Mumbai Court January 1977 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. Sultan Shev Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-1977
Reported in: (1977)6CTR(Bom)385
Madon, J. 1. This Reference under S. 61 (1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, arises out of determination proceedings under S. 52(1) (e) of the said Act. 2. The Respondents, who are registered dealers under the said Act, sold five kilograms of Shevaya (that is, vermicelli) on August 8, 1967 at the rate of Rs. 1.25P. per kilogram. By their application dated September 13, 1967 made under the said S. 52 (1) (e) the Respondents stated that vermicelli so sold by them was prepared from maida purchased by them from Shetkari Sahakari Sangh Ltd. and the said commodity was exempted from tax under Schedule A to the said Act. After a personal hearing, the Respondents also set out their case in writing by their letter dated November 14, 1967 in which they clarified that the exemption they sought was under entry 10 of Schedule A to the said Act and that in the alternative, they claimed exemption under entry 5 of the said Schedule A. The said entry 10 of Schedule A, as in force at the relevant time ...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Sultan Shev Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-1977
Reported in: [1977]40STC583(Bom)
Madon, J. 1. This reference under section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, arises out of determination proceedings under section 52(1)(e) of the said Act. 2. The respondents, who are registered dealers under the said Act, sold five kilograms of Shevaya (that is, vermicelli) on 8th August, 1967, at the rate of Re. 1.25 per kilogram. By their application dated 13th September, 1967, made under the said section 52(1)(e), the respondents stated that vermicelli so sold by them was prepared from maida purchased by them from Shetkari Sahakari Sangh Ltd. and the said commodity was exempted from tax under Schedule A to the said Act. After a personal hearing, the respondents also set out their case in writing by their letter dated 14th November, 1967, in which they clarified that the exemption they sought was under entry 10 of Schedule A to the said Act and that, in the alternative, they claimed exemption under entry 5 of the said Schedule A. The said entry 10 of Schedule A, as in force a...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Voltas Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-12-1977
Reported in: (1977)6CTR(Bom)281
Madon, J.1. This reference under S. 61 (1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, arises out of determination proceedings under S. 52 of the said Act. 2. The respondents, Voltas Ltd. are a public limited company. At the relevant time they were acting as distributors for Kaira District Co-operative Milk Producers' Union, Anand, in the State of Gujarat. The said Union manufactures various products, including cheese. The cheese so manufactured by them was marketed in various forms, including in the form of cheese cubes or as they are referred to on the record, chaplets, packed in aluminium foils and sold under the trade name 'Amul'. On August 24, 1967 the respondents sold 40 packets of Amul Cheese to Messrs Empire Stores for a sum of Rs. 139.20p. Each of the said 40 packets contained ten cheese cubes or chaplets, each weighing 25 grams, packed in aluminium foils. In their cash memo in respect of the cheese so supplied to Messrs Empire Stores the respondents added a sum of Rs. 6.96p. for sales...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. National Chikki Mart
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-12-1977
Reported in: (1977)6CTR(Bom)296; [1977]39STC447(Bom)
Kania, J.1. This is a reference under S. 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 question referred to us for our determination is as follows : 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on correct interpretation of the scope of entry 6 of Schedule E to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that sales of 'Chikki' packed in heat-sealed polythene bags were not covered by the said entry ?' 2. The facts giving rise to this question are as follows : The respondent-firm is a manufacturer of Chikki and farcing and is a registered dealer under the said Act. It appears that the respondent sold the Chikki made by it in the following four ways (1) Loose, (2) In ordinary paper packing, (3) inserting the paper-packed Chikki in heat-sealed polythene bags, and (4) Putting Chikki in card-board box and inserting it in heat sealed polythene bags. ...
Ahamadalli Mahamad Hanif Makandar Vs. Rabiya Alias Babijan Hasan Shaik ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-12-1977
Reported in: (1978)80BOMLR238
Vaidya, J.1. The above petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, raises a very important point with regard to the construction of Section 127(3)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.2. The petitioner, Ahamadalli, was the husband of the respondent No, 1, Rabiya alias Babijan, who filed Miscellaneous Application No. 30 of 1974, on September 30, 1974, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, F.C. Sangli, claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs. 225 per month from her husband.3. She stated in the said application that she resided with the husband after the marriage from 1967 to 1971 and had a child from him. On April 27, 1972, her husband divorced her by publishing a Talaknama in Daily 'Navsandesh'. She was not consulted at the time of giving the said newspaper divorce. She stated that the husband had three to four acres of irrigated lands in village Alas in Shirol Taluka. He also carried on the business of crackers, poultry and dairy. Besides he was employed as a teach...
Rashid Hassanmiya Khandeshi Vs. the Competent Authority and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-12-1977
Reported in: 1978CriLJ1016
Shah, J.1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution has been filed by one Rashid Hassanmiya Khandeshi, who has been detained under the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act. After he was detained, the Competent Authority appointed under the provisions of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', served on him a notice under Section 6 (1) of the said Act. The Competent Authority in that notice stated that he had reason to believe that the property described in the schedule enclosed with the notice which were held by the detenu for or on his behalf were illegally acquired properties within the meaning of Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act, and called upon the detenu to Indicate to him within 35 days of the service of the notice on him the sources of his income, earnings or assets, out of which or by means of which h...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Asaram Mahadu Dwange
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-12-1977
Reported in: 1978CriLJ1017
Shah, J.1. This is an appeal by the State challenging the order of acquittal of the accused who was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad for committing the murder of his wife Nandabai by setting fire to her clothes after pouring kerosene on her, on the night between 13th and 14th May 1974.2. A few relevant facts leading to the prosecution may be stated thus : The deceased Nandabai was the wife of the accused Asaram. They were married about five years prior to the incident. The accused is a resident of village Manoor, while the parents of the deceased are from the village Pokheri. It appears that after the marriage, both Nandabai and the accused were staying with her parents at their house at Pokheri, According to the prosecution, the deceased Nandabai and her sister Sakhrabai, who is a young girl of 13 years, were both sleeping on the ota of the house, and the incident took place at about 2 a. m. Sakhrabai who was examined by the prosecution turned hostile and was cross-e...
Babasaheb Dnyanu Patil Vs. Shripatrao Shankarrao Bondre and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Bom177; 1977MhLJ61
Tulzapurkar, Ag. C. J.1. By this writ petition filed under Arts. 228 and 227 of the Constitution the petitioner (Babasaheb Dnyanu Patil of Bhuye, Taluka Karvir, District Kolhapur) is seeking to challenge the legality of the order passed by respondent No, 4 (Commissioner, Poona Division) on 11th August 1976, whereby the learned Commissioner rejected his request that he be declared to have been elected to the Board of Directors of respondent No. 2Bank (Kolhapur District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Kolhapur),2. A few facts giving rise to this petition may be stated. Respondent No. 2 Bank 13 a specified Society within the meaning of Section 73-G of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, the elections to the Board of Directors of which were required to be held through the Collector. It appears that the Board of Directors of respondent No. 2 Bank consisted of 18 Directors 17 elected and one nominee of the financing bank. The triennial elections to the Board of Directors for the...
Shaligram Gangaram Khandelwal Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-1977
Reported in: 1978CriLJ423
Shah, J.1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution arises out of an action taken against the petitioner under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for brevity's sake called 'the Act'). The petitioner is a trader dealing in sale and purchase of foodgrains at Dhulia and holds a valid licence for the same. On Jan. 31, 1975 the Assistant District Supply Officer searched his premises and found 39 bags of wheat and 52 bags of Bajra. On being questioned by the officer, the petitioner informed him that he had purchased the wheat in the market yard and the Bajra belonged to one Narayansing Lotusing Pardeshi of village Rajwal, and he was in possession thereof under an agreement of sale and that the same was brought in Dhulia by the said Pardeshi at about 8-30 p. m. on the previous day, that is, on January 30, 1975. It appears that this import was supported by an octroi receipt and the 52 bags of Bajra brought thereunder were actually brought to the petitioner's shop...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. 16/35 Movie Productions
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-1977
Reported in: (1977)6CTR(Bom)285
Madon, J.1. In this Reference under S. 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, made at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, the following two questions have been referred to us for our determination : '(1) Whether, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Tribunal was justified in law in coming to the conclusion that from the turnover of sales of films there should be deducted an amount of Rs. 17,125 paid to artists engaged in the making of such films (2) Whether, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the absence of any written contract, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the nature of the contract could not be in any manner different from the contracts which were the subject-matters of Messrs Cine Graphic Arts vs. The State of Bombay and Messrs Ama Advertising Films Private Ltd. vs. The State of Maharashtra ?' 2. This Reference has had a chequered history. It first reached before us on February 17, 1975....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »