Mumbai Court December 1978 Judgments
Tigrania Steel Corporation Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-22-1978
Reported in: 1994(70)ELT535(Bom)
S.K. Desai, J.1. A very short point arises for determination in this petition which has been argued on the averments in the petition and on the statutory provisions without a return. A few facts necessary for a proper determination may now be stated. 2. On 24th October, 1964 the Great Eastern Shipping Company Ltd., who were owners of a vessel 'S. S. Jag Jyoti' (hereinafter, referred to as Jag Jyoti), filed their Import Manifest in respect of the said vessel or ship. This would show that the ship, which was a tanker, arrived in the Bombay harbour on that day. On 24th June, 1965 the Director General of Shipping granted to the said Great Eastern Shipping Company Ltd., hereinafter referred to as 'the Company' for brevity's sake, in pursuance of their earlier request permission to scrap the said vessel Jag Jyoti. On 13th July, 1965 a bill of entry was filed for home consumption in respect of Jag Jyoti by the Company. In the said bill of entry the value of Jag Jyoti which was declared was ru...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Famous Cine Laboratories Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-1978
Reported in: [1979]43STC217(Bom)
Madon, J.1. The question which has been submitted to us for our determination in this reference under section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, made at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal erred in holding that the sale of positive film, 50,000 feet in length, effected by the respondents to their customer on 3rd August, 1971, for Rs. 8,868 was not in the course of the business of the respondents ?'2. The respondents are a public limited company carrying on the business of processing films and taking prints on raw or unexposed positive film supplied by their customers who are movie producers. For this purpose, the respondents own and conduct a cine laboratory. The respondents also own a film studio which they hire out to movie producers. The respondents had applied to the Commissioner of Sales Tax under section 52 of the said Act inter alia to determine the question whether they were dealers ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Maharashtra Vs. Ranjitbhai Babubhai Suratwalla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1978
Reported in: 1982(1)BomCR433
B.N. Mehta, J.1. The State of Maharashtra has filed this appeal for enhancement of the sentence passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmednagar, on 23-11-1976 on the respondent who was original accused No. 1 in the trial Court.2. The accused was charged under section 16(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act'). The learned Magistrate was pleased to convict the accused on the said charge and to sentence him to suffer simple imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment.3. Mr. Deshmukh, the learned Public Prosecutor, who has appeared for the Appellant-State, has submitted that the minimum penalty prescribed under section 16(1) of the said Act was six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. Mr. Deshmukh urged that the learned Magistrate had been unduly lenient in sentencing the accused to simple imprisonment till the rising of the ...
Tag this Judgment!The B.E.S.T. Workers' Union Vs. P.B. Kerkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-1978
Reported in: (1980)82BOMLR348; 1978MhLJ452
Shah, J.1. The respondent No. 1 is the General Manager of the B.E.S.T. Undertaking owned by the Bombay Municipal Corporation and the petitioner is the trade union registered under the Indian Trade Unions Act. It is also registered as a representative of the employees for the transport industry for the local area of city of Bombay under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). For brevity's sake the petitioner will hereinafter be called as 'the Union' and respondent No. 1 as the 'undertaking'.2. On August 15, 1970, the petitioner and respondent No. 1 entered into an agreement regarding certain demands of the workmen of the undertaking. The agreement, inter alia, provided for introduction of staff incentive bonus Scheme for transportation, engineering repairs and maintenance staff. Annexure C3(D) to the said agreement gave the particulars of the said staff to whom the incentive bonus scheme would be introduced. The present dispute relates to the employe...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Bombay Company Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-1978
Reported in: [1979]43STC261(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 instant of the Commissioner of Sales Tax. The question referred to us for our determination is as follows : 'Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the penalty was not legally leviable under the provisions of section 36(2)(c) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 ?'2. The facts giving rise to this reference are as follows : The assessee, a private limited company, is a dealer registered under the said Act. In respect of the assessment period 1st August, 1964, to 31st March, 1965, the assessee was assessed on 13th August, 1969, by the Sales Tax Officer, A Ward, Bombay. Later on the said Sales Tax Officer found that certain deductions were wrongly allowed in computing the taxable turnover of the assessee in respect of sales effected against form 14. The Sales Ta Officer, ther...
