Mumbai Court January 1976 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.
The Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Messrs. Ramdas Laxmidas.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(Bom)0176B
Madon J. - 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 ass...
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-1976
Reported in: [1976]37STC432a(Bom)
Kania, J. 1. This is a reference under section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), read with section 34 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, made at the instance of the assessees. The question, which has been referred to us for our determination, is as follows : 'Whether, on a true and proper interpretation of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 8 and section 2(i) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, as it stood prior to 1st October, 1958, and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal in its judgment in Revision Application No. 202 of 1967 decided on 7th November, 1967, is correct in law in holding that the impugned inter-State sales of motor spirit amounting to Rs. 9,39,342 were not exempt from tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 ?' 2. The fact giving rise to this question are as follows : 3. The assessees have been carrying on business in the State of Maharashtra and in the former State of Bombay i...
Nagnathappa Vs. Shrinivas and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-1976
Reported in: AIR1976Bom372; 1976MhLJ465
Hajarnavis, J. 1. These two petitions are directed against an appellate order passed by the Commissioner, Aurangabad, who partly allowed the appeal filed by the occupant of the suit lands viz. the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 548 of 1971 against the order passed by the District Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Bhir. 2. Survey Nos. 41 and 42 of village Parli were community service inam lands. The inams were abolished on 1st July 1960 under the Hyderabad Abolition of Inams and Cash Grants Act, 1954 (hereinafter called as the 'Hyderabad Abolition of Inams Act'). before the abolition of the inam, the Inamdar had granted lease for 20 years of Survey Nos. 41 and 42 to Nagnathappa (Petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 344 of 1971) in 1944 by a registered Lease Deed. Nagnathappa sub-let a plot admeasuring 300'X500' to Srinivas (Petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 548 of 1971) on 14th April 1949 by a registered Lease Deed for 18 years. On the same day, he sub-set an...
The Municipal Corporation Vs. P. Ganapathy
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-1976
Reported in: (1977)79BOMLR14
Lentin, J.1. By this Special Civil Application, the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay seeks to set aside the order dated November 25, 1970 passed by respondent No. 2 who is the presiding officer, 1st Labour Court, Bombay.2. The undisputed facts which have led to the matter before us are that, at all material times, respondent No. 1 was employed by the petitioner-Corporation as a bus-hunter in. its Bombay Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking (referred to hereafter ass 'the B.E.S.T.') On April 19, 1967, respondent No. 1 left his residence at Kurla at about 6.30 a.m. and boarded a B.E.S.T. bus in order to proceed to Sion from where he had to take another B.E.S.T. bus in order to report for duty at Dadar. Between Kurla and Sion, the driver of the B.E.S.T. bus in which respondent No. 1 was travelling, applied the emergency brake, which caused a jerk. As a result, respondent No. 1 sustained an injury to his back and was in plaster from April 23, 1967 till July 10, 1967. He receive...
iqbalnath Premnath Anand Vs. Rameshwarnath Premnath Anand and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-1976
Reported in: AIR1976Bom405; 1977MhLJ51
1. A short but some what interesting question arises in this appeal from order, as to when a partnership can be said to be not a partnership at will even if the relevant deed of partnership does not contain any express provision either as to the duration or the determination of the partnership.2. By a deed of partnership dated the 4th December, 1967, the plaintiff and the two defendants who are blood relations (the plaintiff and the first defendant being brothers and the second defendant being their mother) agreed to continue the family business of Messrs Ramsarandas & Sons, operating inter alia as Passage & Passport Agents. It would appear that the business was originally started years back in 1914, by an ancestor of the parties, as a proprietary business, and was thereafter converted into a partnership. There were several reconstitutions in between until the present firm was constituted by the above mentioned deed of partnership dated 4th December, 1967. It is this partnership, with ...
Laxman Bhikaji Pawar and ors. Vs. Bahimkhan Balekhan Dalwai and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1976
Reported in: 1976CriLJ1492
ORDERJoshi, J.1. The applicants before this Court are the original petitioners styled as party No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Petitioners') by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chiplun, in Miscellaneous Case No. 1 of 1975, a proceeding under Section 145, Cr. P.C. Respondents to this application are styled as Party No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Respondents'). On the report of the Sub-Inspector of Police, Chiplun, proceedings under Section 145 of the Cr. P.C. were initiated and the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate ultimately ordered that possession of the disputed lands should be handed over to the respondents and further directed that their possession should not be disturbed by Party No. 1 till they are evicted from the lands by a competent Court.2. The facts giving rise to these proceedings, culminating in the impugned order, stated briefly, are as follows : The petitioners are 37 in number and members of Harijan community, whereas the respondents who are shown to be 35 ...
RadhakishIn N. Advani Vs. Sheila Gobind Mirchandani and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Bom35; 1976MhLJ456
1. This is an appeal from an order of a Judge of the City Civil Court, Bombay, (Judge Guttal) whereby on a Notice of Motion taken out by the plaintiff he granted an interim injunction in terms of prayer (c) of the Notice of Motion and adjourned the hearing of the Notice pf Motion itself till the hearing of the suit. 2. It requires to be stated at once that the 1st defendant in reply to the application for interim relief took up the plea that the City Civil Court, Bombay, had no jurisdiction to entertain and try this suit and/or grant any interim relief Inter alia on the ground that the value of the subject-matter of the suit, viz., a fiat In Brothers Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Mahim, being Rs. 35,000/-, exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court Secondly it was contended that the City Civil Court would have no jurisdiction because the plaintiff was claiming under a will left by one Jethmal Mulchand Malkani (who died on the 24th of October, 1972) unless a probate of the wi...
Deorao Mahadeo Narad and anr. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-1976
Reported in: 1976CriLJ1792; 1976MhLJ459
ORDERDighe, J.1. These two applications are being disposed of by a common judgment because the law point arising in both is whether non-obedience to the notice issued under Clause 6 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Foodgrains (Trade Monopoly) Order, 1972 (hereinafter called the Monopoly Order) is punishable as a contravention under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. It appears that Naib Tahsildar Lothe raided the houses of both the applicants residing at Shegaon on 4-2-1974. So far as the applicant Deorao son of Mahadeo is concerned, according to the prosecution although he was a leviable cultivator, he had not given the requisite levy and he also committed a breach of Clause 6 of the Monopoly Order because even after a notice issued to him to sell a particular quantity of paddy found in his possession he did not obey it.2. It appears that when the raid was carried out total quantity of paddy found in his possession was 40 Khandis. After making allowance as contemplated by C...
Central Bank of India Vs. Mckenzies Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-1976
Reported in: [1977]47CompCas306(Bom)
Aggarwal, J.1. The Central Bank of India has filed the present petition for winding up of the company named Mckenzies Ltd. on the ground that the company is unable to pay the debt of Rs. 2,65,540.74 with interest thereon at the rate of 12 per cent. per annum, which appears to be due on the footing that the bank on the application of the company opened letters of credit and secured guarantees under French credit system for and on behalf of the company for the import of the company's goods. The bank at the request of the company arranged for the clearance of the company's goods ad consignments. The bank, thereafter, delivered all the relevant documents to the company against the trust receipts executed by the company and duly transferred the relative bills in advance on account of the company and the said account was, therefore, duly debited. It is on the foot of this account that the alleged claim of the bank appears to be due from the company. The bank gave statutory notice dared 28th ...
Laxmi Oil Mills, Hinganghat Vs. Sales Tax Officer, Wardha and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-1976
Reported in: 1976MhLJ326; [1976]384STC242(Bom)
Masodkar, J. 1. By this petition, the petitioner, who deals in oil extraction and runs his business in the name and style of M/s. Laxmi Oil Mills, questions the validity and legality of the general sales tax imposed for the years 1971-72 and 1972-73, as well as the penalty for non-return in those years.2. Before we turn to the controversy, the admitted facts may be stated. The petitioner extracts oil at the mills by mechanical process using for that purpose groundnut and linseed. The oil so extracted is put to sale by the petitioner. It is not in dispute that thus he is a 'dealer' for the purpose of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter called the Act). For the relevant period, i.e., for the years 1971-72 and 1972-73, upon the admitted turnover, the petitioner has been assessed to pay sales tax under entry 6A of Schedule D in the sum of Rs. 436.98 and Rs. 559.03 respectively. Under section 36 of the Act, he has been asked to pay the penalty after giving due notice of Rs. 110 and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »