Mumbai Court March 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.
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Rowe and Rowe
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1977
Reported in: (1977)6CTR(Bom)560
Madon, J. 1. The facts which have given rise to the above four References are that one B.R. Rowe was, prior to February, 12, 1963, carrying on business under the trade name and style of Messrs Rowe and Rowe, as the sole proprietor thereof. For the assessment periods April 1, 1954 to March 31, 1955, April 1, 1955 to March 31, 1956, April 1, 1956 to March 31, 1957 and April 1,1957 to March 31, On March 25, 1963 a notice was served upon the said Rowe to show cause why his assessment for the period April 1, 1954 to March 31, 1955 should not be revoked. On December 2, 1963 the said Rowe entered into an agreement with one P. G. Bhuleskar, an employee of his, to carry on the said business of Messrs Rowe and Rowe in partnership with him. On January 9, 1964 the said Rowe died, and information of his death was given by the said Bhuleskar to the Sales Tax Officer by his letter dated January 28, 1964. After the death of the said Rowe a notice was served upon the said Bhuleskar on March 2, 1964 to ...
Mahalakshmi Glass Works (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1977
Reported in: (1977)6CTR(Bom)750
Kania, J. 1. These are two references under section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), made at the instance of the applicants-assessees. Sales Tax Reference No. 8 of 1976 pertains to the period 1-1-1964 to 31-12-1964 and Sales Tax Reference No. 23 pertains to the period 1-1-1965 to 31-12-1965 The same questions have been referred to us in these two references and the material facts are the same. Both these references have been made by a common order and on a common statement of facts. In these circumstances, we are disposing of the said references by a common Judgment. 2. The assessees are a private limited company and are manufacturers of glass bottles. The assessees are dealers registered under the said Act. In February 1960 the Public Relations Officer of the sales tax department issued a Bulletin wherein it was stated that empty glass bottles would be covered by entry 22 of Schedule E to the said Act, the said entry being the residu...
Mahalakshmi Glass Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1977
Reported in: [1977]40STC488(Bom)
Kania, J. 1. These are two references under section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), made at the instance of the applicant-assessees. Sales Tax Reference No. 8 of 1976 pertains to the period 1st January, 1964, to 31st December, 1964, and Sales Tax Reference No. 23 of 1976 pertains to the period 1st January, 1965, to 31st December, 1965. The same questions have been referred to us in these two references and the material facts are the same. Both these references have been made by a common order and on a common statement of facts. In these circumstances, were are disposing of the said references by a common judgment. 2. The assessees are a private limited company and are manufacturers of glass bottles. The assessees are dealers registered under the said Act. In February, 1960, the Public Relations Officer of the Sales Tax Department issued a bulletin wherein it was stated that empty glass bottles would be covered by entry 22 of Schedule...
Balshiram Rambhau Awate Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1977
Reported in: 1978CriLJ821
Deshmukh, J.1. This is an appeal by the accused who has been convicted Under Section 307 I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer R.I. for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 in default to suffer further R.I. for one year. We are inclined to dismiss this appeal summarily. However, it appears to us that an offence of perjury seems to have been committed by at least three witnesses against whom appropriate action has not been taken by the trial Court. It is, therefore, necessary to record our reasons why we not only dismiss the appeal summarily but decide to hold a summary inquiry for the purpose of taking appropriate action Under Section 340 of the Cr. P. C 1073.2. The accused is the elder brother of victim Damodar. Very briefly stated the prosecution case was that a meeting was arranged on the Otta of one Chaskar in the village Mhalunge for the purpose of effecting a partition of property between the victim Damodar and his elder brother Balshiram the accused. Some leading villagers were pr...
Controller of Estate Duty, Bombay City, Bombay Vs. Kantilal Nemchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-1977
Reported in: [1978]115ITR89(Bom)
Tulzapurkar, J. 1. In this reference made to this court by the Tribunal under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act the following question has been referred for our opinion : 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in directing the inclusion of only the value of 1/4th of the goodwill and the tenancy rights in the principal value of the estate that passed on to the heirs on the death of Nemchand Laherchand ?' 2. The facts giving rise to the question lie in a very narrow compass. One Nemchand Laherchand was carrying on business in the name and style of Kirtilal & Co., as its sole proprietor till November 9, 1950. On November 10, 1950 he converted his proprietary business into a partnership business by admitting his son, Kirtilal, as a partner with share of 6 annas in the profits and losses. He retained for himself 10 annas share. Later on by a deed dated November 10, 1956, the shares of the two partners were reshuffled. Nemchand's share was reduc...
Union Sales Corporation Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-1977
Reported in: (1977)6CTR(Bom)550; [1977]39STC452(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'). The question referred to us for our determination is as follows : 'Whether, on a proper interpretation of entry 56 of Schedule C to the Act and upon consideration of the data about motorised elevator mobile copper roller storage racks, the article is covered by entry 56 of Schedule C to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 ?' 2. As will be clear from our judgment, this question arises from a decision of the Tribunal which deals with the assessment of the applicant-assessed for the period from 1st November, 1969, to 31st October, 1970, and also with the determination made by the Commissioner of Sales Tax on 3rd October, 1974, on an undated application under section 52 of the said Act made by the applicant which was received in the office of the Commissioner on 1st January, 1974. Entry 56 of Schedule C to the said Act has been amended with effect from 11th May, 197...
Sampat Chimaji Dige Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-1977
Reported in: 1978CriLJ823
Deshmukh, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted Under Section 380 of the I.P.C. on his own admission and is sentenced to suffer R.I. for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100 in default to suffer further R.I. for 20 days. The petitioner filed a revision application in the Court of Sessions, Greater Bombay, but it was summarily rejected. Hence this application.2. We issued rule and the Public Prosecutor accepted notice. The matter was immediately heard on merits. The counsel for the petitioner says that the accused is aged only about 22. The theft he committed was in the house of his own maternal uncle. Not only he candidly admitted the guilt, but out of Rs. 1,500 that were stolen Rupees 1,400 have been returned to the maternal uncle. The petitioner had been in jail for about 22 days. In the circumstances, the counsel prays that the substantive sentence be reduced to that which is already undergone. He further says that the petitioner will pay the fine of Rs. 100 but he should be g...
The Municipal Corporation Vs. Smt. Sulochanabai Sadashiv Joil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-1977
Reported in: (1979)81BOMLR82; 1978MhLJ199
Deshpande, J.1. One Sadashiv Joil was employed in the B.E.S.T. Undertaking as a bus starter at Bombay Central relief point. While on duty in his office on December 13, 1970, he felt pain in his chest at about 8.45 a.m. He was relieved of his work immediately and made to lie down on the bench. He was however restless and felt giddy. He was removed to the Nair Hospital, where he was declared dead at about 9-20 a.m. while still in the casualty ward.2. The respondent, his. widow, claimed compensation against the employer, the appellant, under Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, contending that Joil died of the injury caused to him by accident arising out of and in the course of his, employment. Appellant contended, firstly that the deceased was doing clerical work as a bus starter and was not a workman, not having been connected with the operation of the buses within the meaning of Clause (I) of Schedule II read with Section 2(n) of the Act, and...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Bombay City-i, Bombay Vs. C. Rai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1977
Reported in: [1979]119ITR553(Bom)
Tulzapurkar, J. 1. In this reference under s. 27(1) of the W. T. Act, 1957, the Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question for our opinion : 'Whether the Tribunal erred in law in holding that the 400 shares of 'Colour Chem Ltd.' transferred to the name of the assessee's wife were exempt under s. 5(1)(xx) read with section 4(1)(a)(i) of the Wealth-tax Act, 195 ?' 2. The facts giving rise to the question lie in a very narrow compass. The question relates to the wealth-tax assessment of the assessee, an individual, for the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62, the corresponding valuation dates being March 31, 1960, and March 31, 1961, respectively. The assessee was the holder of certain shares in a company called Colour Chem Ltd., which admittedly was a company to which s. 45(d) of the W. T. Act applied. Out of his aforesaid shareholding the assessee gifted 400 shares to his wife on September 23, 1959, and the said shares were immediately transferred to her name in the share r...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. P. Ambalal and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1977
Reported in: (1977)6CTR(Bom)382
Madon, J. 1. In this Reference under S. 34(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, the following two questions have been referred to us at the instance of the Applicant :- '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a true and proper interpretation of S. 15 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the Sales Tax Officer (X), Enforcement Branch, Bombay, could not initiate the proceedings under that section on the ground that the original assessment under S. 14 of the said Act was passed by the Sales-tax Officer, B Ward, Bombay-2 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the cases, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the Sales Tax Officer (X). Enforcement Branch, Bombay, does not get valid jurisdiction to pass reassessment order under S. 15 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, in the absence of a valid order transferring the proceedings from the Sales tax Officer, B Ward, Bombay ?' 2. The Respondents...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »