Mumbai Court February 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.
Burmah-shell Refineries Ltd. Vs. G.B. Chand, Income-tax Officer, Co. C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-1967
Reported in: [1968]67ITR653(Bom)
Kotval, C.J.1. All these petitions were originally directed against the notices issued on the 18th January, 1965, with a view to correcting the errors apparent from the record under sections 154 and 155 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The notices were issued by the 1st respondent but the proceedings were completed by the 4th respondent. The four petitions are related to the our assessment years 1957-58, 1958-59, 1959-60 and 1960-61 and they are, respectively, Petitions Nos. 73, 70, 71 and 72 of 1961. 2. The petitions were originally field as soon as the notices were served upon the petitioners and orders for stay were passed by this court. The stay orders were later modified by consent to permit the department to complete the rectification proceedings, as there was a risk of limitation expiring, but on the undertaking of the respondents that they would not take any steps in enforcement of their orders, rectifying the assessments. Consequent upon that modification of the stay orders, the d...
Paygonda Survgonda Patil and ors. Vs. Jingonda Surgonda Patil and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Bom198; (1967)69BOMLR579a; ILR1967Bom1011a; 1967MhLJ880
Tarkunde, J. (1) These petitions raise a short question of law relating to the scope of the appellate and revisional powers exercisable under Ss. 203 and 211 respectively of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. The petitioners on both the cases are parties to decrees passed by Civil courts for the partition of agricultural lands and other properties. The decrees were transferred as required by S. 54 of the Civil Procedure Code to the Collector for the partition of agricultural land. From the partition effected by the Collector the petitioners went in appeal to the Commissioner on the ground that the partition was inequitable. The Commissioner held that he had no jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of the appeals, since it was 'clarified by Government that the Commissioner has no jurisdiction to entertain appeals/application against the order of Collectors in the matter relating to execution of Civil Court decrees.' The orders of the Commissioner are challenged in these petitions under Artic...
P.C. Doshi and anr. Vs. 7th Income-tax Officer, C-i Ward, Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-1967
Reported in: [1967]65ITR187(Bom)
V.S. Desai, J.1. This is petition challenging the orders made by the respondent, the 7th Income-tax Officer, C-I Ward, Bombay, under section 35(8) and 35(7) of the Indian Income-tax Act, on the 23rd February, 1961, and on the 15th March, 1961, respectively, in relation to the assessment of one Chaturbhuj Sunderji Doshi for the assessment years 1950-51 and 1951-52 for which the relevant previous years were S. Y. 2005 and 2006 respectively. Chaturbhuj Sunderji Doshi died on the 21st of March, 1963, and the petitioners are the executors of his estate. Until his death the said Chaturbhuj Sunderji Doshi was assessed as an individual. In the relevant years with which we are concerned, he held certain shares in Bharat Silk Mills (Pvt.) Ltd., a company to which the provisions of section 23A of the Indian Income-tax Act were applicable. On the 5th March, 1955, the Income-tax Officer, Companies Circle, passed an order under section 23A(1) upon the said company for the assessment year 1949-50, as...
B.C. Khatri Vs. Peshuram Chanduram and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Bom39; (1967)69BOMLR636; 1968CriLJ27
ORDER1. This revision application has been filed by B. C. Khatri who was named as an accused in the complaint field by Peshuram, son of Chanduram Sindhi for an offence under section 77 read with section 90 of the Bombay Prohibition Act No. XXV of 1949. The complaint was filed on these allegations:(1) the accused holds a vendor's licence in Form F. L. II to sell foreign liquor and the said licence stands in the name of B. C. Khatri, Partner, Sind Medical Stores, Amravati.(2) The accused is one of the partner of Messrs. Sind Medical Stores, Amravati.(3) The accused made an application to the Collector, Amravathi, at the time of renewing his licence F.L. II preying that the names of the other partners of the Sind Medical Stores should also be added in the licence to be issued for the year 1966-67 but this prayer was rejected.(4) The accused obtained the supply of foreign liquor from the Sind Medical Stores who is not an approved supplier under rule 30 of the Bombay Foreign Liquor Rules, 1...
The State Vs. Munafkha Lukmankha Pathan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Bom298; (1967)69BOMLR715; 1968CriLJ1048; ILR1967Bom1286
(1) In this appeal the State challenges the order of acquittal passed in favour of the accused who is respondent before me. The respondent was charged before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nandurbar, for having committed offences punishable under Section 7(1) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and sub-rule (9) of Rule 125 of the Defence of India Rules, 1962.(2) The case of the prosecution against the accused was that on the 1st November 1964 at about 8.30 a. m. P. S. I. Nalwade who was attached to the Dhadgaon Police Station raided the grocery shop of the accused at Dhadgon, District Dhulia, on information received by him that the accused possessed foodgrains weighing more than 25 Quintals and further that he had not made a declaration of his stocks to the authorities as required in the relevant orders which I will refer to presently. In the search that P. S. I. Nalwade took of the shop of the accused he found that the accused had stored in his shop 8 Quintals and 5...
N.M. Nayak Vs. Chhotalal Hari Ram and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Bom51; (1967)69BOMLR551; ILR1967Bom1110; 1967MhLJ896
Thakker, J. (1) This revisional application arises out of a suit filed by Respondents 1 and 2, Original plaintiff's (hereinafter referred to as Respondents 1 and 2) in the Court of Small Causes, Bombay, for ejectment against the 3rd Respondent-original 1st defendant and the Petitioner-original 2nd Defendant . The facts giving rise to this application shortly stated are:(2) Respondents 1 and 2, at all times material were and are the trustees of a private trust known as ' the Chhotatal Hariram Trust' and as such trustees they are the owners of an immovable property situate at 307-A Bhandarkar Road, Matunga, Bombay.(3) By an agreement of lease dated May 22, 1923 the trustees for the Improvement of the City of Bombay (the successors where of are the trustees of the Port of Bombay) agreed to demise unto one Kaikhusharu Rustom Irani a vacant piece of land and measuring 643 square yards situate at Bhandarkar Road, Matunga (on which the present property at 307-A has been erected on the terms a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›