Mumbai Court August 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.
Prakash Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. B.N. Rangwani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-1970
Reported in: (1971)73BOMLR200
Nain, J.1. Petitioners No. 1 own textile mills and carry on the business inter alia of manufacturing cotton yarn and cotton fabrics. They are a Private Limited Company. Petitioner No. 2 is a director and shareholder of the said Company and is a citizen of India. In the petition no relief is claimed in favour of petitioner No. 2. He is in fact a formal party and all references hereinafter to 'the Petitioners' refer only to petitioners No. 1. Respondents Nos. 1 to 5 are authorities under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. They are hereinafter for the sake of convenience referred to as the Excise Authorities. Respondents No. 6 are the Central Bank of India. Some of the goods which are the subject-matter of this petition were at the time of their seizure pledged with respondents No. 6. They are also formal parties and no relief is claimed against them.2. The allegations of the Excise Authorities against the petitioners are that the petitioners were manufacturing cloth on a large scale...
Boman Chothia Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-1970
Reported in: (1970)72BOMLR923
Madon, J.1. According to the description of himself which the petitioner, Boman Chothia, gave me at the first hearing of this revision application when he appeared in person, the petitioner is an expert on the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, and one of the fortunate few who win consistently out of the thousands who flock weekly in search of fortune to the Mahalaxmi racecourse. He has filed this application in revision against an order of the Presidency Magistrate, 17th Court, Mazgaon, Bombay, refusing him inspection of the papers and proceedings in four criminal cases pending against him in that Court on the ground that the petitioner was not represented by an advocate. These four prosecutions were commenced against the petitioner at the instance of the Traffic Department of the Bombay City Police as a result of the petitioner's attempt to vindicate his expertise of the Motor Vehicles Act and the traffic regulations. At present it is somewhat premature to venture any prediction on the questi...
Prakash Cotton Mills Private Ltd. and ors. Vs. B.N. Rangwani and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Bom386; (1971)73BOMLR225; 1971MhLJ566
K.K. Desai, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the 1st petitioner Company and the 2nd petitioner, who is the Director of the 1st petitioner Company, have challenged the legality of five notices of demand (for recovering excise duty) respectively dated June 17, 1964, June 26/29, 1964, June 30, July 1, 1964, July 23/24, 1964, and August 18, 1964, as also an order of detention dated June 17, 1964.2. The case of the petitioner is that the 1st petitioner Company carries on business of manufacturing cloth. On March 18, 1963, the officers of the Central Excise Department seized from the office premises of the petitioner Company books of account, documents, vouchers and other papers. This seizure of documents was challenged in a writ petition filed on April 8, 1963, being Misce. Petn. No. 127 of 1963 (Bom). The officers of Central Excise had also raided premises of different trading firms mentioned in paragraph 3 of the petition between March and May 1963 and seized a...
Sohansingh Bharatsingh Vs. Narhar Narayan Godbole and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-1970
Reported in: AIR1972Bom67; (1971)73BOMLR282; ILR1971Bom975; 1972MhLJ49
ORDER1. This Special Civil application arises out of the proceedings under the Bombay Rent Act instituted by respondent No. 1 plaintiff landlord against petitioner - defendant No. 1 and respondent No. 2 (defendant No. 2). The premises in dispute appear to be an open and with some structures thereon situate at City Survey No. 366, Sadashiv Peth, Poona City. Originally the premises were let out to one Sevaksingh Makhansingh on a rent of Rs. 25/- per month. The said Sevakshingh assigned his tenancy rights in favour of defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 2 then started paying rent at the rate of Rs. 30/- to plaintiff - landlord. On 12-2-1963 defendant NO. 2 assigned his interest in the premises to defendant NO. 1. It appears that defendant No. 2 through his lawyer Redkar informed the fact of this assignment to the landlord and asked him to accept the rent from defendant No. 1. In reply thereto the landlord gave notice on 20-3-1963 calling upon defendants Nos. 1 and 2 to vacate the premises for ...
Bhalchandra Ramchandra Sule Vs. Uma Keshub
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-1970
Reported in: (1972)74BOMLR128
Vimadalal, J.1. This is an Originating Summons taken out by one of the trustees under a Deed of Settlement dated January 11, 1961 executed by one Kailas Chandra Mahindra, the grandfather of defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3. By the said Deed, the settlor appointed the plaintiff and defendant No. 4 as trustees and settled a large amount on certain trusts, the net annual income of which is hereafter expected to be about Rs. 40,000, after paying the municipal taxes in respect of two self-occupied flats. The Deed of Settlement, provides that the net income, after payment of taxes and outgoings, is to be utilised in the manner set out in Clause 1, the material portion of which is in the following terms:(b) As to the balance for the time being of the trust income, if any, that may remain in the hands of the Trustees after paying or providing for all the disbursements mentioned in Sub-clause (a) above pay the same to the said Mrs. Sudha Keshub Mahindra (defendant No. 4) to be used by her for the mai...
Empire Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. V.P. Bhide and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-1970
Reported in: 1977(1)ELT34(Bom)
K.K. Desai, J. 1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the Petitioner Company has challenged the legality of three different reassessments of and/or claims for payment of excise duty for respective periods of (i) May 26, 1966 to October 25, 1967, (ii) October 26, 1967 to November 15, 1967 and (iii) November 16, 1967 to February 15, 1968 and the three notices of demand respectively dated April 12, 1968, February 16, 1968 copies whereof are annexed respectively as Exs. I. D and C to the petition. 2. The facts leading to the institution of the petition may be shortly summarised as follows :- The Petitioner Company carries on business of processing, bleaching, dyeing, printing and mercerising cotton textiles and other man-made fabrics. The Petitioner Company has no proprietary interest in any factory engaged in the spinning of yarn or weaving of cotton fabrics. Admittedly, the business of the Petitioner Company is of 'independent processor' within the meaning of that phra...
Dattu Subhana Panhalkar Vs. Gajanan Vithoba Bobhate and anr. Overruled
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Bom396; (1971)73BOMLR371; 1971MhLJ834
a) The case focused on the applicability of Section 12 (3) (a) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (as amended by Mah. Act 14 of 1963) - The Court ruled that in a proceedings to which, Section 12 (3) (a) of the Act was otherwise applicable, the tenant, the defendant could prove that a dispute about standard rent existed, without following the procedure in Explanation 1 to Section 12 - Moreover, he could also raise the defence that Section 12 (3) (b) and not Section 12 (3) (a) was applicable.b) The Court ruled that the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 is not code by itself but modifies the general law of the landlord and the tenant in the Transfer of Property Act as Section 12 of the Rent Act restricts the general law against the interests of the landlord thereby giving protection to the tenant.c) The Court provided that Sub-sections (3) (a) and (3) (b) of Section 12 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control ...
A.H. Satranjiwala Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-1970
Reported in: (1972)74BOMLR742
Kania, J.1. This petition raises an interesting question as to the interpretation of Section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.2. The relevant facts are that the petitioner is the proprietor of Messrs. Peerbhoy and Sons. He put up an illuminated Neon Sign containing the words 'Peerbhoys' outside his shop. He was prosecuted under Section 471 read with Section 328-A of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act and put up for trial in Cri. Case No. 298/M of 1968 before the learned Presidency Magistrate, 1st Additional Court, Victoria Terminus, Bombay, but he was acquitted by the learned Magistrate on April 30, 1968. The State being the respondent herein preferred an appeal against that order of acquittal and the appeal was placed for hearing before. Abhyankar, J., on November 7, 1969. Shri A.H. Merchant, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the petitioner and applied for an adjournment of the hearing of the appeal for two weeks which was granted. It is stated in the petition that Mr. Mer...
Dattu Subrao Patil Vs. Dattatraya Pandurang Patil and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-1970
Reported in: AIR1972Bom72; (1971)73BOMLR285; ILR1972Bom1129; 1972MhLJ75
K.K. Desai, J. 1. In the Special Civil Application No. 861 of 1967 instituted on behalf of the original opponent - tenant, the only contention that is made is that the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, the District Deputy Collector and the Tenancy Awal Karkun who had heard the application of the original applicant - landlord for ejectment of the tenant erred in holding that the provisions of Section 25(2) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, were applicable to the facts of the case and for that reason the Mamaltdar had no jurisdiction under Section 25 (1) of the Act to make an order directing the tenant to pay arrears of rents within 3 months and that upon such payment to make an order directing that the tenancy had not been terminated.2. It is stated that in the three next Special Civil Applications on our board the same question has arisen between tenants and landlords. We have, therefore, in this Special Civil Application heard Advocates of landlords and tenants in these th...
Voltas Limited Vs. A.K. Roy
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-1970
Reported in: (1971)73BOMLR229
K.K. Desai, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner Company (hereinafter called the petitioners) has challenged the legality of the appellate order of respondent No. 1 dated May 2, 1967, in respect of the petitioners' liability to pay excise duty for the year 1963 and the orders of the Assistant Collector of Customs relating to the petitioners' liability to pay excise duty for the years 1962, 1964, 1965, and 1966 and the diverse notices of demand calling upon the petitioners to pay for the above years the different assessed amounts aggregating to Bs. 27,57,477.19. The facts leading to the institution of the petition may be shortly summarised as follows:-2. The petitioner Company carries on business of manufacturing and selling air-conditioners, water coolers and component parts thereof. The petitioners organise sales of the goods of their manufacture from their head office at Bombay and from branches at Calcutta, Delhi, Madras, Bangalore, Cochin and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »