Mumbai Court February 1976 Judgments
Ebrahim Yusuf Lambe Vs. Abdul Razak Abdul Rahiman Mulla and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Bom22; 1977MhLJ160
Deshpande, J. 1. The Petitioner applied to the Tahsildar for a declaration of his being the tenant of certain land. The application was made under Section 70 (b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Tenancy is claimed on the basis of contract with opponents' father and rent also is claimed to have been paid to him during his lifetime and thereafter to the opponents. Opponents denied all this. On evidence, the Aval Karkun accepted his claim. In an appeal by the opponents, the petitioner raised a preliminary point that Section 74 (1) did not provide for any appeal against such declaration under Section 70 (b) of the Act. The Collector overruled this, saying that the Petitioner is found to be a-deemed tenant under Section 4 of the Act and hence appeal under Section 74 (1) (a) was competent. The Revenue Tribunal declined to interfere in revision.2. In the case of Shantabai v. Pan-durang, reported in : AIR1973Bom203 , Malvankar, J., held ...
Tag this Judgment!G. Claridge and Company Ltd. Vs. Nav Bharat Investments Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1976
Reported in: [1977]47CompCas428(Bom)
Aggarwal, J.1. This winding-up petition against the company named Messrs. Nav Bharat Investments Ltd. is for admission on the ground that the company is unable to pay its debts. The petitioners claim from the company a balance of Rs. 58,262.30 being the amount due in respect of the orders executed by the petitioners at the request of the company as per particulars given in the five bills (exhibits A collectively to the petition). The company made part payment aggregating to Rs. 9,500 and, according to the petitioners, it failed and neglected to pay the balance of Rs. 58,262.30. In respect circumstances, the petitioners, by their advocate's letter, dated 27th September, 1975, gave statutory notice under section 434(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956, calling upon the company to pay the said balance within three weeks. 2. In its reply dated 4th October, 1975, the company pointed out that by their letter, dated 29th August, 1973, they had given complete details of the dispute with a request...
Tag this Judgment!Gulam Mohamed Yunus and anr. Vs. Lalchand Chelaram and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1976
Reported in: AIR1976Bom389
Dighe, J. 1. The point for determination in this Letters Patent Appeal is regarding the provisions of the Bombay Court-fees Act, 1959 under which the plaint in the suit should be charged.2. The trial Judge as well as the Appellate Judge have come to the conclusion that the suit was falling under Article 7 of the First Schedule of the Court-fees Act, 1959, and that valuation was more than Rs. 25,000/- and as such the City Civil Court had no jurisdiction.3. The dispute in this case related to the property in Kurla admittedly belonging to the two brothers Allarkhan Maulabax and Kallu Maulabax. Kallu died some 13 years before the suit leaving behind his widow Aishabai, the 2nd defendant. Plaintiff No. 2 Sheikh Abdul Kader happens to be her son. He has brothers and sisters. One of his sisters was married to Mohamed Yunus Allarkhan, the 3rd defendant. Plaintiff No. 1 is a minor, born of Yunus and Hussainbi, the 4th defendant. Plaintiff No. 1 claims under a will of Allarkhan to be his sole he...
Tag this Judgment!Ebrahim Yusuf Lambe Vs. Abdul Razak Abdul Rahiman Mulla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1976
Reported in: (1978)80BOMLR334
Deshpande, J.1. The petitioner applied to the Tahsildar for a declaration of his being the tenant of certain land. The application was made under Section 70(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Tenancy is claimed on the basis of contract with opponents' father and rent also is claimed to have been paid to him during his life time and thereafter to the opponents. Opponents denied all this. On evidence, the Aval Karkun accepted his claim. In an appeal by the opponents, the petitioner raised a preliminary point that Section 74(7) did not provide for any appeal, against such declaration under Section 70(b) of the Act. The Collector overruled this, saying that the petitioner is found to be a deemed tenant under Section 4 of the Act and hence appeal under Section 74(1)(a) was competent. The Revenue Tribunal declined to interfere in revision.2. In the case of Shantabai Ramchandra v. Pandurang (1972) 75 Bom. L.R. 79, Malvankar J., held tha...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Paramount Industrial Stores
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1976
Reported in: (1977)6CTR(Bom)213
Kania, J.1. This is a reference under section 34(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), made at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax. The facts giving rise to this reference are as follows : 2. The respondents-assesses were registered as a dealer under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1946, as well as under the said Act. In respect of the assessment periods from 1-4-1950 to 31-3-1951 and 1-4-1951 to 31-3-1952 respectively the assessees were assessed by the Sales Tax Officer, A Ward, on (9th July 1952. On 29th March 1956 the assessees were served by the Sales Tax Officer (I), Enforcement Branch, Bombay with a notice under S. 15(1) of the said Act in Form XIV stating, inter alia, that the Sales Tax Officer was satisfied that that assessees' turnover in respect of sales and purchases amounting to Rs. 12,75,000/- had escaped assessment for the period from 1-4-1950 to 31-3-1952 and directing the assessees to attend in person or by a legal practi...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Motiram Gangasa and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(Bom)257
Kania, J. 1. This is a reference under section 34(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), made at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax. The facts giving rise to this reference can be briefly stated : 2. The respondents-assesses were registered dealers under the said Act. The assessees have two shops, one at the village Poyanad and the other at the village Vadakal. In respect of the assessment period from 1-4-1956 to 31-3-1957 the assessees filed quarterly returns showing a particular gross turnover. The Sales Tax Officer, Thana and Kolaba districts, who dealt with the assessment of the assessees, issued notices for hearing on the assessees. The assessees appeared at the hearing and produced certain books of account on which they relied and which showed their gross turnover in a smaller sum than the one disclosed as per their returns. The Sales Tax Officer determined the gross turnover of the sales according to the returns and not accor...
Tag this Judgment!Extrusion Processes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kashibhai S. Patel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1976
Reported in: (1976)78BOMLR661
Vimadalal, J.1. This is a petition filed by a private limited company registered under the Companies Act and its shareholders representing one group, viz. the group of the second petitioner, against shareholders of the other group represented by the first respondent and some others, to set aside an award made by one N.M. Shah on June 30, 1967. Respondents Nos. 12 to 22 and 42 have not appeared at the hearing before me, but I have been told by Mr. Bhatt on behalf of the petitioners that they are supporting the petitioners. The facts of the case are very complicated, but it is not really necessary to refer to them in detail, as I am only concerned with the question as to whether the award made in the present case should be set aside on any of the grounds relied upon by the petitioners. It may be stated that, according to petitioners Nos. 2 to 5, disputes really started because respondents Nos. 1 to 7 and others commenced carrying on a business competing with the business of the first pet...
Tag this Judgment!Partap Singh Vs. Bank of America
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-1976
Reported in: [1976]46CompCas532(Bom)
Vimadalal, J.1. The plaintiff, who by profession is a medical man, has filed this suit against the Bank of America, National Trust and Savings Association, a corporation incorporated in the United States of America having an office in Bombay, which is its principal place of business in India as recorded in the office of the Registrar of Companies under section 592(1)(e) of the Companies Act, 1956. The plaintiff's case is that the defendant-bank had issued between October, 1966, and July, 1967, three time certificates of deposit in the name of the plaintiff for three different amounts aggregating to 46,020.86 U.S. Dollars, each of which was to mature six months after the date of its issue, and was to carry interest at the rate of 5 per cent. per annum. The plaintiff's case in paragraph 16 of the plaint is that, while in London, on 26th September, 1967, he happened to lose the said three time certificates of deposit which he had kept in one envelope, and in paragraph 19 of the plaint, it...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Bharat Pulverising Mills Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(Bom)406
Madon, J.1. The question which has submitted to us in this Reference under section 34(3) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, made at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax is the same as in Sales Tax Reference No. 32 of 1972 between the same parties which we have just decided. The period of assessment in this Reference is April 1, 1958 to March 31, 1959, and the question as in that other Reference is April 1, 1958 to March 31, 1959, and the question as in that other Reference turns upon the construction of Rule 11(1A) of the Bombay Sales Tax (Exemptions, Set-off and composition) Rules, 1954. During this period the said Rule 11(1A) was amended by submitting the words 'of the goods which have been so manufactured or processed by him' for the words 'of any goods manufactured or processed' by Government Notification in the Finance Department No. 1457/G. 1 dated February 24, 1959. 2. Both the parties before us were, however, agreed that this amendment made no difference to the interpr...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Cadbury Fry (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(Bom)441
Madon, J. 1. Two question shave been referred to us for our determination in this reference under section 61(2) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), made at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax These two question are :- 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that for the purpose of reducing set-off under clause (iii) of the Proviso to Explanation to Rule 41 of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959, one per cent. Should be calculated not on the entire sale price of the goods dispatched by the appellants to their branches, but only on that part of the sale price of the goods sold out-side the State which is attributable to the locally purchased raw material on which the appellants were claiming set-off 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that for the purpose of reducing set-off under clause (iii) of the Provi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »