Mumbai Court October 1975 Judgments
Balkisandas Vs. Additional Collector, Akola, and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-21-1975
Reported in: [1977]106ITR77(Bom); 1976MhLJ23
Masodkar, J.1. For a sum of Rs. 4,018.96 as the income-tax dues found recoverable against the partnership firm, Messrs. Laxminarayan Balkisandas Bhutada, of which the petitioner was the partner, proceedings to recover upon tax recovery certificate were started and in those proceedings three fields of the petitioner, being field survey Nos. 155, 156 and 157 of village Shaha were attached. Sale proclamation was issued on February 2, 1968, and eventually the sale was fixed for March 13, 1968. Meanwhile, the petitioner applied to the Collector on March 6, 1968, for stay of the sale and it is apparent from the order sheets that were produced before us, that a conditional order directing the petitioner to deposit half the amount was made by the Collector but the petitioner did not avail of that concession. It also appears that on the date of sale, the petitioner was present before the Tahsildar who was the Tax Recovery Officer attaching and conducting the sale. Two of the fields, survey Nos....
Tag this Judgment!Shankar Sadu Wanjhe Vs. Parwatibai Ramchandra Dongre
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-21-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Bom241; (1976)78BOMLR186
1. This is a second appeal filed by the original defendant Shankar Sadu Wanjhe, against the order and judgment of the District Judge remanding the matter back to the trial Court for a proper hearing after oral and documentary evidence is taken on record.2. The matter arises in this war. The respondent, Smt. Parwatibai Ramchandra Dongre, who is the original plaintiff, filed a suit for possession of the eastern portion of the house situate at Dhangavadi, Taluka Bhor, and also for damages at Rs. 755/-.3. The suit was filed in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bhor, and it would appear that the defendant had engaged two lawyers, one from Poona and the other one from the local Bar. However, in the events that happened the Advocate from Poona Shri Dube could not be present at the time of the hearing and the local Advocate Shri Gupte withdrew his appearance at the time of the hearing. The result was that the defendant was left without the aid of an Advocate. The learned Civil Jud...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Poona Vs. M/S. Indian Tool Manufacturing C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-19-1975
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(Bom)0388A
Desai, J. - In this application three questions are sought to be referred to us under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. As far as the first question for the assessment year 1664-65 is concerned, Mr. Joshi has drawn our attention to the decisions reported in and 90 ITR 387. The question does require consideration by the High Court and, therefore, the Rule is made absolute as far as this question for the assessment year 1964-65 is concerned.2. As far as the two subsequent questions for the assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67 are concerned, Mr. Shah has drawn our attention to the assessment orders passed by the Income-tax Officer concerned, which show that there was no transfer by the Directors to any dividend reserves for payment of dividend nor was the amount of dividend paid from any dividend reserve. The Directors reports for these two years, which have been shown to us, as well as these orders make it clear that there were transfers to general reserve of much larger amount...
Tag this Judgment!Jamna Mahadeo Patil and anr. Vs. Devarat Mehta and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-1975
Reported in: AIR1977Bom4
Deshmukh, J.1. This is a petition where the petitioner has been detained under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, subject to the conditions of the Maintenance of Internal Security (Maharashtra Conditions of Detention) Order, 1971. These Rules were amended later by the addition of Rule 38, which vests in the State Government power to withdraw any concessions or facilities laid down by the order. Some of the facilities like supplementing diet with the help of food from outside have been withdrawn by the State Government in view of certain orders passed under the added Rule 38. Most of the petitioners filed applications where detention order itself is not being challenged nor the validity or legality of the conditions incorporated in the said order of 1971 are concerned. The only complaint that is being made is that the conditions of detention, which were available under the said Order of 1971 are also not permitted to be availed of by the petitioner, and as such he merely wa...
Tag this Judgment!Ramkumar Ramchandra Choudhari Vs. the Hingoli Municipal Council
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-1975
Reported in: (1976)78BOMLR243; 1976MhLJ137
Chandurkar, J.1. The question in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is whether a person who wants to challenge a demand made by a bill issued under Section 150 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Municipalities Act') is bound to deposit the amount of taxes which he does not want to dispute in the appeal filed under Section 170 of the Municipalities Act.2. The question arises thus: On January 6, 1973 a bill was received by the petitioner making a demand for house tax, education cess and Bangla Desh Relief Fund Cess. The house tax demanded was Rs. 1,096.20 consisting of Rs. 529.20 for the year 1971-72 and 1972-73. The education cess demanded for 1962-63 to 1970-71 was Rs. 124.11 and Rs. 94.50 for the years. 1971-72 and 1972-73 each. The Bangla Desh Cess demanded was Rs. 23.63 for 1971-72 and Rs. 47.25 for 1972-73. The demand totalled Rs. 1,480.19, but after making a representation to the Municipal Council, it was reduced ...
Tag this Judgment!Anil Bhaskar Sonavane Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-1975
Reported in: (1976)78BOMLR325
Deshmukh, J.1. This is a revision application by the complainant whose application for commitment of criminal case No. 980/P of 1974 pending on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate, 12th Court, Bandra, was rejected by the learned Magistrate.2. Very few facts may be noted for the purpose of disposing of this revision application :3. An incident occurred on February 17, 1974 between two groups of persons. This led to police investigation and arrest of persons from both the groups on the cross complaints lodged by them. The police investigation ultimately led to the filing of two separate cases, one being marked as case No. 979/P of 1974 and the other case No. 980/P of 1974, in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, 12th Court, Bandra. The present petitioner before us is complainant in criminal case No. 980/P of 1974 and he along with others is an accused person in criminal case No. 979/P of 1974. In the same manner, the complaint in case No. 979/P of 1974 along with others represen...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Maharashtra Vs. Prakash Vishnurao Mane
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-1975
Reported in: (1977)79BOMLR217
Vaidya, J.1. His Lordship after narrating the facts of the case and discussing the evidence on record, his Lordship dealt with the law relating to tape-recording and proceeded. It seems to be by now settled that there is no difference in principle between a tape-recording and photograph; accordingly, a tape-recording is admissible in law provided that its accuracy can be proved and the voice properly identified and that the evidence was relevant and otherwise admissible, as held in Regina v. Maqsud Ali [1966] 1 Q.B. 688 : [1965] 2 All E.R. 464. It was held in that case that the Court would not lya down any exhaustive set of rules by which admissibility of such evidence could be judged, for it always had to be regarded with caution and assessed in the light of all the circumstances of each particular case and that but for the fact that the tape-recorder was a mechanical device, it was no different from an eavesdropper. It was also decided that since the defendants in that case were not ...
Tag this Judgment!C. Eduljee and Company Limited and anr. Vs. First Labour Court, Nagpur ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-1975
Reported in: [1977]47CompCas770(Bom); 1976MhLJ20
Masodkar, J.1. Both these petitions have been filed by the company, now in liquidation, M/s. C. Eduljee & Company. It was a public limited company and by these petitions, the order made by the First Labour Court on July 20, 1971, as well as the order of the Industrial Court of November 24, 1971, in the first case and the order dated July 22, 1971, of the First Labour Court and order dated January 14, 1972, of the Industrial Court in the second case, are challenged. 2. Now, the facts are : The respondent No. 3 in each petition had filed proceedings under section 78 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (hereinafter called the BIR Act). The Labour Court held that the employee in each case who was dismissed was entitled to relief of restitution, the dismissal being unlawful. However, it granted the relief of back wages and compensation in each case. The company took up the matter before the Industrial Court but failed. Eventually, the present petitions were filed. By that time decl...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Madhaorao Ghatate and anr. Vs. the Union of India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-1975
Reported in: AIR1975Bom324; 1975CriLJ1828; 1975MhLJ822
Dharmadhikari, J. 1. These Special Civil Applications under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Criminal Applications under Section 482 of the Criminal P. C., 1973 read with Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India are filed for a writ of habeas corpus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for release of the detenus, who have been detained under the provisions of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, as amended by the Maintenance of Internal Security (Amendment), Act, 1975, referred to hereinafter as the MISA. These petitions have been filed by the near relations of the respective detenus. Various contentions have ben raised in these petitions challenging the detention and the continued detention of the detenus, which according to the petitioners is illegal. The detenus were detained under the orders of the Commissioner of Police, Nagpur, or the District Magistrate of the District concerned vide detention order served on them on different deters in...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Maharashtra Vs. Baijnath Shah Mathura Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-1975
Reported in: 1976CriLJ908
Apte, J.1. The respondent-accused Baijnath Shah Mathura Shah Bania in this appeal, conducts a sweetmeat shop in which milk is also sold. This shop is housed in a sort of a shed which is situate opposite Shreeram Mills on the jail road at Worli, Bombay.2. Manohar Ratan Sawant (PW-2) is the Food Inspector in the employ of the Bombay Municipal Corporation duly appointed as such under the provisions of Section 9 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. On the morning of November 11, 1972 at about 7.45 a. m. he visited the shop of the respondent-accused with a view to purchase milk for analysis. He called Anaji Narayan Govalkar (PW-1) and in his presence purchased 700 millilitres of cow's boiled milk from the accused on payment of its price of Rs. 2.10 and at the same time he gave notice to the accused that he was purchasing this quantity of milk for purposes of analysis and he also obtained a receipt from the accused. He then added 19 drops of liquid formalin, a preservative, and then d...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »