Mumbai Court November 1979 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.
Vijaykumar Berlia and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-11-1979
Reported in: [1982]52CompCas437(Bom)
P.S. Shah, J.1. The petitioners, who are a group of shareholders of respondent No. 3-company, National Rayon Corporation Ltd., who will hereinafter be called as 'the Berlias', have filed this petition under art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the order dated June 17, 1978, passed by respondent No. 1, the Union of India, under the provisions of s. 108D of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956). 2. Prior to July 11, 1977, the petitioners, 1 and 2 and their group, owned and were registered owners of 39, 065 shares in respondent No. 3 company. On July 11, 1977, the Board of Company Law Administration, respondent No. 2 herein, acting under the provisions of s. 408 of the Act, appointed respondents Nos. 4 to 11 as the directors of the company for a period of three years. Respondent No. 13 is the nominee-director of ICICI. Respondent No. 14 has been co-opted by the other directors as the director of the company. Respondent No. 12 was also appointed as the director of the company at its meet...
Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bombay Vs. Satnamsingh Rajasingh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-08-1979
Reported in: [1980]45STC75(Bom)
Madon, J. 1. This is a reference made by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Bombay, under section 34(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, at the instance of the department. 2. The facts, which have given rise to this reference, are that the respondents who were carrying on business in coal-ash at Ahmednagar, had not got themselves registered as dealers under the said Act even though their turnover had exceeded the limit for registration prescribed by section 5 of the said Act. On coming to learn this fact, the Sales Tax Officer, Ahmednagar, served a notice upon the respondents on 8th April, 1964, to show cause why they should not be assessed under section 14(6) of the said Act. Though the respondents appeared pursuant to the said notice, they did not produce any books of account on the ground that they did not keep any books. The Sales Tax Officer, after hearing them, assessed the respondents as processors and fixed their liability to pay tax under the said Act from 1st April, 1957, under sectio...
Mahfooskhan Mehboob Sheikh and anr. Vs. R.J. Parakh and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-05-1979
Reported in: 1980MhLJ646
V.S. Kotwal, J.1. In pursuance of prior information and intelligence, the concerned Customs Officers lay in wait for the arrival of the two motor-trucks enroute from Kolhapur as they had suspected that both the vehicles carried smuggled articles. The members of the raiding party concealed themselves for keeping a watch near the New Bombay Bridge on April 15, 1976. The information appears to have proved to be fruitful, in that, within a short time, a motor-truck No. MHT-2533 was seen proceeding towards Bombay side. The driver of the vehicle obviously suspected danger on sighting the Customs Officers and, therefore, he was in a mood to bolt away from the spot. However, he was chased for a short distance and ultimately, the truck was intercepted. The ignition-key was removed. Apart from the driver, another person was travelling in the said truck and he claims to be the cleaner of the said truck. The panch-witnesses were also present on the spot. As the information related to the arrival o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›