Mumbai Court February 1968 Judgments
Trustees of Gordhandas Govindram Family Charity Trust, Bombay Vs. Comm ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-1968
Reported in: [1968]70ITR600(Bom)
V.S. Desai, J.1. This is a reference under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act relating to the wealth-tax assessments of the assesses for the assessment years 1957-58 and 1958-59, for which the relevant valuation dates were December 31, 1956, and December 31, 1957, respectively. 2. The assessees are the trustee of a trustee of a trust called 'Gordhandas Govindram Family Charity Trust'. For the two assessment years will which we are concerned, the net wealth of the assessees was computed at Rs. 8,11,702, for the first and Rs. 8,03,039 for the second. The computation of the net wealth is not under dispute. The contentions of the assessee, however, have been that the trust being a public charitable trust, the asset held under trust are exempt from wealth-tax under the provisions of section 5(1)(i) of the Act, that the trustees being more than one cannot be an assessable entity under the Wealth-tax Act, and that they could not be brought to tax under section 21 of the Wealth-tax Act, These...
Tag this Judgment!Sholapur Municipal Corporation and anr. Vs. Ramkrishna V. Relekar and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Bom333; (1969)71BOMLR481; 1970CriLJ1330; ILR1970Bom55; 1969MhLJ859
Chandrachud, J. 1. This revision application raises a question of some interest and importance. Stated briefly the question is whether the Commissioner for the Municipal Corporation of Sholapur has power to compound an Offence committed by the 1st respondent under Rule 29 (1) (d) of Chapter VIII of the Schedule to the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The 1st respondent brought a scooter within the limits of the Municipal Corporation on the 6th February 1967 without paying the octroi duty. On the 15th of March, 1967, the Municipal Corporation filed the present complaint against the 1st respondent, charging him of the offence of importing the scooter without the payment of duty. The Municipal Commissioner compounded the offence on the 29th of May 1967 presumably in the purported exercise of the power conferred upon him by the bye-laws of the Municipality. The 1st respondent then filed a pursis before the learned Magistrate that the offen...
Tag this Judgment!Popat Namdeo Sodanvor Vs. Jagu Pandu Govekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Bom140; (1968)70BOMLR456; ILR1968Bom1245; 1968MhLJ665
1. This is an appeal on behalf of a minor whose suit for specific performance of a contract to purchase irremovable property has been dismissed by both the courts. Survey No. 40/A in village Koregaon belonged to one Namdev, On 20th April 1954, Namdev sold six acres out of this survey number to the defendant Jagu Pandu Govekar for a consideration of Rs. 1500. The plaintiff is the minor son of Namdev and he filed the present suit against the defendant for a declaration that the sale-deed in respect of the six acres in favour of the defendant was obtained by the defendant by fraud and without adequate consideration It was also alleged that advantage was taken of Namdev as he was vicious and given to drink. When the guardian-mother came to know of the transaction, she gathered panchas in whose presence the defendant expressed regrets about the transaction and agreed to return the land. Accordingly on 24th December 1954, the defendant gave a writing to the plaintiff represented by his mothe...
Tag this Judgment!Manordas Kalidas Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-1968
Reported in: [1969]24STC521(Bom)
Abhyankar, J. 1. Both these references, which raise a common question, will be disposed of by this order. The common question referred to us is as follows : 'Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case revision made by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax was justified and valid under section 31 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 ?' 2. The applicants are dealers in artificial silk and other products. The two periods with which the two references are concerned are : (1) From 1st October, 1948 to 31st March, 1950, and (2) From 1st April, 1950 to 31st October, 1952. 3. Originally, the assessments in respect of each of these two periods were completed by assessment orders dated 4th May, 1951, in the case of the earlier period and 26th February, 1954, in the case of the second period. It appears that in the case of the applicants in income-tax proceedings, the Income-tax Officer passed an assessment order for the assessment year 1951-52 (Samvat Year 2005) on 28th March, 1956. Ther...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. American President Li ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1968
Reported in: (1968)70BOMLR487; [1968]38CompCas294(Bom)
Nain, J. 1. This revision application involves an interesting point of law as to whether an insurer of goods carried by sea and covered by a policy of marine insurance, who on payment for partial loss is subrogated to all the rights and remedies of the insured person to the extent of the payment, is entitled to sue the carrier of goods in his own name to recover compensation for partial loss or damage to the goods. This depends on the interpretation of section 135A of the Transfer of Property Act, which is applicable to the suit transaction. Sections 130A and 135A were inserted in the Transfer of Property Act by the Transfer of Property (Amendment) Act (6 of 1944) and have since been repealed by the Marine Insurance Act (9 of 1963) and have been re-enacted in sections 52, 53, 79 and 90 of the said Act. 2. The facts leading to this matter are that the petitioners are a company carrying on business of insurance. The respondents No. 1 are a shipping company who carry on business of carrie...
Tag this Judgment!Sindhu Hochtief (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Bombay Ci ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-1968
Reported in: [1969]71ITR285(Bom)
Kotval, C.J.1. This reference raises a rather substantial question as to the interpretation of the provisions of section 5(2) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. 2. The question arises upon these facts : The assessee us Messrs. Sindhu Hochtief (India) Ltd. who inter alia carry on the business of construction work. They had entered into a contract with the Government of India for the construction of the Port of Kandla and for that purpose there was a written contract, the material clauses of which were as follows : Clause 2 of the conditions of the contract was : 'The person... whose tender may be accepted... shall within thirty days of the receipt by him of the notification of the acceptance of his tender, deposits as security for the due fulfillment of the contract an amount in cash or Government securities endorsed to the President of India of value equivalent of 2 1/2 % of the value of the work as per his tender rates into any branch of the Reserve Bank of India or the Imperial Bank of In...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Damodar Padmanath Rao
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-1968
Reported in: [1968]22STC187(Bom)
Abhyankar, J.1. The question referred is as follows :- 'Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the making of panpattis can be said to be in law a process or manufacture for the purpose of Section 5(1)(b)(ii) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 ?' The facts leading to this reference which raises a somewhat novel point are as follows :- The respondent deals in panpattis, cigarettes and bidis. The respondent did not maintain books of account and no such books appear to have been produced, nor were any purchase vouchers for the relevant period, viz., 1st April, 1956, to 30th August, 1958, were available to the Sales Tax Officer, Nasik. The Sales Tax Officer, Nasik, therefore, based the estimation of the gross turnover of sales relating to the business on his own visit to the respondent's shop. It appears that the Sales Tax Officer went to the shop of the respondent and observed what was being done in the shop by the respondent for half an hour. The Sales Tax Officer found that du...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Ashok Surgical Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-1968
Reported in: [1969]23STC114(Bom)
Abhyankar, J.1. The two questions referred for our decision are as follows :- '(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the opponent was a transferee within the meaning of Section 26(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 (2) Whether there was any evidence before the Tribunal to come to the conclusion that the whole object of Shri Nair was to obtain possession of the vacant premises for starting his business as a manufacturer and seller of surgical appliances and that the recitals in that connection in the transfer deed dated 2nd December, 1954, are false ?' The facts giving rise to this reference are in a short compass, as follows : The period of assessment concerned is from 2nd December, 1954, to 31st March, 1965. Messrs Pendse and Mandali were running a ration shop in certain premises mentioned in this suit and, after rationing was abolished, they were running a Kirana shop therein. Messrs Pendse and Mandali, purporting to execute, what is described as a deed of ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Allimullah Haji Salamat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-1968
Reported in: [1968]22STC165(Bom)
Vimadalal, J.1. This is a reference by the Commissioner of Sales Tax under section 34(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, referring the following two questions for the decision of this Court :- '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the respondent could not be held liable to pay tax as a legal heir in respect of the business conducted by his father (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the respondent could not be held as a transferee within the meaning of section 26(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, and as such not liable to pay tax in respect of the business conducted by his father ?' 2. The facts necessary for the purpose of this reference are that the respondent's father used to carry on business in old bailing hoops, bardana etc., till his death on the 6th of February, 1957. After his death, the respondent succeeded to the bu...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Voltas Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-08-1968
Reported in: [1968]22STC185(Bom)
Abhyankar, J.1. The following question is referred for our decision by the Tribunal :- 'Whether crawler-mounted gasoline-operated cranes fall within the scope of, and are taxable at, the rates specified in entry No. 58 of Schedule C to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 ?' 2. The respondents supplied one P & H Model 255-A crawler-mounted gasoline-operated crane to Messrs Richardson and Cruddas Limited. As, according to them, there was no specific entry covering this item, they made an application under section 52 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act to have determined whether the article sold by them fell within the residuary entry or under No. 15 of Schedule C, as contended by their purchasers. 3. The Commissioner took the view by reference to the definition of 'motor vehicle' in the Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, that the crane in question is a mechanically propelled vehicle, and would be covered by the restrictive definition of 'motor vehicle' in the Indian Motor Vehicles Act. He thus held tha...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »