Mumbai Court November 1971 Judgments
Moolchand Purushottam Patel Vs. Sales Tax Officer
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1971
Reported in: [1977]40STC475(Bom)
Deshpande, J.1. The petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 818 of 1971 carries on business under the name and style of Empico Traders. He has registered himself as a dealer under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Bombay Act'). He had submitted his return for the assessment period from 1st April, 1968, to 31st March, 1969, and in the course of the assessment proceedings he claimed deduction of a total sum of Rs. 4,72,840 from his total taxable turnover as the amount pertained to the sales of urea, which is exempted from sales tax under section 5 read with Schedule A to the said Act. The Sales Tax Officer accepted this contention, but called upon him under section 37 of the Act to explain as to why the amount of Rs. 21,023 collected by him from the purchasers of the said urea by way of tax should not be forfeited and why penalty also should not be imposed upon him for such contravention of section 46 of the Act. After hearing the petition the Sales Tax ...
Tag this Judgment!Keki Pestonji Jamadar and anr. Vs. Kohodadad Merwan Irani and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-1971
Reported in: AIR1973Bom130; (1972)74BOMLR198; ILR1973Bom80; 1972MhLJ427
Chandrachud, J.1. Claiming to be a joint owner of a land, one Rodabai Khodadad Merwan Irani filed Civil Suit No. 56 of 1958 against her brother Jamshedji and her sister Baimai for partition and separate possession of her one-third share. She withdrew that suit on 3rd August 1959 in pursuance of an agreement dated 19th July 1959, under which Jamshedji agreed to convey the property to the 'Tarapur Parsee Zoroastrain Anjuman Trust' reserving a life interest to himself. Jamshedji did execute a deed of trust on 24th April 1960 but he created thereunder a life interest not only in favour of himself but also in favour of one Jerbai Irani. On the death of Jamshedji on 9th April 1962, the trustees took possession of the land. In the meanwhile, Baimai had died on 27th March 1960.2. On 4th August 1962, Rodabai brought this suit (No. 131 of 1962) in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Dahanu, Impleading thereto the Trustees (defendants 1 to 7), the heirs of Baimai (defendants 8 to 13) a...
Tag this Judgment!Babhutmal Raichand Oswal Vs. Laxmibai Raghunath Tarte
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-1971
Reported in: (1972)74BOMLR214; 1972MhLJ382
Bhasme, J.1. This is an application by the defendant-tenant, whose eviction from the premises is ordered by the Courts below in a suit filed by the respondent-plaintiffs under the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (LVII of 1947). A few facts leading to this ejectment proceeding may be stated:The shop premises consisting of 3 khans and 4 ghadis on the southern side ground floor of House No. 172 (old) in Ravivar Peth, Poona, and now known as No. 879 (new) in Budhwar Peth, Poona are occupied by the petitioner as a monthly tenant at a rental of Rs. 28.42 per month. The plaintiffs have purchased the building of which the suit premises form part on December 12, 1963 from the former owner. They terminated the petitioner's tenancy by a notice dated November 12, 1964 and filed a suit claiming possession of the premises on several grounds. It will be sufficient if I refer only to one ground on which the decree passed by the Courts below is based. It was st...
Tag this Judgment!Vithalrao Ramchandra Ghorpade Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-1971
Reported in: (1972)74BOMLR523; 1972MhLJ841
Deshpande, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order passed by the State Government against the petitioner on June 18, 1971 informing him that the Government has decided to retire him prematurely in public interest in view of his attaining the age of 50 years. Under the said order he was advised to retire voluntarily by giving three months' notice in terms of the Bombay Civil Services (Seventh Amendment) Rules of 1971. He was also informed that in the event of his not choosing to retire voluntarily, Government itself would issue necessary order, directing his retirement.2. This Special Civil Application was filed in this Court on July 19, 1971 and rule was granted on July 26, 1971. During the pendency of this Special Civil Application, another notice dated August 6, 1971 was served on him retiring him from service in public interest. The petitioner made an application soliciting leave to amend the petition so as to challenge also the...
Tag this Judgment!Trust for Education, Achalpur Vs. Chandrabhan Akaji Dhor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Bom235; 1972MhLJ164
ORDER1. The question which arises in this petition is whether the lands in respect of which a trust has been made by the owner for education of the male members and children in his family are exempted from the provisions relating to the statutory transfer of ownership. The respondent is the tenant of survey number 13, area 15 acres 1 guntha, of village Bag Ambada, tahsil Achalpur, district Amravati. This field originally belonged to one Madhaorao Vithalrao Pangarkar. He got this field in a family partition made on 13-1-1950 when the respondent was already cultivating the field as a lessee. Madhaorao Pangarkar created a trust on 16-8-1960 in respect of about 60 acres of land including the land in dispute and himself became the managing trustee. The trust deed which is a registered document recites that the income of the trust property is required to be spent exclusively for the education of all the existing male children in the family as also for the education of the male children that ...
Tag this Judgment!Jaggannath Dwarkanath Raje Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1971
Reported in: (1972)74BOMLR320; 1972MhLJ618
Vaidya, JJ.1. This petition raises a difficult question under the Bombay Civil Services Rules, as amended by the Bombay Civil Services (7th Amendment) Rules, 1971.2. The petitioner challenges the order dated June 9, 1971 and the order dated July 21, 1971 purporting to have been passed by the Inspector General of Police, Maharashtra State, under the said Amendment Rules of 1971 compulsorily retiring the petitioner 'from the date of expiry of three months' period from the date of receipt of the notice' dated July 21, 1971.3. The petitioner was born on December 24, 1918. He was commissioned as an Officer in the Indian Army and after his service of 4 years he was relieved from the Army in the year 1946. He was then selected for training at the Police Training Centre at Nasik. After completion of the training, he was appointed as a Sub Inspector of Police at Poona in the year 1948. He was confirmed in that post with effect from July 1, 1949. On July 3, 1968 he was promoted to officiate as I...
Tag this Judgment!Ratnaprabhabai Vs. Sheshrao Shankarrao Bhore
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-15-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Bom182; (1972)74BOMLR434; 1972MhLJ159
ORDER1. The opponent had filed a petition in the Lower Court under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights alleging that the applicant had without reasonable excuse withdrawn from the society of the opponent. The applicant opposed the said petition and filed her written statement alleging inter alia, that she was treated cruelly by the opponent and was driven out of the house and was deserted. On these pleadings, the learned trial Judge initially framed the following issue:'Whether the petitioner proves that the respondent has withdrawn from the society of the petitioner without reasonable excuse'.The parties went to trial on this issue and the case was fixed for evidence on 20-12-1967. Before the commencement of the evidence the opponent filed an application for recasting the aforesaid issue and wanted the issue to be framed in these terms:'Whether the respondent proves that she had reasonable excuse to withdraw from the Society of the petitioner ?'This ...
Tag this Judgment!GulamhusseIn Ahmedalli and Co. Vs. Canhag Private Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-12-1971
Reported in: [1972]42ITR136(Bom)
ORDERKantawala, J.1. Gulamhussein Ahmedalli and Company presented this petition on March 17, 1967, inter alia, for winding up of canhag Private Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the company'). The winding-up petition was presented on the ground that in spite of service of the statutory notice the company failed and neglected to pay the debt due to the petitioners and also otherwise the company was commercially insolvent. While this petition was coming up for hearing for admission, Fatehi Brothers, a partnership firm, were appearing in support of the order for winding up. I am informed by Mr. Chagla that from time to time this petition was adjourned and ultimately on June 21, 1971, it came up for hearing before my learned brother, Nain J. By the order passed on that day, the learned judge took the view that he was satisfied that there was a bona fide dispute as to whether the claim in the petition made by Gulamhussein Ahmedalli and Co. was payable by the company or by the Mandya Nationa...
Tag this Judgment!Rayabai Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-12-1971
Reported in: 1972MhLJ706
ORDER1. This is a petition by a landlord whose suit for possession of the property was dismissed by the appellate Court which reversed the decree of the trial Court which granted the claim.2. The petitioner is the owner of City Survey No. 2607 situated at Meharun within the municipal limits of Jagaon. On this site there are five buildings which have been leased to the respondent, the State of Maharashtra, on a monthly tenancy at a rent of Rs.250/- per month. The lease was effected for the purpose of occupation of police personnel of the respondent. In Civil Suit No.19 of 1965 filed on March 22, 1965, which was decreed on July 2, 1966, the plaintiff was held entitled to charge permitted increases at the rate of Rs. 32.66 in addition to rent and the said suit was decreed for the arrears claimed therein. The claim of the plaintiff for the educational cess was disallowed on the ground that there was no notice served by him on the respondent on that account.3. On October 3, 1966, by Ex. 26 ...
Tag this Judgment!Plaza Chemical Industries Vs. Kohinoor Chemical Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-11-1971
Reported in: AIR1973Bom191; (1972)74BOMLR838
ORDER1. Plaza Chemical Industries, the petitioners, have filed this Petition by way of an appeal against an order passed by the Joint Registrar of Trade Marks rejecting their application for rectification. As from April 16, 1943 a trade mark consisting of a label containing a device of a head of a woman, snow clad mountains and the word 'TIBET' was registered in the name of the respondents. Kohinoor Chemical Company Ltd, in respect of facial cream. Upon partition of India the respondents migrated to Pakistan. It is the case of the petitioners that since 1962 they started manufacturing and marketing a facial cream under a label containing the words 'TIBET SNOW'. On March 6, 1964 the Petitioners filed an application in the office of the Trade Marks Registry at Delhi for registration of the said label as a trade mark. That application was refused stating that the respondents were Registered Proprietors of a trade mark containing the word 'TIBET SNOW'. On March 4, 1966 the Petitioners made...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »