Mumbai Court April 1966 Judgments
Lakshmandas Chaganlal Bhatia and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-27-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Bom400; (1967)69BOMLR808; 1968CriLJ1584
Patel, J.1. This group of appeals arises out of a prosecution against these appellants and some others for offences of conspiracy under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code for importing and bringing into India gold in contravention of the provisions of the Sea Customs Act. 1878 read with the relevant Notifications and individual charges against several accused in respect of certain individual transactions. In the complaint 40 persons were named as defendants, out of whom defendants Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 36, 38, 39 and 40 only were amenable to the process of the Court. Rest of the defendants were not amenable to the process of the Court inasmuch as many were foreigners and some had absconded.(2) Defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3, who are brothers, are referred to as Shuhaibar brothers and are of Beirut. Defendant No. 4 Yusuf Lori alias Adulla apparently is from Baherein. Juan Casanovas, defendant No. 5 is of Geneva. Defendant No. 19 Hamad Sultan of Bombay had absc...
Tag this Judgment!Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-19-1966
Reported in: (1967)69BOMLR140; 1966MhLJ1149
Abhyankar, J.1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenges the validity of the notification dated October 7, 1965, issued by the State Government of Maharashtra that in relation to respondent No. 2, which is a relief undertaking, an agreement dated November 7, 1964, between respondent No. 2 and the Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh, Nagpur, relating to the payment of dearness allowance should be suspended. They also challenged the notice issued by the Factory Manager of respondent No. 2 on October 9, 1965, as ultra vires and unauthorized exercise of powers by respondent No. 2. We may mention that the petitioners challenged the provisions of the Bombay Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, 1958, but that challenge' has not been pressed and no arguments were addressed before us with respect to that relief.2. In order to understand the grievance of the petitioners certain facts are necessary to be stated.3. Petitioner No. 1 is a registered trade union, it h...
Tag this Judgment!Burmah Shell Refineries Ltd. Vs. G.B. Chand (income-tax Officer) and a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-1966
Reported in: [1966]61ITR493(Bom)
1. The petitioner before us is the Burmah Shall Refineries Ltd., a company registered under the Indian Companies Act. The first respondent is the Income-tax Officer, Companies Circle II (1), Bombay, and the second respondent is the Union of India. In this petition under article 226 of the constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to get quashed the order of 12th October, 1965, made by the first respondent provisionally assessing the petitioner-company to tax under section 141 of the Indian Income-tax Act (Act XLIII of 1961), hereinafter referred to as the Act, and the notice of demand of the same date issued pursuant thereto as calling upon the petitioner to pay the balance of the tax payable amounting to Rs. 31,74,806.70. The petitioner further prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus or other merit or direction directing the first respondent to rectify the provisional assessment by granting to the petitioner rebate of income-tax at the rate of 35 per cent. instead of ...
Tag this Judgment!A.G. Kazi and ors. Vs. C.V. Jethwani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Bom235; (1966)68BOMLR529
Tambe, C.J. This appeal under the Letters Patent raises an important question as to the interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution, and the question raised is whether the expression 'personal liberty' occurring in the said Article includes the right to travel abroad. The second important question that arises is whether the refusal of a passport to the respondent by appellant No. 1 has resulted in the contravention of Articles 21 and 14 of the Constitution.(2) Facts giving rise to this appeal in brief are: It is not in dispute that the respondent is a citizen of India. According to him, he is a partner of a firm in Bombay which carries on business of Bankers. Exporters and Importers. He is also a partner of a firm doing business at Dubai in Persian Gulf, which carries on the business of Indent Agents and Importers, According to the respondent passports were granted to him during the period from October 1952 to October 1962 to enable him to make trips to Dubai and certain other por...
Tag this Judgment!M.A. Khan Vs. State and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-1966
Reported in: 1967CriLJ994
Tarkunde, J.1. The petitioner in this case has been continuously in detention since 7th June 1963, in pursuance of orders passed by the Government of Maharashtra from time to time under Rule 30 (1) (b) of the Defence of India Rules. During this period, he was trying to have certain journals and periodicals at his own cost, but could not get the permission to receive them. The Jail authorities did not allow him to purchase or receive the journals and periodicals on the ground that they were not included in the official list of newspapers allowable to security prisoners of Class I. On 5th July 1965, the petitioner wrote to the Secretary of the Home Department, Government of Maharashtra, that lie may be permitted to purchase at his own cost or to receive the following journals and periodicals.(1) 'The Dawat' (Urdu), Daily of Delhi(2) 'The Radiance' (English), Weekly of Delhi(3) 'The Margdeep' (Marathi), Biweekly of Poona(4) 'The Tajally' (Urdu), Monthly of Deoband(5) 'The Kanti' (Hindi), ...
Tag this Judgment!The Wholesome GraIn and Seed Merchants Association, Nagpur and ors. Vs ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-06-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Bom75; (1967)69BOMLR93; ILR1967Bom269; 1967MhLJ372
Abhyankar, J.(1) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners seek the following reliefs :(a) A writ of mandamns, prohibition or other appropriate writ be issued whereby the Maharashtra Foodgrains Dealer's Licensing Order, 1963, be declared unconstitutional and void; (b) alternatively Clause 6 of the said order and condition No. 7 of the licence in Form B be declared void; (c) Clause 5 of Form C of Schedule II of the said order be declared void; (d) the Maharashtra Food grains (Control of Margin of Profits) Order, 1963, be declared void; (e) the respondent be prohibited from enforcing these provisions against the petitioners and (f) interim stay of enforcement of the said orders and provisions be granted till the decision of this petition. (2) First petitioner is an Association of Whole Grand and Seed Merchants, but it does not appear that the Association itself is carrying on any business in Foodgrains. Petitioners 2 and 3 are described as Wholesale Grain M...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›