Mumbai Court February 1981 Judgments
Laxman Madhavdas Harwani Vs. Assistant Secretary to the Government of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1981
Reported in: 1981CriLJ1095
Bharucha, J.1. The petitioner is a detenu under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (now referred to as 'the Act'). This is a habeas corpus petition seeking his release from detention. The order of detention is dated 18th October, 1980. The petitioner was detained on 28th November, 1980. He was then served with the order of detention as also with the grounds of detention dated 18th October, 1980. On 2nd December, 1980 a letter was written to him by the second respondent enclosing therewith copies of the documents relied upon in the grounds of detention. According to the petitioner he was served with the grounds of detention on 4th December, 1980. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent, it is alleged that the said copies of the documents were received by the detenu on 3rd December 1980. We have verified from the record of the case that this is indeed the correct position.2. It, therefore, appears that the petitioner wa...
Tag this Judgment!Central Camera Company Limited Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1981
Reported in: 1981(8)ELT344(Bom)
Rage, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order of Deshmukh J. (as he then was) dismissing the petition by the Appellants challenging the order of the Appellate Collector dated 9-5-1968 classifying certain X-ray Processing Units as Refrigerating appliances as falling in item 29A in the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.2. Facts relevant for the disposal of the appeal are as under : The product under dispute is referred to by the Petitioners as X-Ray Processing Machine or unit. The details of the said product are as under : It consists or two parts, one being the Master Tank or Cooling Unit and the other is Refrigerated Condensing Unit. The stainless steel tank and Master tank were go fabricated by the Petitioners through their manufacturers in accordance with designs supplied by them. They were insulated with thermocole and inserted in the outer mild steel jacket, which is also got fabricated as per the design furnished by the petitioners and suitably...
Tag this Judgment!Drinkar Ananda Decore Vs. Shantaram Punjaji Ahed and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Bom99
Masodkar, J.1. The debated issue in the present petition relates to the jurisdiction of the Assistant judge, Nasik, to entertain Election Petition No. 7 of 1979 and further to the disqualification that has been found against the present petitioner in view of the provisions of S. 16(1) (a) (I) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961, for, admittedly, the petitioners wife is a primary teacher since sept, 3, 1965 and she was posted at Deola at the time of election of the petitioner as a member to the Panchayat Samiti , Kalvan from Deola Electoral College and sha has been thereafter serving as a primary teacher at village Adgaon which falls in the Panchayat Samiti area of Nasik . Holding that the petitioner was disqualified under S. 16(1) (a) (I) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 to be the member of the Panchayat Samiti, his election has been set aside.2. Mr. Kankaria , the learned counsel , in support of the present petition, main...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Automatic Engineering Works
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1981
Reported in: [1981]47STC343(Bom)
Madon, J.1. The respondents in these references are manufacturers of nuts and bolts, and are registered as a dealer under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. During the period 1st April, 1964, to 31st December, 1964, as also during the period 1st January, 1965, to 31st December, 1965, the respondents purchased certain machinery. The vendors of this machinery collected from the respondents the tax which was to be paid by them in respect of these sales of machinery. In their assessment for these two periods the respondents were allowed by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax set-off under rule 41-A of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959. Subsequently the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax suo motu revised the order of the Assistant Commissioner and allowed to the respondents set-off only for a part of the amount claimed by them on the ground that the machinery purchased by them had not been wholly used by them for manufacturing their own goods for sale but was also used for manufacturing goods...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State, Bombay Vs. Vansal and Va ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1981
Reported in: [1981]48STC419(Bom)
Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. The respondents are the assessees. During the period 1st April, 1964, to 13th August, 1965, the respondents were not registered as dealers under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, though they were registered under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. During the period of 1st April, 1964, to 13th August, 1965, the respondents collected Rs. 2,005.91 as tax on their sales. The Sales Tax Officer, by his order dated 9th May, 1967, held that this collection of tax was in contravention of the provisions of section 46(2) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, and forfeited this amount of Rs. 2,005.91 under the provisions of section 37 of the Act. Before passing the order, the Sales Tax Officer had given a notice under section 37 in form 29 which is prescribed by the Rules framed under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. This notice was in the form as then prescribed.2. The order of the Sales Tax Officer was challenged by the respondents before the Sales Tax Tribunal. By its judgment d...
Tag this Judgment!Cromelite (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-1981
Reported in: [1981]48STC223(Bom)
Madon, J.1. The applicants were at all times registered as a dealer under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. During the period 1st April, 1965, to 31st March, 1966, the applicants effected three sales in respect of surgical trays made of stainless steel manufactured by the applicants to one Messrs. H. Amritlal and Company. In respect of these three sales the applicants issued three bills dated 22nd November, 1965, 17th December, 1965, and 18th December, 1965, to Messrs. H. Amritlal and Company, the aggregate price being Rs. 2,70,000. Messrs. H. Amritlal and Company were also a registered dealer and they held a licence as also an authorization under the said Act. In respect of the above three sales Messrs. H. Amritlal and Company gave to the applicants certificates in form 14 certifying that they were a registered dealer and held an authorization and that the said goods would be resold within nine months from the date of purchase by them or by an authorized dealer to whom they would sell t...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Trading Company Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-1981
Reported in: [1981]48STC207(Bom)
Madon, J.1. The applicants were at all relevant times registered as a dealer under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as 'the said Act'). During the period 1st January, 1967, to 31st December, 1967, the applicants purchased dyes and chemicals of the aggregate value of Rs. 92,050.30 from Messrs. Sulekha Enterprises Corporation (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as 'Sulekha Enterprises'). It appears that these purchases were made on four different dates, and in respect of them Sulekha Enterprises issued to the applicants their bills dated (1) 9th February, 1967, in the sum of Rs. 28,225, (2) 17th February, 1967, in the sum of Rs. 29,205, (3) 15th May, 1967, in the sum of Rs. 12,870 and (4) 17th May, 1967, in the sum of Rs. 21,750.30. Sulekha Enterprises were also registered as a dealer under the said Act, and each of these bills contained a certificate that the registration certificate of Sulekha Enterprises was in force on the d...
Tag this Judgment!Eighth Income-tax Officer Vs. Trustees of Marathi Mission
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-1981
Reported in: (1982)1ITD539(Mum.)
1. The appeal which is filed by the revenue and the cross-objection which is moved by the assessee relate to the assessment year 1975-76.As both this appeal as well as the cross-objection are inter-connected, they are disposed of by this combined order for the sake of convenience. The assessee is a charitable trust. The first contention raised by the revenue in its appeal is in regard to the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to allow depreciation of Rs. 84,882 on the assets owned by the assessee. The assessee-trust owned jeeps, machinery, etc., the written down value of which worked out to Rs. 8,48,822. It claimed depreciation at the rate of 10 per cent on an ad hoc basis against the income earned by it. The claim of the assessee was that the income for the purpose of considering the question of deduction as required under Section 11(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") should be determined on commercial principles which would take into consideration the depreciation admiss...
Tag this Judgment!Central Bank of India Vs. Femme Pharma Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Bom67
ORDER1. Mr. Patel refers to R. 227 of the High Court Original Side Rules 1980 and to R. 290 (4) of the Rules of 1957 and contends that I must place the suit on board for dismissal and must dismiss the same. He says that under the old rule the Court had discretion to dismiss or not to dismiss the suit depending on whether sufficient cause is shown or not, while under the present rule there is no such discretion vested in Court. In my view the position is actually to the contrary.2. Under the said rules, the Court.s discretion was limited to sufficient cause being shown and if it was not shown the suite has to be dismissed. As against this the present rule only provides that the suit shall be placed on board for dismissal but it does not provide as to what is to happen thereafter. In my view the Court will, therefore, have a wider discretion now than before and the Court is not bound to dismiss the suit.3, Application is rejected, particularly, in view of the fact that the summons for ju...
Tag this Judgment!Divisional Superintendent, South Central Railway Sholapur and Others V ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-1981
Reported in: (1982)ILLJ64Bom
1. A patent error of jurisdiction committed by the Central Government Labour Court No. 2 at Bombay has been rightly challenged in his petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The error of jurisdiction has arisen because of the Presiding. Officer of the Labour Court to comprehend the correct ambit and scope of S. 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The well-settled proposition of law that S. 33C provides for execution of an industrial dispute has been totally missed by the Labour Court.2. The first respondent was employed as a stenographer in the then Great Indian Peninsular Railway on 30th of March, 1938. Subsequently on 12th of March, 1989 he was confirmed in that post. According to the rules as interpreted by the Railways, who have now become successor to the Great Indian Peninsular Railway, the petitioner was made to retire with effect from 19th of September, 1971, which is the date on which he attained the age of 58 years.3. In the year 1975, the first respond...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »