Mumbai Court January 1968 Judgments
Shiva Martand Tapkire and anr. Vs. Arun Nankchand Khatri and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Bom93; (1968)70BOMLR442; 1968MhLJ883
Tarkunde, J.1. The petitioners claim to be the owners of a land, Gat No. 129, admeasuring 28 acres situate at village Jalochi near Baramati in the Poona District. In execution of an award which had been passed against the first petitioner & in favour of a co-operative Society, this land was put up for sale under the provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. The auction sale was held on 26th February 1965. The first respondent, who was then a minor, gave the highest bid for Rs. 15,100 and this bid was accepted by the officer conducting the sale. The petitioners applied within the prescribed time to the Deputy Collector under S. 178 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code for setting aside the sale. The application was rejected by the Deputy Collector. An appeal taken by the petitioners to the Collector and a further appeal taken by them to the Commissioner were dismissed. The petitioners have now approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution to challenge the legality of the deci...
Tag this Judgment!The Mahabaleshwar Club Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-1968
Reported in: [1968]22STC123(Bom)
Vimadalal, J. 1. This is a reference under section 61 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, in respect of a club situated in Mahabaleshwar, and the questions which have been referred to us are as follows : '(1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in coming to the conclusion that the Mahabaleshwar Club is a dealer within the meaning of section 2(11) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, and (2) Whether there was any evidence to justify the finding of the Tribunal that the motive of the Club was earning profit.' 2. The facts of the case are that the Mahabaleshwar Club made an application under section 52 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, to the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Central Division, Poona, to determine whether it was a dealer within the meaning of that term in section 2(11) of the Act. The Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax decided that the applicant was not a dealer, but the Commissioner of Sales Tax, acting under his powers of revision u...
Tag this Judgment!Malik Dairy Farms Vs. Its Workers' Union
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-1968
Reported in: [1968(17)FLR436]; (1968)IILLJ523Bom
Per Tarkunde, J.1. This petition has been filed to challenge under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India the legality of an ex parte order made by the first labour court at Bombay. The petitioners are a partnership firm doing business of selling milk. One Rambali Subkaran was an employee of the petitioners. He is represented by a trade union which is respondent 1 to this petition. Rambali Subkaran claimed that he was wrongfully dismissed from service by the petitioners and his claim was taken up by respondent 1 union. The State Government referred the dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act to the labour court. On 19 September, 1965, the union filed before the labour court its statement of claim. It was alleged in the statement of claim that while the employee Rambali Subkaran was doing his work on 11 March, 1965, a sharp wire pierced the middle finger of his right hand, that he intimated the petitioners about the accident, that he was under medical treatment for a number of days as ...
Tag this Judgment!Versova Koli Sahakari Vahatuk Sangh Ltd. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-12-1968
Reported in: [1968]22STC116(Bom)
Vimadalal, J. 1. This is a reference under section 61 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, whereby two questions have been submitted to this Court for its decision. 2. The facts necessary for the purpose of this reference are that the applicant is a Society registered under the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act, 1925, and is a body corporate by virtue of the provisions of section 23 of that Act, and it is not disputed that the object of the Society is to transport fish belonging to the members of the Society from fishing centres to the market and vice versa. For the purpose of transporting fish belonging to the members of the applicant-Society, the Society has to maintain a fleet of transport vehicles and, for preserving the fish in the course of transport, it used to purchase ice, and the members whose fish was transported, were charged for the quantity of ice required in respect of their baskets of fish. It is common ground that for the year 1959-60, the purchase of ice by the Society ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›