Mumbai Court December 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.
Paper Products Limited Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1977
Reported in: 1981(8)ELT538(Bom)
1. - This is a petition for claiming refund of the Customs duty paid in excess of 50% upon the importation of Vegetable Perchment paper and Glassine paper. All paper is liable to duty under item 44 of the First Schedule to Indian Tariff Act, 1934. The Government has the power under section 25 to grant exemption from duty either generally or with conditions from the payment of duty, certain articles. This power is to be exercised by issuing a notification. 2. Such a notification was issued by the Government of India on 28th February, 1965 under which as many as nine varieties of papers were exempted from paying duty in excess of 50% where the initial duty payable was 100%. The importers had to pay 100% duty on all these papers initially. We are concerned in this case with item 5 in this notification, being Greaseproof paper. 3. According to the Petitioners, they imported various kinds of paper including the three varieties which were a trade name Greaseproof paper, Vegetable Perchment p...
Janakibai Ramchandra Salvi Vs. Vasant Laxman Salvi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1977
Reported in: (1979)81BOMLR268
R.M. Kantawala, C.J.1. These two appeals arise out of a decree for partition passed by the learned District Judge, Ratnagiri modifying the decree that was passed by the trial Court. A decree came to be passed in a suit filed by Vasant Laxman Salvi for equitable partition and separate possession of his share in the suit-property. The parties are related to each other and it will be more appropriate if reference is made to the genealogy which is referred to in the first paragraph of the judgment of the appellate Court. One Tanbarao died in or about the year 1904 leaving him surviving his widow Sundra alias Kannadiakka and three sons, Ramchandra alias Dada, Laxman alias Aba and Vithal alias Daji. Ramchandra died on or about June 7, 1956 leaving his widow Janaki alias Vahini, defendant No. 7 and three daughters Shalini Malini and Nalini who are not parties to the suit. Laxman died on or about July 27, 1940 leaving him surviving his aunt Anandi defendant No. 8 and six sons and a daughter, n...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. India Electric Corporation
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-1977
Reported in: (1978)80BOMLR291
R.M. Kantawal, C.J.1. The question as regards privilege claimed against disclosure of certain document by the State of Maharashtra has arisen in a suit filed by a contractor against the State Government for damages on the ground that the breach of contract was committed by the State Government. The suit was defended by the State Government and ultimately issues were framed on April 30, 1970. During the pendency of the suit, on July 1, 1974 the advocate of the plaintiff addressed a representation to the Minister for Buildings and Communications, State of Maharashtra, asking for his intervention in the matter so as to find out some solution without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in the matter. After his representation was received by the Minister, the Minister in his turn called for a note or report from the Additional Chief Engineer in charge of the Department. Such note or report was submitted by him to the Minister on October 19, 1974. On October 20, 1976 the p...
Dundyappa Sivappa Patil Vs. Surendra Bhima Rajmane
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-1977
Reported in: (1978)80BOMLR284
Jahagirdar, J.1. An interesting question relating to the interpretation of Sub-section (2) of Section 88D of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act has been raised in this petition. The proceedings contemplated under Sub-section (2) of Section 88D arise after a certificate which is issued under Section 88C of the Tenancy Act is revoked. As is well-known, a certificate under Section 88C is issued to a landlord whose holding does not exceed economic holding and whose total annual income including the rent of such land does not exceed Rs. 1,500. If, however, the annual income of the person exceeds Rs. 1,500 or the total holding of such person exceeds the economic holding, the State Government is empowered to revoke the certificate which has been granted under Section 88C. The order revoking the certificate is, however, required to specify the date with effect from which the revocation is to take effect and also it has to be published in a manner which is said to be publication in t...
Dhondopant Madhavrao Inde Vs. Ashok Haribhau Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-1977
Reported in: (1979)81BOMLR265; 1978MhLJ773
Vaidya, J.1. The above First Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated November 7, 1969, passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhir, decreeing the suit, filed by respondent No. 1, against the appellant, who was defendant No. 1; and his father, defendant No. 2, for declaring that the sale-deed, dated March 8, 1965, executed by defendant No. 2, in favour of defendant No. 1, was ineffective and not binding on the plaintiff, to the extent of his interest in the property; and that the plaintiff should be put in possession of the suit-land, to the extent of half, bearing S- No. 104, measuring 19 acres 16 gunthas, assessed at Rs. 39.64 p., situated in village Pimpalner, Taluka Bhir, District Bhir, partition in respect of which had to be made by the Collector, or his gazetted subordinate, under Section 54 of the Civil Procedure Code; and directing further an inquiry under Order XX, Rule 12(i)(c) of the Civil Procedure Code, for mesne profits, from the date of the suit, ti...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Dharampur Leather Cloth Company Private ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-1977
Reported in: [1978]41STC274(Bom)
Madon, J.1. These are three references made by the Sales Tax Tribunal at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax. The respondents in all these references are the same and two identical questions have been referred to us in each of these references. The material facts necessary for deciding these references are also the same, the only difference being that Sales Tax Reference No. 100 of 1976 is under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, in respect of the assessment period 1st April, 1958, to 31st March, 1959; Sales Tax Reference No. 101 of 1976 is under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, in respect of the assessment period 1st April, 1959, to 31st December, 1959; and Sales Tax Reference No. 102 of 1976 is under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, in respect of the assessment period 1st April, 1959, to 31st December, 1959. Sales Tax Reference No. 101 of 1976 is made under section 34(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, while the other two references are made under the said section 34(1) rea...
Shri Noor Mohammad Sultan Mohammed Vs. Devilal Chunilal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-1977
Reported in: (1978)80BOMLR280
Naik, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Bombay, dated April 14, 1977 making the defendant-appellant's notice of motion dated March 31, 1977 absolute and setting aside the ex parte decree passed against the defendant on March 2, 1977 on condition that the defendant deposits the decretal amount in Court within a week and that on defendant's failure to deposit the decretal amount in Court the said notice of motion to stand dismissed without further express orders of Court.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal which are not in dispute are briefly these: Summary suit No. 634 of 1972 was filed by the plaintiff respondent on the strength of a pro-note dated January 16, 1969 for Rs. 3,400 alleged to have been executed by the defendant-appellant. It appears that at the summons stage there was an ex parte decree on June 4, 1972. That ex pane decree was set aside and unconditional leave to defend was in fact granted to the defendant. The defe...
Shivmanik Dattatraya Shivangikar Vs. Latur Municipal Council
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-1977
Reported in: (1978)80BOMLR457; 1978MhLJ826
Jahagirdar, J.1. This is a group of petitions challenging the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Osmanabad sitting in revision over the order passed by the learned Magistrate of Latur in appeals arising out of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965. All the petitioners are the owners of properties situated at Latur town a taluka place in Osmanabad District. The Municipal Council of Latur is a 'B' class municipality as per Schedule I of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1965'. The Municipal Council of Latur fixed the rateable value of the buildings and after doing so imposed consolidated property tax at 19 per cent, of the rateable value under Section 105(2) of the Act of 1965. In pursuance of the imposition of this tax, a bill was presented to each of the petitioners who challenged the same in thei appeals before the Judicial Magistrate under Section 169 of the Act of 1965. All the appeals came to be dismissed and t...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Jayantilal Kalidas Mehta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-1977
Reported in: (1978)80BOMLR649; 1978MhLJ756
Dighe, J.1. A common point of law arises in these two Criminal Revision Applications, filed by the State, against the order of discharge, passed by the Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, 2nd Court, Mazgaon, Bombay on October 18, 1976. The respondent-original accused is also common.2. Case No. 2505/P of 1974 and case No. 2506/P of 1974, were filed against the respondent Jayantilal Kalidas Mehta, who is the Proprietor of M/s Pravinchandra Jagdishkumar & Co. He was assessed for sales tax for the Samvat year 2023 and on his producing certificates in Form No. 16, deductions were granted to him. It appears for the period June 4, 1967 to July 28, 1967, on the basis of a declaration of one Chandrakant S. Sahu, deductions to the extent of Rs. 24,600 were granted to the accused. Similarly, for the period between June 5, 1967 to October 15, 1967, on the basis of a declaration of one Hiralal Gandhi, deductions to the extent of Rs. 51,923 were granted. Both these persons deny having signed any suc...
Marathwada Wakf Board Vs. Shazadi Bi Haseem
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-1977
Reported in: (1979)81BOMLR257
Vaidya, J.1. [His Lordship after narrating facts proceeded.] 2. The Principles of Mahomedan Law relating to the burial ground or Kabarstan;3. Ameer Ali has stated the principles at pp. 406 and 407 of vol. I of Mahommedan Law, on the basis of Fatawai Alamgiri as follows;'Auzjundi being asked with regard to a masjid for which there no longer remained a congregation and all around it had gone to decay, whether it was lawful to convert it into a cemetery, answered 'No' and being asked with regard to a cometery, in a village, where it had gone to decay, and there remained in it no traces of the dead, not even bones, whether it was lawful to sow the land and take its produce, answered 'No' for in legal effect it is still a cemetery. 'A man makes his land a cemetery or an inn the kharaj abates, if the land were kharaji, and this is correct.when a woman has made a cemetery of part of her land, divesting herself of the property and has buried her son in it, but the piece of land is unfit for a ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »