Mumbai Court April 1962 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.
Begum and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Bom17; (1962)64BOMLR526; 1963CriLJ148
Patel, J. 1. These revisional applications have been referred to the Bench as they involve the important question of the vires of Section 20 of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic In Women and Girls Act, 1956. In all these cases the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sholapur Division, has directed that the petitioners who are alleged to be prostitutes should remove themselves front the town of Barsi and that they should go to Osmanabad Via Yedsh within three days from the date set by him. 2. Now, Section 20 of the Act enables the Magistrate to record the substance of the information received end issue a notice to the woman or girl residing In or frequenting any place within the local limits of his jurisdiction to show cause. Sub-section (3) says that if upon such inquiry it appears to the Magistrate that such woman or girl is a prostitute and that it is necessary in the interests of the general public that such woman or girl should be required to remove herself therefrom and be prohibited from...
A. Ebrahim and Company Vs. the State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-1962
Reported in: [1962]13STC877(Bom)
Tambe, J.1. The applicant before us, a proprietary concern, is a registered dealer doing wholesale and retail business of selling separated parts of ship machinery and ferrous and non-ferrous metals. The applicant purchased a ship by name 'Jala Veera' from the Scindia Steam Navigation Company. On 9th March, 1954, the applicant entered into an agreement with Messrs Compania Naveira Heredia Limitada Costa Rica, to sell the said ship for a consideration of Rs. 4,52,547-10-6. At the time of the agreement, the ship sold was lying in the docks of the Bombay Port. Clause (1) of the agreement states that the steamer shall be accepted as and where she now lies. In clause (4), it is stated that the steamer shall be delivered as and where she lies in Bombay free from claims of other parties against the steamer. Clause (5) says that the vendors agree to allow the purchasers or their representatives to go on board the steamer at the port of delivery. Clause (6) is to the effect that the steamer sha...
Bajirao Bhawanrao Vs. Bansilal Ganeshlal and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Bom212; (1963)65BOMLR39; ILR1963Bom173
ORDER1. The order in Civil Revision Application No. 288 of 1961 will also dispose of Civil Revision Application No. 241 of 1961. In both these cases the applicant is the same person, namely, one Bajirao son of Bhawanrao, the petitioning creditor. Opponent No. 1 Bansilal in Civil Revision Application No. 288 of 1961 is a transferee in respect of purchase of land on 5-9-1955 and Opponent No. 1 Damodar in Civil Revision Application No. 241 of 1961 is a transferee in respect of a house purchased on 5-9-1955. 2. Opponent No. 2 Rajaram Punjaji is an agriculturist of Bori. It seems he had executed three promissory notes as follows:- Promissory note dated 15-9-54 for Rs. 2150/-; Promissory note dated 17-10-54 for Rs. 900/-; and Promissory note dated 3-6-55 for Rs. 180/-. All these promissory notes were in favour of the applicant Bajirao. Bajirao filed an application under Section 9(1) of the Provincial Insolvency Act against Opponent No. 2 Rajaram for adjudging him as an insolvent. The acts of...
Additional Collector of Sales Tax, Bombay Division, Bombay Vs. Manilal ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-1962
Reported in: [1962]13STC624(Bom)
Tambe, J.1. Both these references are made at the instance of the Additional Collector of Sales Tax, Bombay, and they raise questions as regards interpretation of provisions (a) and (b) to rule 5(1)(vii) of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1952. The Advocate-General appearing for the Collector, however, has not pressed for an answer to question as regards the interpretation of proviso (b). We are, therefore, concerned only with the construction of the said proviso (a). Both these references can be disposed of by a common judgment. They arise out of the assessment of the respondent, Messrs Manilal Keshavji, for the two periods 1st November, 1952, to 31st March, 1953, and 1st April, 1953, to 31st March, 1954. During the first period, the sales tax was leviable under Ordinance III of 1952, and during the second period under the Bombay Sales Tax Act III of 1953. The provisions of the Ordinance and the Act except a slight change in the numbering of the sections are identical. The rules with whic...
Shri Narayan Sitaram Kokaje Vs. the Secretary to the Government of the ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-1962
Reported in: (1962)64BOMLR557
Tarkunde, J. 1. A question has arisen in this case with regard to the interpretation to be placed on Sub-section 2(b) of Section 25 of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925.2. The petitioner is a voter in ward No. 3 of the Satara Borough Municipality, The last election of the councillors of the municipality was held in the year 1957. The four years term of office of the councillors was to expire on December 3, 1901, as provided by Section 25(1) of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act. The Collector of Satara announced that the general election of the municipality would take place on October 29, 1961, but at the instance of the Government of Maharashtra the Collector cancelled the proposed general election. It appears that the. Government, decided to cancel the election because it was proposed that the Sutara Borough Municipality should be amalgamated with the Satara Suburban Municipality. Having decided to cancel the proposed general election the Government, however, did not take any st...
Sonubai Vs. Sales Tax Officer, Nagpur, Circle Ii and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-1962
Reported in: [1962]13STC952(Bom)
Kotval, J.1. These are two petitions in which the petitioner challenges the orders of assessment of the Sales Tax Authorities and the levy of small penalties. In Special Civil Application No. 312 of 1961 the period of assessment is from 7th November, 1953 to 26th October, 1954, and in Special Civil Application No. 313 of 1961 the corresponding period is from 27th October, 1954 to 14th November, 1955. The odd dates are accounted for when we consider that the petitioner maintained accounts from Diwali to Diwali. 2. The petitioner carries on two businesses, consisting of a lime works at Rajur and business in manganese ore at Nagpur. She made a composite return in respect of both these businesses for the period 7th November, 1953 to 26th October, 1954, and in support of her return, she produced account books separately maintained at Rajur and Nagpur. Now, in the case of the first of the two years of assessment, the Sales Tax Officer found that the accounts of the petitioner were not proper...
Gajanan Marotrao Balpande Vs. Municipal Commissioner of the City of Na ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-1962
Reported in: (1962)64BOMLR546
Shah, J.1. This petition is filed by a dealer in potteries against an order of the Municipal Commissioner of the City of Nagpur Corporation, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected. The appeal was directed against a bill dated September 21, I960, served by the Market Department of the Corporation on the petitioner claiming an amount of Its. 1,100 for the period June 1, 3960 to March 31, 1961, in respect of a stall, which the petitioner had taken on, licence from the Corporation in one of the city markets. It was urged before the Municipal Commissioner that the petitioner had vacated the stall on April 1, 1960, and that, accordingly, the Corporation had taken possession thereof from him as on that date and that, therefore, he was not liable to pay any amount for any period subsequent to that date.2. It appears that the petitioner took block No. 11 of Itwari chawl in an open auction on a monthly rent of Its. 158 and in regard thereto he executed an agreement in favour of ...
Collector of Sales Tax, Bombay State Vs. Jamnadas Dharumal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1962
Reported in: [1962]13STC537(Bom)
V.S. Desai, J.1. The opponents are dealers carrying on business of selling and supplying textile cloth within the State of Bombay. During the period 1st April, 1954, to 13th July, 1955, their turnover had exceeded the limit prescribed by section 5 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, but they had not, till that date, applied for registration. On the 14th July, 1955, they made an application for registration, and were granted the registration certificate with effect from the said date. Thereafter on the 1st September, 1955, the opponents filed four statements under the rules claiming set-off in respect of the general sales tax paid by them on their purchases during the four periods, viz., (1) 1st July, 1954, to 30th September, 1954, and (2) 1st October, 1954, to 30th December, 1954, (3) 1st January, 1955, to 31st March, 1955, and (4) 1st April, 1955, to 30th June, 1955. The total set-off claimed by them under these four statements was Rs. 6,087. Thereafter the opponents were assessed for ...
Ramlal Lalchand Vs. H.G. Dange
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Bom117; (1962)64BOMLR629; ILR1962Bom822
S.P. Kotval, J. 1. The petitioners Ramlal Lalchand and Jagannath Ramlal challenge the grant of a lease on 22-1-1962 to the respondent No. 5 Messrs. Sadiq and Company of Nagpur. It appears that both the petitioners and the respondent No. 5 had for several years prior to the grant of the quarry lease to the respondent No. 5 made applications to the-State Government through the Collector, Nagpur, for the grant of quarry rights in several fields. We are here concerned with field No. 18 of village Bina. Both the petitioners and the respondent No. 5 are engaged in the business of manufacturing bricks and for that purpose they require the soil of that field for use in brick-making.2. The history of the dealings of the respondent No. 5 which resulted in the grant of the lease on 22-1-1962 to them is as follows on 24-1-1960 the respondent No. 5 entered into an agreement with the then owner of the field Deorao Patil to Bina. By that agreement, Deorao Patil agreed to sell the field and another fi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›