Mumbai Court April 1984 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.
Purushottamdass and Another (Bulakidas Mohta Co. P. Ltd.) Vs. Registra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-06-1984
Reported in: [1986]60CompCas154(Bom)
Puranik, J.1. By this petitioner under section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956, the petitioners seek to secure an order of restoration of the name of the company, M/S. Bulakidas Mohta and Co. (P.) Ltd., Akola, from the Registrar of Companies and also for issue of fresh registration certificates.2. The brief facts leading to the present petition may be narrated as follows : 3. The Company, M/s. Bulakidas Mohta and Co. (P.) Ltd., was incorporated on October 13, 1939, and, after the Companies Act, 1956, came into force, it became a private limited company in 1956. Two of the original directors of the company are no longer alive. The company was dealing with the business of ginning and pressing mills and with that view they have secured a lease of vast territory of land admeasuring 1,46,991 sq. ft. being a Nazul plot from Khamgaon Municipal Committee in the year 1945. The lease was for a period of 30 years with an option for renewal, and it commenced from July 2, 1944. The company had al...
J.F. Pareira Vs. Eastern Watch Company Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-06-1984
Reported in: II(1984)ACC350; 1984(2)BomCR228; (1985)ILLJ472Bom
1. Messrs Eastern Watch Company Ltd. have a showroom on the ground floor of Commissariat building on Dadabhai Naoroji Road. The building is a five storeyed one and the ground floor houses many other showrooms. Other floors have been let out to office establishments and conveniences have been provided for the inmates of each floor. The second floor is wholly occupied by the L.I.C. Office and the L.I.C. management do not permit people from other floors to use their conveniences.2. The deceased Anthony V. Pareira was a salesman employed by the Eastern Watch Company. He joined the company along with Miss Jessie Roberts sometime in 1955. He was performing the usual salesman duties of a showroom which included attending to customers, showing the watches, time pieces, clocks etc. Anthony Pareira was drawing Rs. 170/- as basic pay plus allowances.3. On 4th February, 1974 Pareira reported on duty in the morning, worked as usual till 4.00 p.m. when he left the shop telling his co-worker Jessie R...
Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State, Bombay Vs. Roopchand Tar ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-06-1984
Reported in: [1984]57STC145a(Bom)
Shah, J.1. On a case stated under section 61 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal has referred the following question for our determination :'Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of the latter part of sub-section (2) of section 46, B.S.T. Act, 1959, the Tribunal was correct in setting aside the order of forfeiture of tax of Rs. 1,347.53 on the ground that the tax collected was less than the total amount of tax including purchase tax found payable ?'2. The assessee is a re-seller of plastic bangles. For the assessment period April 1, 1968, to March 31, 1969, the Sales Tax Officer held that the purchases made by the assessee worth Rs. 23,953 were of goods purchased on form 14. There was a contravention of the recitals contained in the declaration and hence the Sales Tax Officer proceeded to levy purchase tax on the abovesaid purchases. He found that the goods were sol...
New Nagpur Copra Industries Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-06-1984
Reported in: [1985]60STC380(Bom)
Mohta, J.1. What principally falls for consideration in this writ petition is whether the word 'copra' as found in entry No. 6(viii) in Schedule B, Part II, of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 ('the BST Act' for short) takes within its ambit copra powder (copra-kis).2. The relevant entry reads thus :'6. Oil-seeds, that is to say, - (i) to (vii) .................... (viii) Coconut (i.e., copra excluding tender coconuts (Coco nucifera). (ix) to (xx) .....................'The petitioner is a partnership firm carrying on business of manufacture of copra oil and copra powder. According to the petitioner - a position not disputed - it prepares copra powder by simple process of crushing desiccated copra, which process does not involve either addition of new substance or substracting any ingredients resulting into any chemical change in the substance of copra or loss of its identity. The Sales Tax Officer (Recovery), Unit-I, Nagpur, respondent No. 2, passed two assessment orders dated 29th Decem...
The Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Babubhai Valji Mehta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-06-1984
Reported in: [1984]57STC43(Bom)
Kania, J.1. This is a reference under section 34(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 (referred to hereinafter as 'the said Act'). The questions referred to us for determination in this reference are as follows :'(1) Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the time-limit of 5 years prescribed under section 15 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, is applicable to the assessment of unregistered dealer for the completed years of assessment and that the assessment for a period which is less than one year could only be initiated and completed under section 14(6) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 ? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessment of the respondent made by the Sales Tax Officer under section 14(6) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, for the period 1st April, 1958, to 31st December, 1959, was bad in law ?'It may be clarified that in question No. (2) as set out in the paper book, the period referred ...
