Mumbai Court November 1967 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.
Pukhraj Pannalal Shah and ors. Vs. K.K. Ganguly and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Bom433; (1968)70BOMLR231; 1968CriLJ1617
Patel, J.1. These three revision applications arise out of the complaints made by the Customs authorities against the respective accused regarding offences under the Customs Act, 1962, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1962). In Criminal Revision Application No. 368 of 1967, the offence is alleged to have taken place on March 1, 1966 on which date five hundred tolas of gold were seized from the accused Pukhraj Shah. Immediately after detention a summons was served upon him under S. 108 of the Act of 1962 and the statement of the petitioner was recorded by the Customs officer. Eventually, a complaint was filed on August 19, 1966, charging him with several offences. On March 13, 1967, the petitioner made an application to the learned Magistrate before whom the case was being heard contending that the statement recorded by the Customs officer under S. 108 of the Act of 1962 was not admissible in evidence as being hit by S. 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.2. In Criminal Revision Applic...
Sk. HussaIn Gulab Vs. the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-1967
Reported in: (1968)70BOMLR435
Deshmukh, J.1. This is a writ petition by the defendant in a civil suit whose plea of tenancy has been negatived by the three Revenue Tribunals.2. The land in dispute is survey No. 3/1, measuring 5 acres 19 gunthas, of mouza Kamunja, taluq and district Amravati. Respondent No. 4 is admittedly the owner of that land. The petitioner claims to be the tenant of that land. Respondent No. 4 filed a civil suit for recovery of possession, on the ground that the land in question was let out to the petitioner for the mere purpose of cutting grass for a limited period of one year. Such contract was repeated. However, at the end of the period, whatever rights the petitioner had, came to an end and the owner was entitled to recover possession. In such a suit, the petitioner filed a written statement in which he pleaded tenancy rights. An issue about the tenancy of the petitioner was framed by the Civil Court and referred to the Revenue Courts.3. All the three Revenue Courts concurrently held that t...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Ii, Bombay Vs. New India Assur ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-06-1967
Reported in: [1969]71ITR761(Bom)
Kotval, C.J.1. This is a consolidated reference pertaining to the assessments of three years upon the assessee. The consolidation is due to the fact that common question of law arise pertaining to the three years. 2. The assessee is the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Bombay, with its head office at Bombay. It has, however, branches and agencies all over the world. It used to carry on business in both life and general insurance, but the life insurance business was taken away from the assessee-company in consequence of the nationalization of the life insurance business which took effect from the 1st of September, 1956. Thereafter, the life insurance business was vested in the Life Insurance Corporation of India. It appears that in respect of the life business done by the assessee during the years in question before us, certain questions of law had arisen, but, since, under the statute, the liabilities as well as the assets are those of the Life Insurance Corporation, those questions are b...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›