Mumbai Court December 1975 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.
Babu Balgonda Patil and ors. Vs. Dhanyakumar Balasaheb Patil ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-09-1975
Reported in: 1976CriLJ1872
ORDERSawant, J.1. These four revision applications can be disposed of by this common judgment since a common point of law arises in all the said cases and the said cases arise out of a common incident.2. It is not necessary to state the facts of these cases in detail. Suffice it to say that the accused in all these cases were prosecuted by the complainants-petitioners for offences under Sections 447, 427 and 506 road with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainants in all the four petitions are the landlords of certain agricultural lands growing sugar-cane crops. The accused respondents are the Officers of a Co-operative Sugar Factory known as Penchaganga Cooperative Sugar Factory. On the basis of an award passed by the Officer on Special Duty under the provisions of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1900, the accused entered into the lands of the complainants to cut the sugar-cane crops growing therein. It was the case of the complainants that there was no such awar...
The Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Ramkrishna Kulvantrai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-1975
Reported in: [1976]37STC564(Bom)
Madon, J.1. This is an application under section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, read with section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, whereby the petitioner - the Commissioner of Sales Tax for the State of Maharashtra - has prayed for an order directing the Sales Tax Tribunal to state the case and refer to this court four questions which are set out in paragraph 4 of the petition. 2. The facts which have given rise to this application briefly stated are that for the period 1st April, 1963, to 31st March, 1964, the respondents were assessed to inter-State sales tax on a turnover of Rs. 4,53,353, and transactions which were not sales, leave aside inter-State sales, were determined at Rs. 99,640. In respect of this amount of Rs. 99,640, the Sales Tax Officer I, B Ward, Unit III, Bombay, forfeited therefrom a sum of Rs. 19,928, contending that the same had been collected by the respondents by way of sales tax on the said transactions of the aggregate value of Rs. 99,640, whi...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Hirachand Modaji Jain
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-1975
Reported in: 1976CriLJ1850
Chandurkar, J.1. This is an appeal by the State seeking enhancement of the sentence imposed on the accused by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, who has convicted the accused of the offences under Section 135 (1) (i) read with Section 135 (1) (b) of the Customs Act, 1962 and Section 85 (ii) of the Gold Control Act, 1968.2. The respondent is original accused No. 1 and he was tried with another accused Bhanmal Gebaji Jain. Both these persons were charged for the offence under Section 135 (1) (i) read with Section 135 (1) (b) of the Customs Act, 1962, on the allegation that they were knowingly concerned in carrying, concealing or dealing with 100 gold bars collectively valued at Rs. 98,408/- on import and Rs. 2,80,000/- at the local market rate which they knew or had reason to believe were liable to confiscation under Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act, 1962. Both the accused were also charged under Section 85 (ii) read with Section 8 (1) (i) of the Gold Control Act, 1968, for being in po...
Mohan Vs. the State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Bom329
ORDER1. Mr. Kurdukar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the above Special Civil Application, directed against the concurrent Orders of the Revenue Tribunal and the District Deputy Collector, Bhir, under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, has submitted three neat points of law in support of the petitioner's case. 2. The first contention raised by him was that the two Authorities erred in law in excluding the dependant sister of the father of the holder from the family of the holder. Unfortunately this contention is not tenable having regard to the definition of the word 'member of the family' contained in Section 2 (20) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceilings on Holdings) Act, 1961, prior to its recent amendment by Act XXI of 1975 and the two Ordinances. The two Authorities below were, therefore, right in excluding her. 3. The second point of law raised by Mr. Kurdukar was that the two Authorities erred in including in the holdings of the...
Monie Ardeshir Baria and Piloo F. Antia, Executrices of the Estate of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-1975
Reported in: [1977]106ITR203(Bom)
Desai, J.1. This is a reference made to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay Bench 'B', Bombay, under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act. By applications made by 9 accountable persons the Tribunal was required to refer to the High Court certain questions of law which arose out of the Tribunal's consolidated order in Estate Duty Appeals Nos. 117 to 125 of 1962-63. Since in the opinion of the Tribunal certain questions of law did arise from the said order, reference was made to the High Court by the Tribunal and 7 questions have been referred to us for our consideration. In our opinion, these question do not properly bring out the nature of the controversy between the Controller of Estate Duty and the accountable persons and hence we have reframed the said questions. However, before setting down the questions as originally referred to us and us reframed by us, a few facts may be stated. 2. The reference relates to property which purportedly passed on the death of Ardeshir Da...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›