Mumbai Court July 1978 Judgments
Shahul Hamid Ismail Shahbendray Patel Vs. Shri R.D. Pradhan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-1978
Reported in: (1978)80BOMLR440
Dharmadhikari, J.1. These two criminal applications were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment as they involve common questions of fact and law.2. The petitioners in both these applications were detained on March 8, 1978 at Bombay in pursuance of the two distinct detention orders dated March 6, 1978, issued by respondent No. 1 Shri. Pradhan, Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department. By a separate order issued on March 6, 1978 the place and conditions of the detention were also specified. By the communication dated March 6, 1978 the grounds of detention were also communicated to the detenus as required under Section 3(3) of the Conservation Of Foreign Exchange and Prevention Of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, hereinafter referred to as the CO-FEPOSA Act, read with Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. It further appears from the record that thereafter the Government of Maharashtra made a reference to the Advisory Board under Section 8(...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Maharashtra Vs. Kacharadas D. Bhalgar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-1978
Reported in: (1978)80BOMLR396; 1978MhLJ799
Jahagirdar, J.1. His Lordship, after stating the facts of the case and dealing with points not relevant to this report, proceeded. I cannot help commenting upon an extraordinary procedure followed by this food inspector apparently under the direction of the Municipal Corporation of which he is the servant. He has mentioned that the three packets were sealed according to the rules, that one was given to the respondent, that two were retained with him, and that a receipt was obtained from the respondent. He mentions that the respondent signed on the office copy of the notice given to him. Then in all solemnity he proceeds to say that the panchanama of this was recorded. I find on evidence that this could not be true. The panchanama which has been unfortunately exhibited as exh. 10 without being properly proved, is a printed document with the title 'Panchanama Form'. Procedure which a food inspector is expected to follow while obtaining the samples and sealing them has been printed in Mar...
Tag this Judgment!Estate Investment Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-1978
Reported in: (1979)2CTR(Bom)272; [1980]121ITR580(Bom); [1979]1TAXMAN583(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J.1. Pursuant to an order made by this court, the following two questions are referred to us for our determination : '(1) Whether the transactions in question were on capital account or constituted an adventure in the nature of trade and, (2) If the answer to the above question is against the applicants, whether the excess of the agreed price over the cost has properly been brought to tax for the assessment years 1949-50, 1950-51, and 1952-53 ?' 2. Estate Investment Company Ltd., the assessee, was incorporated on February 3, 1945, and the objects for which the company was established are enumerated in para. 3 of the statement of case. We will refer to some of the relevant objects in the course of our judgment, when necessary. 3. One of the main objects for which the company was incorporated was to enter into transactions relating to land and properties. The assessee purchased several villages, including lands at Chincholi and Dindoshi Villages, and before the taxing autho...
Tag this Judgment!Santoshi Tel Utpadak Kendra Vs. the Deputy Commissioner
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-1978
Reported in: [1979]43STC307(Bom)
Ginwala, J.1. The only question that falls for consideration in this petition is whether the Commissioner of Sales Tax can exercise his power of revision under section 57(1)(a) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, in respect of an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner in appeal against which a second appeal preferred by the assessee is pending before the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal. The facts leading to the present petition briefly stated are as follows : The petitioner was at the relevant time a partnership firm and was registered as such. It appears that it was constituted on 12th June, 1970, and consisted of three partners, namely, Kundanlal, Bhikarilal and Harinarayan, who are sons of Bhaiyalal, since deceased. This firm was carrying on the business of manufacturing and selling vegetable oil. It is alleged that the business of this firm being managed by Bhaiyalal during his life-time. Bhaiyalal expired on 15th May, 1972. It appears that the books of account of the petitioner-...
Tag this Judgment!Western India Oil Distribution Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-1978
Reported in: [1980]126ITR497(Bom)
S.K. Desai 1. The assessee is a public limit company. In this reference, we are concerned with the assessment years 1959-60, 1960-61, 1961-62 and 1962-63, for which the relevant accounting years are the calendar years 1958, 1959, 1960 and 1961, respectively. The assessee-company was established some time in 1932 with the object of importing petroleum and petroleum products from abroad and distributing the same in India. For the purpose of the said business the assessee owned assets by way of installations such as storage tanks, pipelines, etc., and land together with the buildings built thereon. During the second world war, the said installations and other immovable properties were requisitioned by the Government under the Defence of India Act on several different dates between June 14, 1942, and December 11, 1942. These assets were subsequently released to the assessee in stages on January 31, 1948, September 2, 1948, and November 4, 1948. The assets were used by the government for th...
Tag this Judgment!Prabhudas S. Thakkar Vs. M.D. Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-1978
Reported in: (1979)81BOMLR328
Kanade, J.1. These are the six petitions filed by the petitioners tenants under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the decision of the Additional Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes at Bombay dated December 14, 1977.2. The petitioners in all these Special Civil Applications are tenants in the building known as 'Raj-Hans' situated at Dr. Ambedkar Road, Mulund (W) Bombay 400080, and respondents Nos. 1 to 3 are the landlords-owners in respect of the said building. It appears that the respondents issued a demand notice under Section 12(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as the Bombay Rent Act). All the petitioners-tenants having received the notice under Sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Bombay Rent Act, submitted an application under Section 11(3) of the Bombay Rent Act for fixing the standard rent of the suit premises. Sub-section (3) of Section 11 of the Bombay Rent Act applies only where the tenant has received a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›