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.
Bai Fatubai Fidaali Lala Vs. Yusufally Esmailjee Nagree
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Bom170; 1976MhLJ685
1. This appeal arises from a dispute between a brother and a sister in relation to a certain family property, which was dealt with as far back as 1951 in a partition deed between the plaintiff, as one of the sisters, and the other brothers and sisters including the defendant Yusufally as one of the brothers.2. In the events that happened an equitable mortgage appears to have been executed soon after the execution of the aforementioned partition deed by which the property in suit came to be owned by defendant Yusufally.3. It requires to be noticed that the equitable mortgage is evidenced by a registered document dated the 10th of June 1952, the document having been duly admitted and registered on the 25th of July 1952.4. Although the mortgage amount which was Rs. 11,000/- in so far as the plaintiff is concerned (the other sum of Rs. 11,000/- being due to the plaintiff's sister Safiabai since deceased) there was also a provision in the Indenture of mortgage itself that after the principa...
The Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Universal Flush Door Mfg. Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(Bom)362
Kania, J. 1. This is a reference under section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, made at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax. The question referred to us for our consideration is as follows : 'Whether having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the contracts entered into by the respondents with the two parties, namely, (1) Messrs. Poona Engineering & Construction Co. and (2) Messrs. Fadia Dalal & Co. were, barring items Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9, works contracts involving no sale of goods ?' This question is somewhat misleading, because admittedly items 6, 7, 8 and 9 referred to in the question are in connection with the contract between the assessees and M/s. Poona Engineering and Construction Company. Hence, we reframe the question as follows : 'Whether having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law holding that the contracts entered into by the respondents with the two ...
Dattatraya Mahadeo Virnodkar and ors. Vs. Shripad Hari Walke and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-1976
Reported in: AIR1976Bom398
1. This appeal arises from a suit originally filed by the respondent-plaintiff Shripad Hari Walke against Vishnu Ganesh Walke and others for redeeming the property described in the Plaint, which consists of one-third share in the house situated in Survey No. 82/2 Ubhya Bajar and entire share in another house situated in Survey No. 48/1 (Khaskilwada Bajar property) together with a Padvi attached to it. It appears that the property was mortgaged in favour of one Vishnu Ganesh Walke on 5-6-1915 by Narayan Laxman Walke on 5-6-1915 by Narayan Laxman Walke. Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 are the sons of the mortgage Vishnu Ganesh Walke. The other defendants have obtained interest of Narayan because in a Small Cause Suit there was a decree at the instance of one Mhapsekar. In Darkhast No 924 of 1922-23, right, title and interest of Narayan were sold in auction through Court and one Subhedar happened to be the purchaser of that interest on 30-1-1926. Subhedar was put in possession by Court. It was a s...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Mohamed Suleman Sumania and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ893
Vaidya, J.1. The above appeal is filed, under Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, contending that the sentences awarded against the respondents 1 to 12, who were the accused, in Criminal Case No. 405 of 1975, in the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade, Bombay, were grossly inadequate as after convicting each of them under Section 135(1)(i) read with Section 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 and under Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, the learned Magistrate ordered:(1) Accused Nos. 2 to 12 each sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 9 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- or to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days and accused No. 1 sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- or to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month; (2) Accused Nos. 1 to 12 each sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 9 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- or undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. Substant...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Tirathram Kashmirilal (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-1976
Reported in: (1977)6CTR(Bom)37
Madon, J.1. This is a reference under S. 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1959 Act') made at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax. 2. The respondents are the transferees of the business of one M/s. Tirathram Kashmirilal, a partnership firm. The said firm was registered as a dealer under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1953 Act'). Thereafter, the partners of the said firm formed a private limited company with the object of taking over the business of the said firm and accordingly, on November 1, 1959 the ownership of the business of the said firm was entirely transferred to the respondents. The respondents thereafter applied for within the prescribed period and obtained a registration certificate under the 1953 Act. The assets of the business of the said firm taken over by the respondents included certain stock of goods which was purchased by the said firm both from registered dealers and unregistered deale...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›