PravIn Kantilal Vakil and Another Vs. Mrs. Rohini Ramesh Save and Anot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-1984
Reported in: [1985]57CompCas31(Bom)
Rege J.1. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the parties have tendered minutes of the order signed by the learned counsel in terms of which they have no objection to the order being passed. However, before doing so, we propose to give short-reasoned order in this case.2. A few facts that are of some relevance are as under :On November 21, 1980, a judge's summons for direction under s. 391 of the Companies Act was taken out by respondent No. 2 herein, M/s. Centron Industrial Alliance Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Centron'), for sanction of the scheme of amalgamation of the company with Broke Bond India Ltd. On the said summons, the court directed that the scheme be advertised and a meeting of the shareholders and the creditor, both secured and unsecured, of the company be held. On January 26, 1981, the scheme was advertised in the Times of India. At the meeting held January 27, 1981, to consider the scheme as directed by the court, the scheme was approved by 97....
Arjundas Jamnadas Udasi and anr. Vs. Pyrarelal Bindesari Prasad Bhujwa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Bom249; 1984MhLJ1001
ORDER1. This writ petition preferred by the landlord is against the order of the Resident Deputy Collector, Amravati, in an appeal under the provisions of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (for short the Rent Control Order)2. Briefly, the facts that the petitioner landlord filed three applications before the Rent Controller, Amravati, under Cls. 13(3)(I) and (ii) of the Rent Control Order seeking permission to give quit notice to the respondent tenant. All the three applications were consolidated for common evidence and disposal. The Rent Controller by the order dt. 30-10-1975 held that the respondent tenant was in arrears of rent for more than three months, which of rent for more than three months, which he should pay within 30 days from the date of his order, failing which the permission would be deemed to be granted to the petitioner landlord to serve the notice upon the respondent tenant to determine his lease. However, as regards the case of the lan...
Raj Kumar Ramavtar Chourasia Vs. Mathew Charian Christian
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Bom458; 1984MhLJ898
M.R. Waikar, J.1. This is a review petition and the short question for consideration is whether an error not of fact but of law or rather an erroneous application of law, can be a ground for review under O. 47 R. 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure ?2. The judgment of which the review is sought by this application was delivered by the learned single Judge of this couort, but since he (R. S. Padhye J. ) is not now available, this application under the Rules has come up before us for hearing and disposal.3. The present applicant (original plaintiff ) as the landlord of the premises in question, approached the Rent controller for grant of permission to save a notice on the non-0applicant mathe (orginal permission granted by the Rent Controller to the applicant was confirmed in appeal by the Resident Deputy Collector. It appears that immediately after the grant of permission bby the Rent Controller, the applicant served a quit notice, determined the tenancy and filed a civil suit. During the ...
Jayprakash Sumantrao Kale Vs. Smt. Chandrakala Jayprakash Kale and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-1984
Reported in: 1985(2)BomCR271
ORDER1. The Petitioner-husband has filed this Criminal Application under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the legality and correctness of the orders passed by the Courts below. The First Respondent claims to be the wife of the Petitioner and Second Respondent is the son born out of the said wedlock. The Third Respondent is the State of Maharashtra. The Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed an application under S. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure bearing Maintenance Application No. 1190/81 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pune, claiming the maintenance for herself and for her minor child. It is alleged by the Respondents in their Application that the Petitioner husband has failed and neglected to maintain them. This application was filed on or about in September 1981. After service of the summons of the said maintenance application, the Petitioner filed his written statement on or about March 15, 1981 denying the allegations. The maintenance appl...
Ashok Leyland Limited Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-1984
Reported in: 1986(26)ELT676(Bom)
Khatri, J.1. By these four writ petitions, Ashok Leyland Limited (for short the petitioners) challenge four different orders passed by Respondent No. 2 Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Nagpur (for short, the respondent) under Section 11A of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, (hereafter the Act) directing the petitioners to pay short levied excise duty on the motor vehicles manufactured by them at their Bhandra factory.2. The material facts lie within a narrow compass. The petitioners are manufacturers of medium and heavy duty motor vehicles and have their factories at Ennore and Hosur in Tamil Nadu, at Alwar in Rajasthan and at Bhandra in Maharashtra. These motor vehicles are liable to excise duty under Tariff Item 34 of the first schedule to the Act. The respondent is the authority concerned with levy and collection of duty in regard to the Bhandra factory. According to the petitioners they have fixed ex-factory price for these goods and excise duty is payable by them under Se...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »