Mumbai Court July 1966 Judgments
The Municipal Committee of Malkapur Vs. Ballabhdas Mathuradas Lakhani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1966
Reported in: (1967)69BOMLR723; 1966MhLJ784
Patel, J.1. This Second Appeal raises a question of some importance in relation to the 'profession tax' imposed by Municipal Committee, Malkapur, the appellant before us.2. The facts relevant for the decision of the appeal are as below.3. The Municipal Committee was originally governed by the Berar Municipal Law, 1886. Under the powers vested in it under the law to impose a tax on persons carrying on any profession or art or trade within the limits of the Municipal Committee, it levied certain taxes. In respect of trade of ginning and pressing cotton, notification No, 243, dated March 21, 1912, was as below:No. 243 :-With reference to Section 44, Sub-sections (7) and (8) of the Berar Municipal Law, 1886, it is hereby notified that the Municipal Committee of Malkapur, in the Buldana district, has with the sanction of the Chief Commissioner, directed the imposition, with effect from the 1st August 1912, of a tax on the ginning and pressing of cotton under Section 41(A)(b) of the said Law...
Tag this Judgment!Prakash Rajmal Baldota Vs. University of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1966
Reported in: (1966)IILLJ814Bom; 1967MhLJ192
1. By this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution the petitioner is challenging the order or decision contained the letter dated 24 February, 1966 whereby his services as a research assistant in the Department of Law of the respondent-university were terminated from 1 March, 1966. 2. The petitioner, who has passed his LL.M. examination of the respondent-university, applied for a post of research assistant in the Department of Law of the university in the month of July, 1961 and on 22 November, 1961 he was appointed to that post on probation for a period of one year in the first instance in the grade of Rs. 160-15-250. As a research assistant his duties were to assist in the research work of the department and to carry out such other duties as may be assigned to him by the head of the department. Soon thereafter the petitioner registered himself as a candidate for Ph.D. degree in Law on or about 6 December, 1961 and pursued the studies for the said course under Prof. Irani who...
Tag this Judgment!Zoolfiqar Ali Currimbhoy Ebrahim Vs. the Official Trustee of Maharasht ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1966
Reported in: (1967)69BOMLR326; 1967MhLJ694
Tarkunde, J.1. [His Lordship after stating the facts, proceeded.] A preliminary objection to the maintainability of this petition was taken be-for me by Mr. Chagla on behalf of respondents Nos. 6 to 8. Respondent No. 8 is the Fourth Baronet; respondent No. 6 is his minor son; and respondent No. 7 is his mother, being the second wife of the Third Baronet. Mr. Chagla urged that this petition is not maintainable because the Repealing Act, under which the petition is filed, is itself ultra vires the Bombay State Legislature. The Act is ultra vires, according to Mr. Chagla, because it violates Articles 14 and 31 of the Constitution and also because it was beyond the legislative competence of the Bombay State Legislature to pass such an Act. Mr. Chagla expressly told me that respondents Nos. 6 to 8 do not challenge the Act on the ground that it violates Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution, the reason being that respondents Nos. 6 to 8 are not citizens of India. I may add that, if respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnarao Bakaramji Hadge Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1966
Reported in: (1967)69BOMLR150; 1967MhLJ22
Patel, J.1. This petition is filed challenging the decision of the State Government by which it has refused to entertain the revision application filed by the petitioner. The short facts are that the petitioner was in the employment of respondent No. 4, Nagpur Vislial Grahak Sahakari Sanstha Ltd., as a salesman. It seems during the audit, it was found that certain amount was not properly accounted for. Respondent No. 4, therefore, after making certain enquiry, charged the petitioner with the shortage and referred the dispute to the Deputy Registrar under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. In the present case, the Assistant Registrar, with delegated powers under Section 3 of the Act, exercised jurisdiction under Section 91 and held that a dispute existed which required to be decided under the provisions of the Act. He referred the matter to a nominee as provided by Section 93. This Court has held that before a decision is arrived at by the Registrar under Se...
Tag this Judgment!Ramchandra Mahadeo Khondre and ors. Vs. Parasu Dattu Kadam and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Bom44; (1967)69BOMLR111; 1967MhLJ361
(1) The point that arises in this appeal is whether the plaintiff 's suit filed in 1956 is barred under the provisions of Article 142 of the Limitation Act and also by reason of the conclusive nature of the order passed in execution proceedings under Order 21, Rule 103 of the Civil Procedure Code. The facts of this appeal are the following:-(2) One Dadu Babaji Dari was the owner of the disputed property. Suit No. 533 of 1937 was filed by the original plaintiff against the said Dadu Babaji Dari to recover a debt owed by his. Ex. 38 is the decree dated July 19, 1939 for Rs. 337-4-6 in favour of the present plaintiff. In execution of this decree, the disputed property was sold by Court in Darkhast No. 176 of 1944 on November 4, 1944. The property was of course sold subject to a mortgage which Dadu Babaji Dari had executed in favour of the plaintiff. But we are not concerned with this mortgage in this proceeding.(3) The sale was confirmed on December 7, 1944 and Ex, 45 is the sale certific...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Committee, Saoner Vs. Rathi N.D.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-1966
Reported in: (1967)69BOMLR214; (1967)IILLJ481Bom; 1966MhLJ1136
1. In this appeal, by special leave under S. 417(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant, municipal committee, Saoner, is challenging the correctness of the acquittal of respondent 1 of an offence under S. 53 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948. 2. The appellant-committee, through its inspector appointed under S. 48 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948, had prosecuted respondent 1 under S. 53 of that Act, for contravening S. 12 by effecting certain sales beyond the closing hours of the shop on March 10, 1965. The respondent had challenge the tenability of the prosecution on the ground that previous sanction as required by S. 60 was not given by the proper authority before instituting the prosecution. The learned trial magistrate upheld this preliminary objection and held that the prosecution, without the requisite prior sanction, was not tenable. In that view, he acquitted the respondent. That is how the matter was brought before this Court. 3. Sri ...
Tag this Judgment!Champalal Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Eastern Division, Nagp ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-1966
Reported in: [1966]18STC424(Bom)
Patel, J.1. The petitioner challenges the orders of the Sales Tax Authorities below which had not given him a set-off in respect of certain amount of tax recovered from him by the State Government. The petitioner is a forest contractor. The Forest Department held auction of a coupe of the forest on 28th July, 1960, and the petitioner's bid for the same was accepted for a sum of Rs. 60,100. The amount was to be paid in four installments. The actual contract was executed on 22nd September, 1960. The petitioner had applied for registration under the Bombay Sales Tax Act as a dealer on 21st November, 1960. He was registered as such with effect from that date. At the time of the contract, the State Government recovered a sum of Rs. 1,803 as sales tax as he was not a registered dealer on the date of the contract under the provisions of Bombay Sales Tax Act. At the time of final assessment, the petitioner claimed a set-off in respect of this amount, on the ground that there was no sale under ...
Tag this Judgment!Janata Oil Industries, Nagpur Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Ea ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-1966
Reported in: [1967]19STC97(Bom)
Patel, J.1. The petitioner seeks to challenge an order made by the Commissioner of Sales Tax rejecting his revision application as not competent. The short facts are as below : The petitioner is a dealer of Nagpur and is registered as such under the C.P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947. A notice was issued to him by the Sales Tax Officer regarding the assessment of sales tax for the period 1957-58 on 30th June, 1960. The Sales Tax Officer increased the turnover of the petitioner by 25 per cent. and did not allow any deduction under section 2(j)(a)(ii) in respect of sales purported to have been effected to registered dealers of goods. He was also directed to pay a penalty of Rs. 898. The petitioner presented an appeal to the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Easter Division, Nagpur. This appeal was dismissed. The petitioner then filed a second appeal before the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Eastern Division, Nagpur. By a preliminary order, the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax calle...
Tag this Judgment!Seo Raj Fine Art Litho Works, Nagpur Vs. Authority Under the Minimum W ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-1966
Reported in: [1967(14)FLR269]; (1967)IILLJ392Bom
Patel, J.1. These two applications are filed as test cases against the orders of authority under the Minimum Wages Act, requiring the employer's advocate to affix court-fee stamp of Rs. 2 on his authorization before the authority. We are told there are a large number of matters pending before the authority against the very petitioners. 2. The short question is whether the authority under the Minimum Wages Act is a civil Court within the meaning of the word used in Art. 12, Sch. II, Bombay Court-fees Act, 1959, which requires a stamp of Rs. 2 on a vakalatnama or a mukhtyarnama when presented to any civil or criminal Court other then High Court, or to any revenue Court, or to any Collector, or Magistrate, or other executive of Wages Authority is neither a criminal Court nor a revenue Court an executive officer. 3. Section 20 of the Act enables the Government to appoint an authority before whom the claims arising under the Act could be pursued. The qualifications are provided therein and ...
Tag this Judgment!Hirjee Vs. the State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-1966
Reported in: [1966]18STC460(Bom)
Patel, J. 1. These three petitions arise out of the C.P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947. The petitioner is a merchant and deals in bidi leaves at Gondia in Bhandara district. He was a registered dealer and the relevant periods of assessment in each of the petitions respectively are from 7th November, 1953 to 26th October, 1954, 27th October, 1954 to 14th November, 1955, and 15th November, 1955 to 2nd November 1956. The Sales Tax Officer found that the petitioner had not maintained account books. He had only bill books. In the first years, the total sales as they appeared from the bill books were Rs. 3,12,250-3-6. As he did not maintain accounts, the Sales Tax Officer made best judgment assessment under section 11(4) of the Act by increasing the sale by 10 per cent. and he adopted the turnover of Rs. 3,43,475-0-0. It appeared that the assessee's case was that the goods worth Rs. 2,56,892-15-3 were exported by him outside the State and in proof of this he produced railway receipts dispatc...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »