Mumbai Court April 1978 Judgments
Kewal P. Kashyap Vs. J.H. Jagtiani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Bom5
ORDER1. I propose not to follow a judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court, not because I disagree with what it lays down -- which, with respect, I do --but because it does not follow at least one earlier judgment of this Court, which as I read it, is a binding precedent.2. The petition is presented for an order of adjudication against the debtor pursuant to non-compliance with an insolvency notice. The act of insolvency was committed on 15th September 1976. When the petition reached hearing before my brother Kania J., Mr. Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioner, stated that consent terms had been arrived at between the petitioner and the debtor and he applied for leave to withdraw the petition. Mr. Jain stated that the consent terms had been arrived at without any pressure or coercion, being exercised upon the debtor Miss Michhanilearned Counsel for another creditor, Govind Bajaj, thereupon applied for leave to be substituted in place of the Petitioner Mr. Jain and Mr. Wadhwa...
Tag this Judgment!The Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Shri Mohd. Ismail
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-06-1978
Reported in: (1978)80BOMLR436
Chandurkar, J.1. The following questions have been referred under Section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, at the instance of the Controller of Estate Duty, Poona:(1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, it could be rightly held that only 1/3rd share of the goodwill and riot the full value of the goodwill passed on the death of the deceased for the purposes of Estate Duty Act, 1953?(2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, it could be rightly held that there was no gift directly or indirectly of the goodwill of the business by the deceased to his son and grandson?2. The facts on which these questions arise are: One Ibrahim Kasam Amliwala who died on February 1, 1958 was the sole proprietor of the business which was carried on under the name and style of Messrs Ibrahim Kasam till 1937. He entered into a partnership with his son Ismail Ibrahim which is evidenced by the partnership deed dated July 7, 1937. Under the terms of this deed the net profit or loss...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Maharashtra Vs. Vishwas Shripati Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-1978
Reported in: (1978)80BOMLR432; 1978MhLJ746
Masodkar, J.1. These two applications are filed by the State purporting to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and also under Section 482 read with Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and challenge mainly the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur, refusing to entertain an application for cancellation of an order directing release of the accused persons under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Effective order has been made to this effect rejecting Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 22 of 1978, while there is no effective application with regard to order made in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 21 of 1978. Upon the first rejection, the State has moved these two separate petitions.2. It is not necessary in these two applications to examine in closer details the validity of the orders made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge rejecting the application of the State for cancellation of the Orders under Sections 438 as pre...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1978
Reported in: [1978]41STC471(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 the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the activity carried on by the respondent, viz., mixing of distilled water with methanol in certain proportion and selling the same as 'Methimix' does not amount to manufacture of goods within the meaning of section 2(17) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 ?' 2. The respondent is a dealer registered under the said Act. By an application dated 14th October, 1971, made under section 52(1) of the said Act, to the Commissioner of Sales Tax, the respondent sought determination of the correct rate of tax payable on the sale of Methimix effected under a certain invoice, a copy of which was annexed to the application. The respondent applied for ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Joy Ice Cream
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1978
Reported in: [1978]42STC14(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 the true and proper interpretation of section 14 read with section 11(1A)(b) and 2(33) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that there was no contravention of the recitals of the certificates issued in form 15 under 11(1A) in respect of raw materials purchased and used in the manufacture of ice-cream on the sale of which, amounting to Rs. 2,07,790, no tax was payable under the Act ?' 2. The facts giving rise to this reference are as follows : The respondents are registered as a dealer and hold a recognition certificate under the said Act. The respondents manufacture ice-cream on a large scale. In the assessment of the respondents for the period 1st April, 1964, to 31st March, 1965, it ...
Tag this Judgment!Chhatru Shobraj Taleraj Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1978
Reported in: (1978)80BOMLR727; 1978MhLJ817
Masodkar, J.1. This matter was placed before us on March 7, 1978, and we directed notice before admission to be issued to the State. It appears that the matter was so placed before this Bench because of the order made by the learned single Judge in a similar application) in Ratan Hiranand Khatri v. The State of Maharashtra (1976) Criminal Application No. 2659 of 1976. The learned single Judge appears to have made that order for two reasons, firstly, because the public prosecutor appearing for the State raised a point that every application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be placed for hearing before the division Bench and not before single Judge and secondly, because the office informed that all applications under Section 561A of 1898 Code as well under Section 482 of 1973 Code were being placed for orders before division Bench and not before a single Judge. It is indeed clear from that order that the learned single Judge has not made any reference as such to...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›