Mumbai Court November 1978 Judgments
Kamalakant Sadashiv Satpute Vs. Madhav Dhondo Alwani and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Bom291
ORDER1. This petition for a writ under Article 227 of the Constitution has been filed in proceedings arising under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 -- hereinafter referred to as 'the Rent Act'.2. The facts giving rise to this petition, which are not in dispute, are briefly these:-- One Madhav Dhondo Alwani--respondent No. 1 is the owner of the disputed property. The property bearing City Survey No. 391 at Narayan Peth, Pune, consists of a temporary shed admeasuring 30 x 10 ft. constructed by the said Alwani and an adjoining site admeasuring 57'-6' x 10' and the entire area together with the temporary shed is described in the Rent Note (Ex. 24) as admeasuring about 1000 sq. ft. On 16th May 1945, Bhagwan Soman, the 1st defendant executed a registered rent note in respect of this property in favour of Alwani for a period of 5 years from 1st June, 1945 at the agreed rent of Rs.18 per month. The material conditions of the lease were that Soman was to erect a...
Tag this Judgment!Bharatiya Engineering Corporation P. Ltd. Vs. R.G. Deshpande, Addl. Co ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-1978
Reported in: (1979)11CTR(Bom)293; [1981]130ITR442(Bom); [1979]1TAXMAN441A(Bom)
S.K. Desai, J.1. In this petition the petitioners have impugned the orders originally of the Addl. Commissioner passed on 14th May, 1971, under s. 264 of the I. T. Act, 1961, holding that the petitioner's petition was hopelessly time barred and the petitioners had not explained the whole period of delay which was from 9th October, 1968, to 16th November, 1970. The matrix of facts which occasioned the said order will be gone into a little later on; but after the said order, the petitioners moved the CBDT, which by its order dated 28th November, 1972, conveyed to the petitioners its decision that it fell disinclined to interfere in the matter. 2. Mr. Mehta, on behalf of the petitioners, has submitted that the original order of the Addl. Commissioner was technical, harsh and perverse. He has further submitted that the decision of the Board was contrary to the provisions of s. 119(2)(b) and that, at any rate, the Board had clearly acted in a manner contrary to the issuance given by it to t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Chandrakant Keshav Wadke
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-28-1978
Reported in: [1979]43STC103(Bom)
Kania, J.1. These are two references made under section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax. 2. Both these references arise out of a common judgment given by the Sales Tax Tribunal and are being disposed of by this judgment. The question referred to us for our determination in these references is as follows : 'Whether, on a true and proper interpretation of the words .... 'ornamental metalware' ....... occurring in entry 13 of Schedule E to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the articles, namely, shields, mementoes, crests and trophies manufactured by the opponent-dealer are not covered by entry 13 of Schedule E to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 ?'3. Sales Tax Reference No. 166 of 1976 relates to the assessment period 1st November, 1968, to 31st March, 1969, and Sales Tax Reference No. 167 of 1976 relates to the assessment period 1st April, 1969, to 31...
Tag this Judgment!Vegoils (P) Limited Vs. N.G. Chitale and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-1978
Reported in: (1979)IILLJ313Bom
1. In this Miscellaneous Petition Vegoils Private Limited - the petitioners impugned the order of the 1st respondent dated 25th October, 1972, given in Reference No. (IT) 50 and 200 of 1971. The order was in a reference for adjudicating the bonus demand of the workmen of the petitioners for two years, i.e., for 1968-69 and 1969-70. For these two years the employers of the workmen was another company, i.e., Karamchand Premchand Private Limited and this company later on transferred this particular undertaking to the present petitioners who have thus got involved in the question of payment of bonus for these two years. In respect of these two years the employers' contention for second of such year, i.e., 1969-70 was accepted and hence not questioned in the petition. However, the employers' contention for the first of the two years, i.e., for 1968-69 was not accepted by the Industrial Tribunal and hence this court has been moved. 2. Under these two references the bonus demands on the workm...
Tag this Judgment!The Trustees of the Port of Bombay Vs. P.D. Karandikar, Sales Tax Offi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-1978
Reported in: [1979]44STC102(Bom)
Madon, J.1. These two petitions under article 226 of the Constitution of India, filed by the Trustees of the Port of Bombay, a body corporate constituted under the Bombay Port Trust Act, 1879 (Bom. Act No. 6 of 1879), against the Sales Tax Officer, A Ward, Unit III, Bombay, and the State of Maharashtra, raise common questions of law. The material facts which have given rise to the questions in both these petitions are the same. We have, therefore, though it convenient to dispose of both these petitions by a common judgment. 2. In the course of carrying out their functions under the Bombay Port Trust Act, the petitioners buy machinery, plant, wagons and other equipments, etc. When these articles become obsolete the petitioners disposed them of by public auction. Further, when goods have been landed from the ships and have been lying in the custody of the petitioners and are not removed from the docks within a certain time, the petitioners are under a statutory obligation to dispose of t...
Tag this Judgment!Jana Handloom Weaving Factory and Furniture Suppliers and ors. Vs. Lax ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-1978
Reported in: (1980)82BOMLR277; 1979MhLJ577
C.S. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Defendant Nos. 1 to 6 had incurred some debts from the Koregaon Sand Supply Company and, therefore, the said Company filed a suit against them bearing Regular Civil Suit No. 1237 of 1959 decided on 22nd December, 1960. The decree was for an amount of Rs. 3,864.30 p and as the said amount was not paid the decree-holder filed Regular Darkhast No. 1058 of 1961 against the firm as well as its partners. In that Darkhast the suit property was sold on 22nd January, 1963, which was purchased by one Maniklal Narayandas Pankhewale. According to the plaintiffs viz., Laxmi Handloom Factory the auction purchaser Maniklal Narayandas had taken three-fourth of the amount from them for payment in Court and according to the agreement between them, Maniklala Narayandas assigned all his rights as the auction purchaser to the plaintiffs and, therefore, ultimately the sale certificate was also issued by the Court in their name. The plaintiffs further alleged in the plaint that there...
Tag this Judgment!Techni-glass Limited Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1978
Reported in: 1990LC539(Bombay); 1981(8)ELT147(Bom)
1. At all times material for purposes of this miscellaneous petition, the petitioners company were manufacturing a product to which they gave the name 'Cell-O-Therm'. This was a thermal insulation product which could be cut and shaped in various forms to serve various insulating needs. It is manufactured from broken glass which is powdered and then mixed with certain chemicals such as carbon black, and flamed in electric furnace and annealed in an 'annealing lelu'. After these processes we have the final product to which the petitioners gave the trade name of 'Cell-O-Therm.' A brick or block of this product has been produced in Court and a block of light, rough, opaque, grey black material is observed. The question involved in this petition is whether this material going by the trade mark is 'glass' or 'glassware' for purposes of excise duty. The petitioners' contention throughout their dispute with the excise authorities has been that their product can never be classified as 'glass' o...
Tag this Judgment!Chhatrapati Charitable Devasthan Trust Vs. Parisa Appa Bhoska and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Bom218; (1980)82BOMLR243; 1979MhLJ163
Dharmadhikari, J.1. The appellant, Public Trust filed a suit for possession of certain agricultural lands situate at Uchagaon in taluka Karvir of Kolhapur district against the defendants on the ground of trespass by the defendants in the suit lands or in the alternative on the ground that they are tenants whose tenancy was duly ter-minated.2. The suit lands i. e. Survey Nos. 140 and 141 initially (belonged to Chhatrapati of Kolhapur who created a trust called 'Shri Chhatrapati Charitable Devasthan Trust' and the suit lands were donated to the said trust The said trust was created on 18th of Jen. 1956 and thereafter it was registered under the Bombay Public TrustsAct, 1950. The trust obtained a certificate under Section 88-B (2) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. It is not necessary to make a reference to the other averments made in plaint because ultimately it appears from the judgment of the trial Court that the case of trespass was given up by the plaintiff and t...
Tag this Judgment!Gordhandas Desai P. Ltd. Vs. V.B. Kulkarni, Income-tax Officer and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-1978
Reported in: [1981]129ITR495(Bom); [1979]1TAXMAN126(Bom)
S.K. Desai, J. 1. Prayer (a), in this petition is for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to the petition, who is the ITO, Companies Circle VI (5) (or his successor), to consider the petitioner's application for rectification of certain proceedings. A few facts may be stated : There were various pending assessment proceedings and as a result of various factors, which need not be set out, there was a settlement between the assessee (the petitioner) and the department for the two relevant assessment years, viz, assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60, the corresponding accounting years for these two years are the years ending 31st March, 1958, and 31st March, 1959, respectively. These assessments were completed on 31st January, 1961, on a total income of Rs. 4,12,987 and Rs, 4,69,809, respectively. Thereafter, on 6th January, 1964, the petitioner made an application for rectification of their assessment for the two years, contending, inter alia, that the addition o...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Ramkrishna Kulwantrai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-21-1978
Reported in: [1979]43STC137(Bom)
Kania, J.1. These are three 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 Commissioner of Sales Tax. There is a common question referred to us in all these three references and that question runs as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the scope of the written authority dated 19th April, 1963, given by the responded to Shri Roshanlal, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the service of assessment order on Sri Roshanlal did not amount to a communication of the said assessment order within the meaning of section 55(4) of the Act as required by law ?'The facts giving rise to these references are as follows : Sales Tax Reference No. 149 of 1976 relates to the period 16th May, 1960, to 31 March, 1961, Sales Tax Reference No. 150 of 1976 relates to the period 1st April, 1961, to 31st March, 1962, and Sales Tax Reference No. 151 of 1976 relates ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »