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.
The Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. SaThe Biscuits and Chocolate Co. Ltd ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(Bom)454
Madon, J. 1. This is a consolidated Reference made at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax under section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, in respect of four assessment period viz. January 1, 1960 to March 31, 1960, April 1, 1960 to March 31, 1961, April 1, 1961 to March 31, 1962 and April 1, 1962 to March 31, 1963. 2. This Reference also deals with the amount of set-off to be given to a dealer in respect of the tax paid by him or collected from him on purchase of raw materials which have gone into the manufacture or taxable goods for sale or as packing materials and containers for such manufactured goods which have been despatched by the manufacturing dealer to his branches outside the State but within India and sold by such branches complying with the conditions prescribed in that behalf. The set-off to which the respondents were entitled was under the Explanation to R. 41 of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959 during the period January 1, 1960 to July 15, 1962 and under...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Jai Hind Oil Mills Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1976
Reported in: [1977]40STC60(Bom)
Madon, 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. At all material times the respondents were registered as dealers under the said Act. At the relevant time the respondents carried on the business as manufacturers of coconut oil. They sold the oil manufactured by them both locally as also outside the State through their branches in those States to whom they had dispatched 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 respondents 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 Tax Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Rules'...
Balakrishna Vs. Nagnath Arjuna Kavlee
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1976
Reported in: AIR1976Bom443; (1978)80BOMLR474; 1976MhLJ800
ORDER1. The revision petitioner Balakrishna alias Balaji Mukkawar had filed an application before the Rent Controller, Latur under Section 15 of the Hyderabad Houses (Rent Eviction and Lease) Control act, 1954. (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), against the present respondent Nagnath Arjun Kawale, for eviction. It related to the premises bearing Municipal House No. 114/5-B, situated in Latur. According to the averments in the petition, the respondent failed to make payment of the rent as agreed and never paid it within the stipulated period. It was also stated that the petitioner had large scale business at Latur and the petitioner intended to shift himself to Latur form Udgir to carry on his business profitably and economically. IN this connection it was further stated that the petitioner bona fide intended to occupy the house premises let out to the respondent for personal use. He had no other premises of his won in his occupation where he could carry on his business and prov...
Vera D. Thackersey Vs. Bai Manekbai Annasaheb Thackersey
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Bom419; (1976)78BOMLR543
Lentin, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 16th April 1975 passed by the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Poona, returning to the petitioner, who is the appellant before us, her application for letters of administration together with all documents, for presentation to the District Judge, Poona, under Section 288 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. 2. On 6th October 1973, one D. A. Thakersey died intestate at Poona, leaving a large estate. His widow, namely the appellant, filed Application No. (146 of 1974) 376 of 1974 for letters of administration in the Court of the learned District Judge at Poona. This application was ordered to be registered on 20th June 1974. On 24th June 1974, the learned District Judge transferred the matter for disposal to the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Poona. Thereafter, the deceased's mother, one Manekbai, who is the respondent before us, filed a caveat, the contents whereof are not mater...
Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Dinanath Mahadeo Tembhekar and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-1976
Reported in: AIR1976Bom395; 1976MhLJ369
ORDER1. The document at Annexure A-2 along with the revision produced in Civil Suit No. 28 of 1971 is tried to be impounded by holding it to be a lease within the meaning of clause (n) of Section 2 of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 and duty and penalty has been demanded applying Article 36 (vii) of that Act. 2. The concerned document purports to be of 3rd July 1974 and recites amongst other that certain terms and conditions were put forward and were being accepted. Those terms are set out as terms and conditions under the signature of tenants. Document produced at Annexure A-1 of 1-8-1968 is a letter sending three months' rent for the block allotted. In the disputed document itself, there is no demise of the property, not under it the lease agreed between the parties is mentioned. The sum and substance of the entire document is laying down certain conditions that would be binding on the tenant and the Corporation the lessor during the continuance of the demise which is not witnessed by the...
Bhaskar Digambar Choudhary Vs. Bhagwan Vishwanath Fadnis
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-1976
Reported in: (1976)78BOMLR454
Sawant, J.1. [After narrating the facts, His Lordship said.] It must be noted in this connection that the provisions of the second part of Sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the said Act cast a duty on the Court, before passing a decree of eviction in respect of the entire premises, to satisfy itself that no hardship will be caused either to the tenant or to the landlord by passing a decree in respect of a part of the premises only, and if it comes to the conclusion that no such hardship would be caused, then the Court has to pass a decree for eviction in respect of such part of the premises only. In other words, it is only if the Court comes to the conclusion that hardship would be caused either to the tenant or to the landlord by passing a decree in respect of a part of the premises that the Court under the provisions of Section 13(7)(g) should proceed to pass a decree in eviction in respect of the entire premises, and not otherwise. This being a, statutory enjoinment upon the Court, i...
Binod Rao Vs. Minocher Rustom Masani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-1976
Reported in: (1976)78BOMLR125
Madon, J.1. In a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed on the Original Side of this High Court, Bhatt J., by his judgment and order dated November 25/26, 1975 set aside the orders dated July 15, 1975 passed by the appellant prohibiting publication of articles, reports, letters and quotations, aggregating in all to eleven in number, intended for publication in the August 1975 issue of the monthly journal the 'Freedom First' edited by the respondent. Bhatt J., also issued a writ of mandamus directing the appellant, his officers, subordinates, servants, agents and successors-in-office to withdraw or cancel the said orders and further directing the appellant to permit the publication of the said articles, reports, letters and quotations and further directing the appellant, his officers, subordinates, servants and agents to forbear from acting in furtherance or implementation of the said orders. Bhatt J., further ordered the appellant to pay to the respondent the costs of the...
Consolidated Crop Protection Pvt. Ltd. Vs. V. Hema Chandra Rao
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-1976
Reported in: (1976)78BOMLR246; (1977)ILLJ114Bom
1. A very short question arises in this petition as to the correct meaning of S. 12 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Family Pension Fund Act, 1952 (Act 19 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Provident Fund Act'). 2. Very few facts which deserve to be noted and which do not seem to be in dispute are these : The Provident Fund Act became applicable some time in the year 1952. The petitioners had their factory at Santacruz and the head office at Tarabaug Estate, Charni Road, Bombay. The Provident Fund Act was obviously applicable to the factory and the head office of the petitioners. The petitioner-company, however, applied on June 24, 1964, to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner for exemption from the statutory scheme of 1952 because they had their own voluntary Provident Fund Scheme, which was more beneficial to the employees at both the places. It was pointed out that the contribution of the employees was 12 1/2 per cent and that of the employers was 10 per cent of the ...
The Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Tejco Industries
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(Bom)333; [1976]384STC93(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 facts giving rise to this reference are as follows : 2. By their application dated 5th May, 1966 made to the applicant, the Commissioner of Sales Tax, the respondents, requested the Commissioner to determine in exercise of the powers vested in him under section 52(1)(e) of the said Act the rate of tax payable in respect of sales of certain magnifying glasses made by the respondents evidenced by their Bill No. 118 dated 28th March 1966. The statements made in this application show that the respondents carried on the business of manufacturing optical appliances and brass parts. Magnifying glasses have been referred to in this application as 'optical appliances' these being the words used in the brackets after the expression 'magnifying glasses.' It was submitted by the respondents that these magnifyin...
Pandurang and anr. Vs. Saraswatibai and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1976
Reported in: AIR1976Bom369; 1976MhLJ561
ORDER1. In Special Civil Suit No. 12 of 1971 filed by the Plaintiff, the following decree was passed by the trial Court on July 29, 1972. 'The suit is decreed. The Plaintiff is the owner of half of Survey Nos. 97, 94, 76 and 84 in her own rights after the death of Ansabai and it is declared that the plaintiff has preferential right to purchase other half of the fields S. Nos. 97 and 94 under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act. The Plaintiff should deposit the amount of Rs. 11,000/- in the court towards the price of half share in suit fields S. Nos. 97 and 94 belonging to the defendant No. 1 within three months. On depositing the amount of Rupees 11,000/- by the plaintiff in the Court the amount of Rs. 7,857/- should be paid to the defendant Pandurang and the amount of Rs. 3,143/- should be paid to the defendant Vaijanath. On depositing the amount as stated above the defendants Nos. 1 to 3 should execute sale deed in respect of the suit fields S. Nos. 97 and 94 in favour of the pl...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »