Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-28-1980
Reported in : 1981CriLJ1799
ORDER1. This Revision Application raises an important question in regard to the powers of the Court to cancel bail under S. 439(2) of the Cr.P.C., 1973.2. Shri Samant, on behalf of the respondents at first stated that after the Rule is served in this matter upon the respondents, he would argue the matter fully; but later on he gave up this submission and stated that he would accept the Rule and argue the matter fully and final order an the is Revision Application should be passed.3. The prosecution case is that on 17-7-1980 a truck bearing No. ASZ-6377 was intercepted by the Officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (hereinafter referred to as 'D.R.I.') in collaboration with the Officer of the Land Custom Station, Patropole, on the Indo-Bangla Desh border, and it was found to contain 59 cases of snake skins valued at Rs. 44.40 lakhs along with 263 cases of fruit. The said 59 cases were declared by one Laxman Kumar Mishra of Calcutta to contain sweetlime. The 59 cases as also ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jun-18-1980
Reported in : (1981)22CTR(Bom)41; [1981]128ITR87(Bom); [1980]4TAXMAN381(Bom)
Madon, J.1. This group of eight petitions under art. 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the constitutionality of sub-cl. (iii) of cl. (14) of s. 2 of the I.T. Act, 1961, as substituted by the Finance Act, 1970 (Act 19 of 1970), which read with s. 45 of that Act operates to levy capital gains tax on transfer of certain agricultural lands. According to the petitioners, all of them owned agricultural lands situate within the limits of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, and all these lands were at the relevant time subject to payment of land revenue to the Government. In some of the petitions, it is averred that at first cultivation of para grass and later of rice and vegetables was carried on on the lands. In the affidavits in reply these facts are either not admitted or the petitioners are put to the strict proof of these facts. Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the respondents, however, stated before us that for the purpose of these petitions the lands in question in all...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-17-1980
Reported in : (1981)83BOMLR75; 1981MhLJ93
Madon, J.1. The circumstances which led to this Special Bench being constituted are that on September 10, 1980 a Division Bench of this High Court consisting of Madon and Shah JJ., while hearing an Appeal, namely, Appeal No. 308 of 1979 Filmistan Private Limited v, Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, against the judgment and order of Pendse J., sitting singly on the Original Side, dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellants under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, entertained a doubt as to the competency of the said Appeal. Accordingly, they directed the papers in the said Appeal to be placed before the Chief Justice for him to constitute a larger Bench, if he so thought fit, for the determination of the question whether the said Appeal was maintainable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of this High Court. Six days later, that is, on September 16, 1980, while another Division Bench of this High Court consisting of Madon and Kania JJ., were taking admissions in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-02-1980
Reported in : AIR1980Bom280; 1989(24)LC677(Bombay)
Kania, J.1. These two appeals are directed against the judgments delivered by Pendse, J. in Misc. Petn. No. 1479 of 1979 (1980 Cen. Cus. 32-D) and Misc. Petn. No. 1114 of 1979 respectively. Appeal No. 338 of 10979 arises from the judgment in Misc. Petn. No. 1479 of 1979 and Appeal No. 339 of 1979 arises from the judgment in Misc. Petn. No. 1114 of 1979. Both the appeals raise common questions of law and the difference in the facts is not material from the point of view of the questions involved for decision. We, therefore, propose to dispose of both these appeals by this common judgment.2. As the main judgment has been delivered by Pendse, J. in Misc. Petn. No. 1114 of 1979, it will be more convenient to first deal with the facts in Appeal No. 339 of 1979. The respondents herein, who were the petitioners in the said petition, are a partnership firm registered under the Indian PartnershipAct, 1932, and carry, on business as exporters of drugs and chemicals. They are registered with the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : May-02-1980
Reported in : AIR1980Bom307
ORDER1. A two storeyed house in Amalner Town of Jalgaon District is tenanted by the petitioner in this petition and the respondent is the owner of the said house and, therefore, the landlord of the petitioner. The annual rent of the house, which will hereinafter be referred to as 'the suit premises', is Rs. 500. That rent was fixed in the year 1957 when the petitioner took the suit premises on lease from the respondent, both for residence and business. It has been found by the two Courts below that though the rent is calculated at Rs. 500 per annum it is payable by the month at the rate of Rs. 41.65. The suit out of which the present proceedings have arisen is Regular Civil Suit No. 77 of 1971 filed by the respondent in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division at Amalner for possession of the suit premises on the grounds that the petitioner has failed to pay the arrears of rent, which were for a period of more than six months, within one month after the notice under Section 12(2) ...
Tag this Judgment!