Tag this Judgment!Bombay Fancy Textiles Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-1978
Reported in: 1984(17)ELT103(Bom)
Shah, J.1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raises a short question about the interpretation of the Notification, dated May 14, 1968 issued by the Government of India, in pursuance of Rule 96 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, whereby the Central Government fixed with effect from March 1, 1968 certain duties for embroidery machines employed for manufacturing embroidery. This Notification runs as under :- 'In pursuance of rule 96 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government hereby fixes with effect from the 1st March, 1968, for embroidery machines employed for manufacturing embroidery in the piece, in strips or in motifs on each variety of base fabrics specified in column (2) of the Table below, the rate of duty specified in the corresponding entry in column (3) thereof :- Table -----------------------------------------------------------------S. No. Variety of base fabrics Rate of duty per metreon which embroidery is length of the machine...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Esso Standard Eastern Inc.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-1978
Reported in: [1979]43STC144(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. The question referred to us for our determination is as follows : Whether, on a true and proper interpretation of the agreement dated 23rd May, 1966, entered into between the respondent and Gulf Oil (India) Pvt. Ltd. and the subsequent development showing that the additives required for blending came to be supplied by the responded itself, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that there was no sale of additives under section 2(28) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, in respect of which the respondent had preferred invoice No. 729 dated 3rd December, 1968, for an amount of Rs. 26,590.03 ?2. The facts giving rise to this reference are as follows : The respondent is registered as a dealer under the said Act. On 23rd May, 1966, it entered into a contract with Gulf Oil (India) Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter ref...
Tag this Judgment!Unichem Laboratories Ltd. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and B.S. Chawla ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-07-1978
Reported in: 1990(29)LC115(Bombay)
S.K. Desai, J.1. A very short point arises in this Misc. Petition which is filed by the Unichem Laboratories Ltd., hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioners', against the order and the demand which are annexed as Exhibit 'D' and part of Exhibit 'E' (Collectively) respectively to the petition.2. The petitioners are manufacturing a protein powder called 'PRO-VITA', the two constituents of which are groundnut powder and soyabean powder. The percentage wise composition of Provita powder is indicated in paragraph 2 of the petition. The Provita powder, according to the petitioners, is used in order to fortify the protein and vitamin contents of the normal household food, and it is added to and mixed with other flours and thereafter used in preparations of articles of food. According to the petitioners, Provita by itself cannot be considered to be a prepared or preserved food,3. Exhibit 'A' to the petition is a classification made by the petitioners in which the various types of preparation...
Tag this Judgment!Ramkrishan Kulwantrai Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-1978
Reported in: [1979]44STC117(Bom)
Madon, J.1. These four references under section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as 'the Act'), have been made at the insurance of the assessee and, in each of these references, the same identical question has been submitted to this Court for its determination. The parties to these references are the same and the material facts which have given rise to these references and which are necessary for answering the question submitted to us are also the same. The only difference is that Sales Tax Reference No. 179 of 1976 concerns the assessment year 1st April, 1963, to 31st March, 1964; Sales Tax Reference No. 178 of 1976 concerns the assessment year 1st April, 1964, to 31st March, 1965; Sales Tax Reference No. 177 of 1976 concerns the assessment year 1st April, 1965 to 31st March, 1966; and Sales Tax Reference No. 181 of 1976 concerns the assessment year 1st April, 1966, to 31st March, 1967. For this reason, we have thought it conveni...
Tag this Judgment!Rajab Mahal Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-1978
Reported in: AIR1980Bom358
Deshmukh, C.J.1. These two petitions and several others had been filed on the Original Side before a learned Single Judge challenging the provisions of the Maharashtra Tax on Residential Premises Act, 1974 (Act No. 19 of 1974), as being void and unenforceable.2. When the first of such petitions was presented before the learned Single Judge, he granted rule and admitted the petition. When the question of interim relief was argued before the Court, Mr. Gursahani, who appeared for the State of Maharashtra, stated that the petitioner was not a representative one and the State Government was not in a position to give an undertaking to refund the tax. In view of this attitude of the State Government, several citizens of Bombay, who were affected by the provisions of this Act, gradually began filing petitions after petitions. However, on July 13, 1978, a Press-note was issued by the State Government which contained a clarification of the attitude of the Government. In this Press-note, the Gov...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›