Mumbai Court January 1976 Judgments
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Metal Distributors Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1976
Reported in: [1977]39STC212(Bom)
Kania, J. 1. This is a reference under section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), made at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax. The question which has been referred to us for our determination is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the true interpretation of the contract between the respondent and M/s. Morarjee Raisey & Co. for the supply of electrolytic copper ingot bars embodied in the respondent's letter dated 15th February, 1963, which was also signed by M/s. Morarjee Raisey & Co. in confirmation, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the transaction was not a sale but was a transaction of agency not liable to tax under the provisions of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 ?' 2. The facts giving rise to this reference are as follows : M/s. Morarjee Raisey & Co. (hereinafter referred to as 'M.R. & Co.') were the holders of an import licence known as actual user...
Tag this Judgment!The Municipal Council, Amravati Vs. Govind Vishnu Sarnaik and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-1976
Reported in: AIR1976Bom401; 1976MhLJ470
ORDER1. An interesting point with regard to the procedure required to be followed by Court while permitting representation to others under Order 1, Rule 8, of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been raised by the present revision.2. Few facts need be stated to appreciate the submissions of the learned counsel. The opponents purported to institute a suit on July 30, 1971 claiming relief of permanent injunction against the applicant Municipal Council restraining it from imposing, assessing or levying scavenging tax, general water tax and light tax for the year 1970-71 and the consolidated property tax for 1971-72 on the basis of tentative assessment lists of 1969-70 and 1971-72 respectively, and also for costs. In the body of the plaint, plaintiffs purported to aver that they along with rest of the tax prayers own houses within the limits of the Municipal in Old Camp Area and that the defendant-Council is imposing taxes for the years 1970-71 and 1971-72. Plaintiffs sought to challenge the ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Colaba Land and Mill Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-1976
Reported in: [1968]67ITR399(Bom)
Aggarwal, J.1. The liquidator is strenuously opposing the summons for directors. According to the liquidator the present application under section 391 of the Companies Act is not a bona fide one. The matter has been argued at some length to demonstrate this aspect. After hearing, I have given liberty to the liquidator to put in a further affidavit within two weeks and also granted liberty to the applicants to make further affidavit within a period of three weeks thereafter and fixed the hearing of summons for directions on 2nd March, 1976. 2. Mr. Chagla object to the joint affidavit Alimohamed K. Porbunderwalla and others in reply to the judge's summons dated 15th November, 1975, being taken on file. Alimohamed K. Porbunderwalla and other hold 605 shares of the Colaba Land and Mill Company Ltd. (in liquidation). 3. According to Mr. Chagla, the scheme under section 391 read with rules 67 and 68 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, is that at an ex parte stage only the applicants and th...
Tag this Judgment!K. Mallaya Lachmayya Corporation Vs. Prbhakarrao Marotrao Dhote
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-1976
Reported in: AIR1976Bom234
ORDER1. There is hardly any point in the present revision which is directed against the finding obtained by the plaintiff himself as to the nature of the document on the basis of which the suit was filed before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Chandrapur. By the impugned order it has been found that the said document is a money bond and not a promissory note. Consequently a directing is given for the purpose of impounding the same in terms of Section 34 of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958.2. Mr. Kherdekar the learned Counsel appearing for the original plaintiff revision applicant urged two points. Firstly, he contends that upon proper construction of the document it should be treated as a promissory note. Secondly, he submits that under the circumstances, the levy of penalty in the sum of Rs. 2,000/- should be relieved.3. As to the first point it is obvious that the learned counsel's submission has no merit if a look is taken to the document itself. The label given to the document is not co...
Tag this Judgment!Bhauro Antuji Bhoyar Vs. Keshaorao Rajaram Dangore and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-1976
Reported in: AIR1976Bom302; 1977MhLJ32
ORDER1. The only question agitated in this revision is whether the document styled as receipt of July 11, 1969 is a bond within the meaning of section 22(c) of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 as the trial court has found by the impugned order.2. It is well settled that while applying the provisions of the stamp Act if two constructions are possible one that favours the assess will have to be accepted and secondly while considering the document, the dominant intent of the parties will have to be found out for purpose of determine the correct stamp duty payable.3. The document on the face of it is an agreement between two persons executing purporting to sell orange produce for the year 1969-70 and the consideration is mentioned as the price agreed between the parties. An amount of Rs. 3225/- mentioned in the document is the price of the produce sold by the executing and the other terms in the document relate to the worrying out of the right to take the fruits out of the garden and make the pa...
Tag this Judgment!Purshottam Waman Gabale and ors. Vs. Shripad Ramchandra Pargaonkar and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-1976
Reported in: AIR1976Bom375
Sapre, J. 1. These two appeals, one by defendants Nos. 1 to 4 and the other by defendant No. 5, arise out of a suit brought by the original plaintiff Bhimabai (who died during the tendency of these appeals and whose two sons have been brought on record as her heirs) to recover possession of two house properties situate in the city of Kolhapur. One of these bears City Survey No. 18/1-2 and the other bears City Survey Nos. 131/1 to 3. In City Survey No. 18/1-2 Bhimabai claimed one-half share. In regard to City Survey No. 131/1 to 3, she claimed possession of the entire house. City Survey No. 18/1-2 is the property involved in First Appeal No. 450 of 1968 where the appellant is defendant No. 5. City Survey No. 18/1-2 is an possession of defendants Nos. 1 to 4. city Survey No. 131/1 to 3 is not in actual physical possession of defendant No. 5. A portion of it is in possession of defendants Nos. 6 to 9, who are brothers, as tenants. Another portion of the house is in possession of defendant...
Tag this Judgment!Anandrao Dinkarrao Shinde and anr. Vs. P.G. Patil and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Bom177; (1976)78BOMLR608
Deshpande, J.1. The petitioners were elected as Deans respectively for the Faculties of Commerce and Arts in the Shivaji University at Kolhapur on 10th November, 1972. These elections were held under the provisions of the Shivaji University Act of 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Repealed Act') and the Statutes framed thereunder. Section 25 thereof provided that there should be a Dean for each Faculty and that he should be elected by the Faculty from amongst its members. The term of the office of the Dean was left to be prescribed by the Statutes. Under Statute 104, the term of the Dean was limited to three years. It was, however, open for the Dean to seek re-election. On 31st May, 1974, the 1962 Act was repealed by the Shivaji University Act of 1974 (referred to hereinafter as 'the new Act'). Under Section 12 of the new Act also, a Dean for each Faculty is to be elected by the Faculty from amongst its members other than the student members. Under Sub-section (3) itself the term o...
Tag this Judgment!Uma Investments Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-1976
Reported in: (1976)78BOMLR77; [1977]47CompCas242(Bom)
Aggarwal, J. 1. By this judge's summons, the State of Tamil Nadu (hereinafter referred to as 'the State') seeks to vacate the ex parte order dated 11th October, 1974, and as modified by an order dated 14th October, 1974. The ex parte orders were obtained under section 391(6) of the Companies Act, 1956, by Uma Investments Private Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the company') in an application filed by it under section 391 for sanction of a scheme of compromise with certain classes of creditors. 2. The background of the case is that the company was incorporated on 13th January, 1965. The registered office of the company is in Bombay. The authorised capital of the company is Rs. 5,00,000 divided into 5,000 equity shares of Rs. 100 each and the subscribed and paid up capital is Rs. 1,00,000 divided into 1,000 equity shares of Rs. 100 each. From its inception the company carries on chit business. According to the company from the month of October, 1973, it faced financial difficulties and...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Ramdas Laxmidas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(Bom)176; [1976]384STC354(Bom)
Madon, J.1. This is a Reference under section 23(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1946, made at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax in which the question referred to us is : 'Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that in view of Rule 41-A of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1946, the lower authorities were not justified in demanding the production of declarations as required under Rule 26(2) of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1946, after a lapse of three years from 31-3-1950 and that as such the respondents' claim under section 6(3) Rule I(ii) for the period from, 1-4-1948 to 31-3-1950 must be accepted ?' 2. The Respondents were registered as a dealer under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1946. It is not disputed that for the period April 1, 1948 to October 31, 1952 they duly and regularly filed their returns. They first received a notice on December 12, 1953 calling upon them to attend before the Sales Tax Officer in respect of their assessment for the said period. The order of...
Tag this Judgment!Kanis-fatms and anr. Vs. Mohd. Habib and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-1976
Reported in: AIR1976Bom303; 1976MhLJ63
ORDER1.This is a revision against the judgment and decree made by the Judge, Small Causes, Nagpur in Civil Suit No. 1638 of 1969. 2. The original suit was filed against Smt. Qureshakhatun and one another. She died during the pendency of the suit. As per Exh. 34, plaintiff filed an application to set aside abatement, for, the Court had recorded on 20-09-1971 that the suit has already abated against defendant No.1 i.e. Quresha-Khatun. Without issuing notice to the proposed legal representatives on Exh. 34, the court proceeded to set aside that order and further impleading them as party - defendants to the suit. After the notice was received of the suit, objection was raised on behalf of these defendants and while delivering the judgment, the learned Judge overruled the objection observing that no such notice was necessary and further that the question whether these defendants are possessed of any property can be decided in execution. 3. This aspect of the judgment is under challenge. 4. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »