Mumbai Court November 1970 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.
Shri Krishna Rubber Works Vs. the Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-1970
Reported in: (1971)73BOMLR496
Nain, J.1. This is an appeal by the petitioners against the order dated September 6/7,1965 of Kantawala J. dismissing their petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity of a levy under Section 12 of the Rubber Act, 1947, as amended in 1960 and the Rules framed thereunder and recoveries made and demand notice issued in respect of such levies. This levy was also challenged in other petitions filed by other persons on whom such levy was made. By a judgment dated September 6/7, 1965 in Misc. Petition No. 119 of 1964 (G.B. Parwar v. Union of India) Kantawala J. upheld the validity of such levies. Following the said judgment he dismissed the petition, from which the present appeal arises.2. The petitioners are a firm manufacturing rubber balloons at Chandansar near Bombay. They are manufacturers by whom rubber is used. From April 1, 1961 the Union of India have levied a duty of excise on all rubber produced in India under Section 12(1) of the Rubber Act, 1...
Khushalchand B. Daga Vs. T.K. Surendran, 4th Income-tax Officer, A-1 W ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1970
Reported in: [1972]85ITR48(Bom)
Tulzapurkar, J.1. This writ petition raises the question whether the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal on 24th October, 1961, dismissing the petitioner's appeal for default of his appearance is without jurisdiction and, therefore, a nullity or the said order is merely an erroneous or illegal order with jurisdiction The facts giving rise to the petition may briefly be stated : For the assessment year 1955-56 (accounting year 1954-55) the petitioner as the karta of Hindu undivided family filed his income-tax return on 31st January, 1956, showing therein a loss of Rs. 2,16,945. Along with the return he also filed the balance-sheet, profit and loss account and several other statements. Notice under section 23 (2) and section 22 (4) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, fixing the hearing on 20th January, 1960, was served on the petitioner on 13th January, 1960. The hearing was adjourned from time to time and finally it was fixed on 15th February, 1960, but as the petitioner could no...
State of Mysore Vs. Ramchandra Gunda and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-1970
Reported in: AIR1972Bom93; (1971)73BOMLR723; ILR1972Bom142; 1973MhLJ521
1. This is an appeal by the State of Mysore challenging the orders passed by the two lower Courts granting damages to the plaintiff for loss caused by reason of water overflowing from a reservoir constructed for the residents of Nipani.2. In order to provide drinking water facilities to the town of Nipani, the State Government erected a reservoir adjoining Survey Nos. 92 and 93 at village Arjuni. Survey Nos. 92 and 93 belong to the plaintiffs. The construction of the reservoir was completed in 1954 by the Water Works Department. By a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act issued on September 27, 1955, Government proposed to acquire part of the land belonging to the plaintiffs for the purpose of constructing a channel for carrying the overflow of water from the reservoir to the Nala which is at a distance of about 1500 feet from the waste - weir of the reservoir. By private negotiation possession of the necessary land was taken by the State Government on October 21, 19...
Ramchandra Govindrao Pachghare Vs. Narayan Sitaramji Adhe
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-1970
Reported in: (1972)74BOMLR341; 1971MhLJ647
Bhole, J.1. The original complainant is the appellant here. He is aggrieved by an order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge setting aside the order of conviction passed by the trial Court. The fifteen accused were prosecuted by the appellant. They were charged with offences punishable under Sections 147, 427 and 435, Indian Penal Code. It was alleged that all of them were members of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object of dispossessing the complainant from the disputed field on April 20, 1966 at village Ashti, they came and caused damage by setting fire to the hut of the complainant with an intention to cause damage to his property. One Narayan Deshmukh of village Ashti was the owner of Section No. 391 admeasuring 10.35 acres. The complainant purchased 6 acres out of this land by three successive sale-deeds in the year 1959 and took possession of the same. Narayan Deshmukh was left with only 4.35 acres of Section No. 391. It appears the vendor again by t...
Punjabrao Laxmanrao Kawre Vs. Janrao Balaji Kawre
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-1970
Reported in: (1972)74BOMLR581; 1971MhLJ302
Bhole, J.1. Punjabrao Laxmanrao being aggrieved by the order passed in criminal revision application by the Additional District Magistrate, Amravati, who confirmed the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Daryapur, in a proceeding under Section 147, Criminal Procedure Code, has come here in revision. On a report from the Station House Officer that there was an apprehension of breach of peace between two parties over the right to take water from a well, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed a preliminary order under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, on July 7, 1969. Later, it was found out by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate during the course of the inquiry that the dispute related to the right of taking water. Therefore, he amended the preliminary order purporting it to be made under Section 147, Criminal Procedure Code. The parties were directed to file affidavits and documents in support of their respective claims. No evidence was recorded in the case. The learned Sub-Divis...
Shrimati Joharabi Abdul Wahid Vs. Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1970
Reported in: (1972)74BOMLR651
S.P. Kotval, C.J.1. These are both applications arising between the same landlord and tenant and give rise to a substantial common question of law. They have, therefore, been referred by a common order of our learned brother Padhye J. on March 2, 1970. The question referred by our learned brother is not separately stated in the referring order but would be as follows:Whether a notice under Section 9(1) of the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act, 1951 (Act XXIV of 1951) by itself terminates the lease of the tenant or whether further order under Section 8(1)(g) was necessary for the effective termination of the lease?2. The question arises upon the following facts: The petitioner in both the Special Civil Applications is one Joharbi, who was the 'landlord' of a tenant named Madhao Bhawani, who is respondent in both the petitions. The other respondents are merely the officers who passed the orders impugned in these petitions. Joharabi was the owner of survey number 11/2 having an ...
Ajitsingh Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-16-1970
Reported in: AIR1972Bom177; (1972)74BOMLR345; ILR1972Bom1147; 1972MhLJ103
Mody, J.1. This is a petition praying for a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India quashing certain notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The State of Maharashtra the Commissioner, Nagpur Division, the Collector, Chanda and the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Chanda are the respondents.2. The petitioner by a purchase deed purchased a land khasra no. 198/1 of Ballarpur, taluka and district Chanda ad measuring 2.45 acres from one Sadashiv Krishnaji Khanke. The deed is dated 29th January 1966 and it was registered on the same day. On the same day, the petitioner gave intimation of the purchase to the Patwari of Ballapur to effect mutation entries. It is stated in the petition and not denied in the counter - affidavit that such a mutation entry was made towards the end of 1967, the exact date is not mentioned, but we are informed across the Bar was 16th November 1967.3.A notification under Section ...
R.B. Bansilal Abirchand Spinning and Weaving Mills Vs. Commissioner of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-12-1970
Reported in: [1971]81ITR34(Bom); 1971MhLJ455
Kotval, C.J. 1. Though several income-tax references under section 66 of the Income-tax Act were before the Division Bench, in the reference made by the Division Bench we are only concerned with the question which arises in Income-tax Reference No. 6 of 1966. 2. This reference raises a rather controversial and important question. The firm, R. B. Bansilal Abrichand, consisted of four partners in 1939. They were, (1) Raja Sir Bisesardas Daga, (2) Seth Narsingdas Daga, (3) Seth Badridas Daga and (4) Seth Ramnath Daga. The firm owned a textile mill at Hinganghat and a sale agency shop attached to that mill. This firm came to be re-constituted several times. On October 20, 1939, Seth Narsingdas Daga and Seth Ramnath Daga Purchased the assets of the firm from the four partners for a sum of Rs. 26,11,042. This partnership of two partners continued till October 18, 1944, when the firm was again dissolved and all its assets were purchased by Seth Narsingdas Daga, one of the erstwhile partners, ...
Nandlal Mangaram Pamnani and ors. Vs. G. Lakshminarasimhan and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-1970
Reported in: [1971]82ITR1(Bom)
S.K. Desai, J.1. The original petitioner along with one Balchand Menghraj, Khanchand Jiwandas, Jaikishan Balchand and one Govindibai had been carrying on business in partnership in the firm name and style of J. B. Mangaram & Co., at Gwalior. The present petitioners are the heirs and legal representatives of the original petitioner and were brought on record pursuant to the judge's order dated 23rd August, 1968. By this petition the petitioners seek an appropriate writ quashing and/or setting aside the order dated 21st June, 1966, made by the 2nd respondent herein, as also for quashing and/or setting aside the order dated 24th March, 1966, made by the 1st respondent. 2. The petition relates to the assessment year 1957-58. For the said year the said firm of J. B. Mangaram & Co. was assessed by Shri B. R. Adwalpalkar, Income-tax Officer, Special Investigation Circle A, Nagpur, and the total income of the said firm was computed at Rs. 16,00,419. By an order dated 29th March, 1966, the said...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›