Mumbai Court December 1977 Judgments
Ghudansaheb Mahibubsaheb Pirjade Vs. Allavali Abutrao Kazi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-22-1977
Reported in: (1979)81BOMLR275
R.M. Kantawala, C.J.1. The plaintiffs have filed this appeal against a concurrent decree passed by both the Courts dismissing their suit for redemption of a mortgage. In or about the year 1880 one Ashabi mortgaged her right title and interest in the suit property in favour of Mahmed Abdul Karim Mahmed Abutrao. In the year 1909 the suit was filed being suit No. 97 of 1909-1910 by one Gaisoddin to redeem that mortgage alleging that he was the nephew of Ashabi and also was a surety for the mortgagor. The right to redeem was disputed by the mortgagee or his successors-in-interest and Gaisoddin's right to redeem was not accepted and the suit was dismissed on that ground. That decision was confirmed in appeal being Appeal No. 10 of 1910-11. In the year 1968 the plaintiffs filed the present suit as co-owners in respect of the mortgaged property. It is not disputed before me that the plaintiffs are the successors-in-interest of Gaisoddin who instituted the suit in the year 1909 for redemption....
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Ravindra Heraeus Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-1977
Reported in: [1978]42STC66(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. 2. The question referred to us for our determination is as follows : 'Whether, on a true and proper interpretation of entry 1 of Schedule E to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, the Tribunal was correct in law in coming to the conclusion that 'platinum' was covered by the scope of the word 'bullion' used in the said entry ' 3. The facts giving rise to this question, briefly stated, are as follows : The respondents are registered as a dealer under the said Act. On 17th June, 1969, the respondents made an application to the Commissioner of Sales Tax under section 52(1)(e) of the said Act for determination of the rate of tax payable on the sales of platinum made by them as shown in a bill dated 28th February, 1969. It was stated in the application that the Fertiliser Corporation of India Ltd. had placed an o...
Tag this Judgment!Controller of Estate Duty, Bombay City-ii, Bombay Vs. Govindji Jethabh ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-1977
Reported in: [1978]115ITR664(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. One Jetha Virji died leaving behind his widow, Ramavahu, and sons and daughters whose exact number at the date of death of the said Virji is not known. However, the material point of time for the purposes of this reference if July 9, 1959, which is the date of death of the widow, Ramavahu. It is not in dispute that at that time the children of Virji living were two sons and two daughter. This disposition of the property made by the deceased, Virji, was made by a deed of trust dated February 13, 1922, and a will dated April 25, 1927. We are not concerned in this reference with the deed of trust dated February 13, 1922. We are only concerned with that part of the will of the deceased, Virji, which deals with his residuary property with regard to which directions were given by the deceased, Virji, in paragraph 9 of the will which reads as follows : 'I direct my Trustees to deal with the residue of my property as mentioned below. The residuary property shall be divided bet...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Bombay Commercial Traders
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-09-1977
Reported in: (1978)7CTR(Bom)363
Madon, J.1. This is a Reference under S. 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, read with S. 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. The question submitted to us for our determination in this Reference is as follows : 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the provisions of s. 36(3) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, could not be imported in the assessments under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, to levy penalty for late payment of central sales tax and that such penalty was without the authority of law ?' 2. The brief facts necessary to be related for the purpose of this Reference are that the respondents were registered as dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to and 'the Central Act'). In respect of the assessment period April 1, 1965 to March 31, 1966 the respondents were assessed to tax under the Central Act by the Sales Tax Officer, A Ward, Unit IV, Bombay, on February 18, 1969. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Controller of Estate Duty, Bombay City-i Vs. Sultan Alam Khan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-09-1977
Reported in: [1979]116ITR360(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. At the instance of the revenue, the following question has been referred to this court under s. 64(1) of the E.D. Act, 1953 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the property under consideration would pass on the death of the settlor under s. 12 of the Estate Duty Act ?' 2. One Mahumuden Nissa Begum died on 28th October, 1961. She along with her husband had created a waqf-alal-aulad by a deed dated 21st February, 1938, constituting the settlors as the trustees and the waqf was for the benefit of their children. The material clause, on the construction of which the decision of the question referred depends, reads as follows : 'Provided always that the settlors during their joint lives and after the death of either of them, their survivors shall be the sole managing trustees or trustee of these presents and the said third trustees Nawabzada Meer Sultan Alam Khan Saheb or any other person or persons shall not be entitled to interfere with the mana...
Tag this Judgment!Chandrakant Vishwanath Sawarkar Vs. District Deputy Registrar, Co-oper ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-09-1977
Reported in: (1978)80BOMLR455; 1978MhLJ526
Kambli, J.1. Heard the counsel, Mr. Daga for the petitioner, Mr. Salve for respondent No. 1 and Mr. Fuladi for respondent No. 2.2. By this writ petition, in substance, the petitioners seek to challenge and to get set aside the orders dated November 24, 1977 at Annexures D to G passed by respondent No. 3, rejecting the nomination papers of the petitioners. A notice before admission was issued. It is urged for the respondents that the matter constitutes a dispute under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, and the remedy of the petitioners is to file a dispute under that section after the elections of the Managing Committee are held. The question is whether the election of the members of the Managing Committee is covered by Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Section 91(1) of the Act provides:Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, any dispute touching the c...
Tag this Judgment!Misrilal Misra Vs. Ikram HuseIn and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-09-1977
Reported in: (1978)80BOMLR659
Naik, J.1. [After narrating facts, not material to the report, his Lordship proceeded.] It was argued by Mr. Keshavdas that the Court has no power to grant temporary mandatory injunction and that in any event mandatory injunction could be granted only to maintain the status quo as on the date of the suit, for special reasons after proof of the prima facie case and the balance of convenience. In support of his submission that the Court has no power to grant inter-locutory mandatory injunction he has relied upon the observations of Bea-man J. which are made in Rasul v. Pirubhai : AIR1914Bom42 . Beaman J. who formed a division Bench with Shah J., no doubt observed as under (p. 291):.It has always been, in my opinion, a very open question whether in strictness a mandatory injunction can properly be made on interlocutory applications. In England whatever doubts may have existed on this point may be said to have been removed by Section 25 of the Judicature Act, and it has long been a common ...
Tag this Judgment!Menaben V. Parikh Vs. Controller of Estate Duty, Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-1977
Reported in: [1979]116ITR840(Bom)
Desai, J.1. In this reference we are concerned with the estate of the deceased, V. M. Parikh. The reference is at the instance of the accountable person under s. 64(1) of the E.D. Act, 1953. 2. The said V. M. Parikh (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') died on 9th January, 1961, and the accountable person is the legal heir of the deceased. The deceased was a salaried employee of M/s. Batliboi & Co. (as the name appears in the statement of case but which we are told is a limited company) for over 20 years prior to his death. He was to be paid monthly Rs. 150 or three annas nine pies in a rupee in the net profits of the business, whichever was higher. The deceased expired on 9th January, 1961. The accounting period of M/s. Batliboi & Co. (hereinafter referred to as 'the company') ended on 30th June of every year. Accordingly, the salary payable to him from July 1, 1960, to January 9, 1961, when calculated on the basis of the share of profit came to Rs. 6,75,244. Obviously, the com...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Shantilal Kalidas and Bros.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-1977
Reported in: [1978]42STC166(Bom)
Madon, J.1. These are two references under section 34(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, in each of which the following two questions have been referred to us : '(1) Whether the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that an authority acting under section 15 of the Bombay sales Tax Act, 1953, cannot resort to best judgment assessment (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a true and proper interpretation of section 15 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the Sales Tax Officer (VIII), Enforcement Branch, Bombay, could not initiate the proceedings under that section on the ground that the original assessment under section 14 of the said Act was passed by the Sales Tax Officer, C Ward, Bombay ?' 2. The brief facts necessary for deciding these references are that the respondents were registered as a dealer under the said Act. Their assessments for the period 1st April, 1955, to 31st March, 1956, and 1st April, ...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesh Narayan Dangre Vs. Eknath Hari Jhampe and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-07-1977
Reported in: 1978CriLJ1009; 1978MhLJ387
ORDERKambli, J.1. This revision application is directed against an order dated 23rd December 1976 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hinganghat in Criminal Case No. 566 of 1975, who dismissed the complaint filed by the applicant's wife, deceased Mirabai, and discharged the opponents Nos. 1 to 3 of the offences under sections 423 and 465 of the Indian Penal Code. This discharge purports to be under Section 249 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (new).2. The case of deceased Mirabai, the original complainant, against the opponents Nos. 1 to 3 was that opponent No. 1 Eknath was her tenant, that he had fallen into arrears of rent and, therefore, she served him with a notice through her advocate on 19th November 1974 to pay the arrears of rent and vacate the house. Opponent No. 1, though he received a notice, did not comply with it. Instead he started saying that he had purchased the house from the complainant. When the complainant heard about It she became alarmed and made enqu...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »