and before submitting such statements paid into the government treasury the full amount of the tax stated in such statements to be due from them under the Act. These statements included particulars of sales of goods supplied to foreign going aircrafts for consumption during the flights and payments made by the plaintiffs included the tax on the amounts of price on such sales.3. By correspondence beginning with a letter dated August 16, 1952, the plaintiffs through 'Oil Industry Supply sub-com...
Godawaribai Vs. Siddhagopal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-1960
Reported in: (1960)62BOMLR927
Mudholkar, J.1. These three revision applications arise out of three different suits for possession instituted by the plaintiff in each case against his tenant for possession of the field let out to him. According to each of the plaintiffs, the tenancy of the defendant was terminated by serving a valid notice. The suit in each case was valued under Section 7(v)(b) of the Court-fees Act. When the plaints in these three matters came up before the Court, it formed the opinion that the proper provision applicable for Court-fees in these cases was Section 7(xi)(cc). Under the former provision, where the land forms an entire estate, or a definite share of an estate, paying annual revenue to Government, or where the land forms part of such estate and is recorded as aforesaid and the land revenue is not settled permanently, the value of the subject-matter will be twenty times the revenue so payable, and the plaintiff is required to pay Court-fees upon such value. Under the latter provision, in...
Venkatrao A. Pai and Sons Ltd. Vs. Narayanlal Bansilal and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Bom94; (1960)62BOMLR947; ILR1961Bom459
1. This is an application tiled by defendant No. 7 in a suit filed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in the Small Causes Court against an order passed by the Small Causes Court permitting the two respondents individually to be represented by two separate advocates and also permitting cross-examination of the defendants and their witnesses by each of these advocates.2. The question involved in this application is a very important one and it is as to the validity on otherwise of a long standing practice prevailing both on the Original Side of the High Court as well as on its Appellate Side as also in all the subordinate courts. The question is, whether where more than one person join as co-plaintiffs in a suit, each of the plaintiffs has got an individual right of engaging his own advocate or counsel and conducting the case independently of the other plaintiffs. Mr. Bhabha, the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 was unable to cite any instance in this High Court on its Original Side,...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›