Mumbai Court February 1981 Judgments
Shaikh Farid Hussinsab Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-1981
Reported in: 1981MhLJ345
Deshpande, C.J.1. This reference to the Full Bench raises a question of some importance as to the true interpretation of Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1973. The Appellant is convicted for an offence of murder under section 302 I.P.C. The trial Court relied, amongst others, on the post-mortem notes. The doctor, who held the post-mortem and prepared the notes, was not examined at the trial. The defence layer had earlier indicated that he was not disputing the genuineness thereof in response to a query under sub-section (1) of Section 294 of the Code. The trial Judge dispensed with its formal proof and 'read the report' in evidence. In the cause of the hearing of the appeal before the Division Bench, the learned defence advocate contended that the report cannot be relied on without the evidence of the doctor and Section 294 is not intended to dispense with proofs of such documents. Reliance was placed on the decision of another Division Bench of this Court in the case o...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Empico Traders
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-1981
Reported in: [1981]47STC426(Bom)
Madon, J.1. The respondents were at all material times registered as dealers under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). For the period 1st April, 1969, to 31st March, 1970, the respondent filed their periodic returns before the Sales Tax Officer as required by section 32 of the Act. Along with the returns the respondents filed receipted chalans showing prior payment into the Government treasury of the tax payable by them according to such returns as required under section 38 of the Act. For the said period the respondents thus paid into the Government treasury an aggregate sum of Rs. 21,114.28 as tax. In the returns they also claimed credit in respect of the set-off allowable to them under rule 43 of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959. The Sales Tax Officer assessed the amount of tax payable by the respondents at Rs. 32,874.39 and further allowed the respondents set-off, which, according to the statement of the case was in the sum of Rs. 5,493.99, but as...
Tag this Judgment!Leong and anr. Vs. Jinabai G. Gulrajani and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Bom244; (1981)83BOMLR299; 1981MhLJ777
Deshpande, C.J.1. This petition involves a dispute as to possession of flat in the building belonging to a co-operative society. The disputants Nos. 1 and 2 are holders of the said flat as members of the said society. The same was given on leave and licence basis by them under an agreement dated 16th December, 1968 to the non-disputants. An application made by the contracting parties to make one of the licensees a nominal member of the said society, presumably to make the agreement accord with the bye-laws of the society was rejected by the society, the disputant No. 3. After the licence period expired, disputants Nos. 1 and 2 called upon the non-disputants by a notice to give back the possession of the said flat. The non-disputants did not respond. The present proceedings for possession of the flat therefore were initiated by the three disputants, the respondents herein including the society, against the non-disputants, the present petitioners, raising a dispute to that effect under S...
Tag this Judgment!Shaikh Farid Hussainsab Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-1981
Reported in: (1981)83BOMLR278
V.S. Deshpande, C.J.1. This reference to the Full Bench raises a question of some importance as to the true interpretation of Section 294 of the Code of Criminal procedure of 1973. The Appellant is convicted for an offence of murder under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. The trial Court relied, amongst others, on the postmortem notes. The doctor, who held the post-mortem and prepared the notes,, was not examined at the trial. The defence lawyer had earlier indicated that he was not disputing the genuineness thereof in response to a query under Sub-section (1) of Section 294 of the Code. The trial Judge dispensed with its; formal proof and 'read the report' in evidence. In the course of the hearing of the appeal before the Division Bench, the learned defence advocate contended that the report cannot be relied on without the evidence of the doctor and Section 294 is not intended to dispense with proofs of such documents. Reliance was placed on the decision of another Division Bench of this...
Tag this Judgment!All India Reported Ltd. and Others Vs. Competent Authority, Inspecting ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-1981
Reported in: [1986]162ITR697(Bom)
Padhye, J.1. These four writ involve common questions of facts and law and, there fore, were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.Restricting ourselves to the bare minimum of facts which are necessary for deciding the four questions of law involved in these petitions, we may point out that Special Civil Applications No. 1628 of 1973 and Special Civil Application No. 1631 of 1973 are petitions filed by the transferor, All India Reporter Ltd., and the transferee, Dinkar Waman Chitaley, of an immovable property being house No. 257/1, situate on plot No. 27, Circle No. 19/27, Ward No. 1, Congress Nagar, Nagpur, with built-up area of 2, 242 sq. ft. and plot area 9, 405 sq. ft. Similarly, Special Civil Application No. 1629 of 1973 and Special Civil Application No. 1630 of 1973 are petitions filed by the same transferor and transferee, Ashok Madhav Chitaley, in respect of another immovable property being house no. 512, situate on plot No. 17, Circle No. 19/27, Ward...
Tag this Judgment!B.J. Patel Vs. Vadilal Dolalram and Sons and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Bom66; (1981)83BOMLR599; 1982MhLJ252
ORDER1. This is an application by the defendants under the provisions of S. 52 of the Transfer of Property Act for relief from its pendens. The grounds urged in the affidavit-in-support of this application are, interalia, that the plaintiff's suit is for specific performance of an alleged agreement which is oral only, that the 1st defendant from which has allegedly agreed to sell the property consists of partners who are very old and that they are not helped in the business by their sons who have their own independent business, that none of the defendants reside at the suit property, that the property is a valuable property worth about Rs. 20 lacs and that the defendants desire to wind up the affairs of the partnership and the main thing necessary for the purpose is to sell the property. The attidavit thereafter proceeds to narrate shortly the circumstances surrounding the alleged agreement and concludes that the entire case in the plaint is false and that the suit is filed only with a...
Tag this Judgment!Nemichand Rajmal and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Poona
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1981
Reported in: (1981)23CTR(Bom)100; [1981]7TAXMAN100(Bom)
Kania, J.1. This reference arises on a case stated by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (referred to hereinafter as 'the Act of 1961'), at the instance of the assessee.2. The few facts necessary for the appreciation of the contentions raised before us are as follows :The assessee is a firm, comprising of four partners and was constituted under a deed of partnership dated 6th November, 1955. For some years prior to the financial year 1960-61, the assessee-firm had been granted registration under s. 26A of the Indian I. T. Act, 1922 (referred to hereinafter as 'the Act of 1922'). On 19th May, 1961, the assessee-firm filed an application for the renewal of registration under s. 26A of the Act of the 1922, for the assessment year 1961-62. On 22nd June, 1962, the assessee-firm filed a declaration under s. 184(7) of the Act of 1961 for continuation of registration for the assessment year 1962-63, and filed a similar declaration on 14th June, 1963, for co...
Tag this Judgment!Acme Plastic Industries Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1981
Reported in: [1981]48STC29(Bom)
Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. The applicants manufacture plastic grills for Messrs. Philips India Ltd. These grills are supplied by the applicants to Messrs. Philips India Ltd. who carry out certain processes on the grills and thereafter fit them on to the transistor radios manufactured by them (Philips India Ltd.).2. The applicants, who were desirous of knowing the correct rate of sales tax in respect of the two types of plastic grills sold by them to Philips India Ltd., made an application under section 52 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, for determination of this question by the sales tax authorities. Their application was in respect of the plastic grills sold by them under the invoices dated 9th September, 1988, and 4th May, 1968. On this application, the Commissioner of Sales Tax came to the conclusion that the plastic grills sold by the applicants were spare parts and accessories of transistor radios and that, therefore, they were covered by entry 65 in Schedule C to the Bombay Sales...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Mohanlal Goradia Vs. Hiralal G. Thakkar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1981
Reported in: 1982(1)BomCR117
R.S. Bhonsale, J.1. Even though this petition by the original accused was filed for quashing of the complaint and for setting aside the orders passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 10th Court, Andheri and also for setting aside the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Criminal Revision Application No. 427 of 1979, subsequent events have confined the scope of this petition to a limited points i.e. as to whether the unwarned complaint by the complainant is fatal to the prosecution i.e. whether non-examination of the complainant on oath........merely amounts irregularity under section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or whether it amounts to illegality and goes to the root of the matter. In order to appreciate the question which has arisen during the course of lengthy arguments on both sided, it may be convenient to briefly refer to the averments in the complaint as well as prosecution case presented in this criminal application in this Court.2. O...
Tag this Judgment!Chandulal and Company Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-1981
Reported in: [1981]48STC205(Bom)
Madon, J.1. The applicants were at all material times registered as a dealer under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, and also held a licence under section 23 of the said Act. In their assessment for the period 1st April, 1966, to 31st March, 1967, the assessees claimed to deduct from their total turnover for the purposes of arriving at their taxable turnover for levy of general sales tax the turnover of two sales which they said they had made to one Messrs. H. Amrutlal and Company and in respect of which they had issued bill No. 3842 dated 23rd April, 1966, in the sum of Rs. 1,02,778 and another bill bearing No. 3843 dated 10th May, 1966, in the sum of Rs. 1,20,375, the person billed as shown in the said bills being the said Messrs. H. Amrutlal and Company. The above deductions were claimed by the assessees under clause (iii) of sub-section (1) of section 9 of the said Act on the ground that these were sales of goods made by them to a licensed dealer in respect of which the said licensed...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »