Mumbai Court February 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.
Dattatraya Devidas Didolkar and ors. Vs. Vice Chancellor, Nagpur Unive ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-1976
Reported in: AIR1976Bom276
Dharmadhikari, J.1. The petitioner in this case are members of the Nagpur University Senate as constituted under Section 20 of the Nagpur University Act, 1974, referred to hereinafter as the Act.. The petitioner at present are detained under Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act in Central Jail, Nagpur. 2. It appears from the record that the Register of the Nagpur University under the directions of the Chancellor has convened annual meeting of the University Senate on Saturday the 21st February 1976, at 11.00 a.m. under Section 21 (1) of the Act. The relevant items which are germane to the controversy involved in this petition are items Nos. 2 and 3 of the agenda, which read as under:--'Item 2, To elect members to the Executive Council as under from amongst members of the Senate:-- (a) Two principals, under Section 23 (1) (vii) of the Act. (b) Two teachers, under Section 23 (1) (vii) of the Act, other than Principal and Heads of University Departments. (c) Seven persons...
The Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. A-1 Engineering Company
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(Bom)485; [1976]37STC608(Bom)
Kania, J.1. This is a reference purported to be made, under section 34(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax. 2. The facts giving rise to this reference are as follows : The respondents were a registered dealer under the said Act. In respect of the assessment period from 1-4-1954 to 31-3-1956 the respondents were assessed by the Sales Tax Officer in respect of the tax payable by them under the said Act and demand notices were issued against them on 30-11-57. These demand notices determined the respondent's liability to pay tax at Rs. 7,923.28. The respondents preferred an appeal against this assessment to the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax and thereafter filed a revision application before the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax. In both these proceedings the respondents failed. The respondents then went by way of further revision before the Sales Tax Tribunal but there also their application...
In Re: Jaifabs Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1976
Reported in: [1977]47CompCas434(Bom)
Aggarwal, J.1. The company had been wound up by my judgment and order dated 6th/9th February, 1976. As regards the question of costs of the company, the question was left open in order to enable to learned counsel, Mr. Kotwal, for the company to cite some authorities. This matter has now come up for consideration of the question of costs of the company. 2. Mr. Kotwal has placed reliance on the observations of Pennycuick, J. in the matter of In re Bostels Ltd. [1969] 38 Comp Cas 209 (Ch D) in which case the learned judge had to consider the question of costs. In that case, the original petitioner (the Lawford Asphalte Co. Ltd.), for a compulsory winding-up order after spending Pounds 35 to Pounds 50 on advertising the petition, accepted payment of its debt and most of its cots from the company. The petition was when amended, pursuant to the order of the court, by substituting another creditor as petitioner, re-advertisement being dispensed with the original petitioner remaining in the p...
The Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Modern Mercantile Works
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(Bom)372
Madon, J. 1. This Reference under section 34(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, has been made at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax. The Respondent firm, which is the assessee in this case, is a sole proprietary concern of which upto December 20, 1963 the sole proprietor was one R. A. Parikh. Parikh died on December 20, 1963 leaving him surviving as his heir and legal representative, his widow. After Parikh's death his widow continued the business of the Respondent firm. The Respondent firm was registered as a dealer under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1953 Act'), and was at all material times registered as a dealer under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1959 Act'). For the period April 1, 1959 to December 31, 1959 the Respondent firm was assessed to sales tax by the Sales Tax Officer by his assessment order dated June 13, 1962. On December 13, 1963 the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax served a notice of...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Modern Mercantile Works
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1976
Reported in: [1976]384STC372(Bom)
Madon, J. 1. This reference under section 34(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, has been made at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax. The respondent-firm, which is the assessee in this case, is a sole proprietary concern of which up to 20th December, 1963, the sole proprietor was one R. A. Parikh. Parikh died on 20th December, 1963, leaving him surviving as his heir and legal representative his widow. After Parikh's death his widow continued the business of the respondent-firm. The respondent-firm was registered as a dealer under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1953 Act'), and was at all material times registered as a dealer under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1959 Act'). For the period 1st April, 1959, to 31st December, 1959, the respondent-firm was assessed to sales tax by the Sales Tax Officer by his assessment order dated 13th June, 1962. On 13th December, 1963, the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax se...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. M.A. HooseIn and Bros.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(Bom)250; [1976]384STC487(Bom)
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. 2. The facts giving rise to this reference are, briefly, as follows : At the relevant time, the respondents, who were a registered dealer under the said Act, carried on business as importers and, inter alia, imported from Italy woollen rugs (hereinafter referred to as 'the said goods'). On 19th November, 1956, the said goods landed at Bombay and on 30th November, 1956, the same were cleared from the customs. On 18th December, 1956, the respondents made out a bill on M/s. Beharilal Dewanchand, Bombay, in regard to the said goods for Rs. 29,585-11-0 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said amount'). This bill shows that the said goods were sold under K and N forms and that delivery of the said goods was effected. In their assessment for the period 1st April, 1956, to 31st March, 1957, the said amount was sh...
The Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. M. A. HooseIn and Bros.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(Bom)0250A
Kania, J. - 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.2. The facts giving rise to this reference are, briefly, as follows : At the relevant time, the respondents who were a registered dealer under the said Act, carried on business as importers and, inter alia, imported from Italy woollen rugs (hereinafter referred to as 'the said goods'). On 19-11-1956 the said goods landed at Bombay and on 30-11-1956 the same were cleared from the Customs. On 18-12-1956 the respondents made out a bill on M/s. Beharilal Dewanchand, Bombay in regard to the said goods for Rs. 29,585-11-0 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said amount'). This bill shows that the said goods were sold under K and N from and that delivery of the goods was effected. In their assessment for the period 1-4-1956 to 31-3-1957 the said amount was shown by the respondents-assesses in their total turnover,...
The Commissioner of Sales-tax Vs. Nagji Achaldas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(Bom)270
Kania, J. 1. This is a Reference under section 34(1) read with section 50(2) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, made at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax. The facts giving rise to this reference are as follows : 2. The relevant assessment period is from 1-4-1949 to 31-10-1952 but the period to which the dispute in the reference is from 1-1-1950 to 31-3-1951, which we propose to refer to as 'the disputed period'. In respect of the disputed period, the assessees, who are the respondents before us, included in their total turnover a sum of Rs. 21,19,216-13-3 as representing sales effected by them in the course of the interstate trade and commerce and paid, along with their returns, tax at the reduced rate prescribed in respect of that amount. We propose to refer to this amount paid as tax at the reduced rate as 'the disputed amount' and the turnover to which it relates as 'the disputed turnover'. The assessees subsequently filed revised returns and claimed exemption from payme...
Smt. Mehbubabi Nasir Shaikh Vs. Nasir Farid Shaikh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-1976
Reported in: (1976)78BOMLR258; 1976MhLJ631
Vaidya, J.1. The above petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by Smt. Mehbubabi, wife of respondent No. 1, who had filed an application, being Miscellaneous Application No. 44 of 1974, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sangli, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1978, in which she had claimed maintenance from her husband, respondent No. 1, Nasir Farid Shaikh, a business man of Sangli at the rate of Rs. 450 per month as maintenance for herself and her two title children born out of respondent No. 1.2. The application was made by her on December 81, 1974, under Section 125 of the new Criminal Procedure Code, which defines 'wife' as including a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from her husband and has not remarried and does not exclude Muslim wives notwithstanding that under Muslim law, a divorced wife would be entitled to maintenance only upto the period of Iddat.3. The application was resisted by t...
The Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Jai Hind Oil Mills Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(Bom)432
Madon, J. 1. This is 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. At all material times the respondents were registered were registered as dealers under the said Act. At the relevant time the respondents carried on the business as manufacturers of account oil. They sold the oil manufactured by them both locally at also outside the State through their branches in those States to whom they had despatched stocks of oil. For the purpose of selling oil manufactured by them the respondents purchased drums and tins from unregistered dealers. In respect of the purchases so made the respondent were liable to pay the purchase tax under section 13 of the said Act, which they duly paid along with the returns filed by them. The question which arises in this Reference is the amount of set off under the relevant rule of the Bombay Sales, 1959 (hereinafter referred to us 'the said Rul...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »