Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1976]384STC372(Bom)
Madon, J. 1. This reference under section 34(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, has been made at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax. The respondent-firm, which is the assessee in this case, is a sole proprietary concern of which up to 20th December, 1963, the sole proprietor was one R. A. Parikh. Parikh died on 20th December, 1963, leaving him surviving as his heir and legal representative his widow. After Parikh's death his widow continued the business of the respondent-firm. The respondent-firm was registered as a dealer under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1953 Act'), and was at all material times registered as a dealer under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1959 Act'). For the period 1st April, 1959, to 31st December, 1959, the respondent-firm was assessed to sales tax by the Sales Tax Officer by his assessment order dated 13th June, 1962. On 13th December, 1963, the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1950Bom221; (1950)52BOMLR29
Chagla, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order passed by the learned Presidency Magistrate 5th Court, Bombay, convicting the accused under Section 43 (1), Abkari Act and sentencing her to rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 500, in default, rigorous imprisonment for six weeks. The accused was charged with being in possession of 12 bottles of whisky, one bottle of madeira, one bottle of Cream de Menthe and one bottle of sherry, the possession being in excess of what was permissible under the law.2. This appeal has been argued mainly on the question as to whether the Provincial Legislature has the competence to control or restrict the possession by a citizen in respect of foreign liquor. In order to understand this argument we must first look at the scheme of the Bombay Abkari Act (Bom. V [6] of 1878), with which we are concerned, and the preamble of that Act states:'Whereas it is expedient to consolidate and amend the law relating to the import, export, transport, m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1950Bom203; 1950CriLJ1372
ORDERHemeon, J.1. This order will govern the decisions of Miscellaneous Criminal cases NoSection 18B, 209 and 229 of 1949 and 6 of 1960 also. In all these cases, orders in the nature of habeas corpus are sought Under Section 491, Criminal P. O. in respect of persons detained in different jails Under section a (1), Central Provinces and Berar Public Safety Act, 1948 (LXil [62] of 1948, by order of the former Provincial Government.2. A preliminary point is raised before us to the effect that consequent on the inauguration of the Republic on 26th January 19J0, the Public Safety Act has become void as it is a law which is inconsistent with the provisions of Article 23 of the Constitution and that a writ of haleas corpus should be issued under Air. 226 of the Constitution in respect of each of the detenus.3. On behalf of the State Government it is argued that under Article 373 of the Constitution the President is clothed with the power of issuing an order for the continuance of detention of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1954Bom351; (1954)56BOMLR172; ILR1954Bom915
Chagla, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff for a declaration that an order passed by the state of Bombay, which was the defendant, on 24-6-1949, reducing the plaintiff from the rank of an Inspector in the Rationing Department to a clerk, was illegal and void, that he still continues to hold the office of an Inspector, and also for a decree for a certain amount for arrears of salary. The suit was heard by Mr. Hathi, the learned Judge, City Civil Court, and he gave the declaration to the plaintiff which he sought and also passed a decree in his favour for arrears of salary. The State of Bombay has now come in appeal, and the first question that we have to consider is whether the order of 24-6-1949, which is challenged was a legal and valid order. 2. On 18-1-1949, the plaintiff, who was then an Inspector in the Rationing Office, was served with a notice by the Controller of Rationing, Bombay, and in this notice it was stated that on 20-11-1948, the plaintiff ca...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1952Bom16; (1951)53BOMLR837
Chagla, C.J. [1] This appeal arises out of a petition challenging an order of requisition made under Section 6 (4) (a), Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948, requisitioning the premises of the petitioner who occupied them as a sub-tenant. When this petition first came up before Tendolkar J. he held that Act XXXIII [33] of 1948 was void. The State of Bombay came in appeal and we held Heman Santlal Alreja v. State of Bombay, 53 com. L.R. 355, that that Act was not void and remanded the petition to the learned Judge for disposal on merits. The learned Judge considered various preliminary points that were raised with regard to the validity of legislation dealing with requisition. He came to the conclusion that Act XXXIII [33] of 1948 amended by the Bombay Land Requisition (Amendment) Act, 1950, (Act II [2] of 1950) and further amended by the Bombay Land Requisition (Second Amendment) Act, 1950, (Act XXXIX [39] of 1950) was void on various grounds and he also held that the order of requisition...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1918)20BOMLR629
Shah, J.1. This appeal has been set down for further orders in view of the letter received from the Government of Bombay, inviting our attention to the repeal of Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 471 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Luancy Act of 1912 and of the last twelve words of Sub-section (1) of the same section by Act X of 1914, to a letter of the Government of India referred to in the preamble of the Government Resolution No. 6484 of the l6th of September 1913, to Section 24 of the Lunacy Act (IV of 1912) and to Circular No. 76 B of the Criminal Circulars of this Court and asking us to pass final orders.2. We have heard the learned Government Pleader in support of the view expressed in the letter. In the course of the argument the Government Pleader has pressed for an order that the appellant in this case be ordered to be transferred to the Lunatic Asylum at Thana or such other asylum as may have accommodation for him after the necessary arrangements have been made.3....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1960)62BOMLR277
Gokhale, J.(Paras 1 to 7 omitted.)(8) The principal point of controversy which has been agitated at considerble length in these appeals is whether S. 8 of the Bombay Forward Contracts Control Act, 1947 (LXIV of 1947), which will hereafter be referred to as 'the Bombay Act', has been rendered inoperative by virtue of a notification issued by the Textile commissioner on 16-7-1953 under the provisions of the central Cotton Order, 1950, which order itself was issued in exercise of the powers conferred on the Central Legislature by the Essential Supplies (Temporay Powers) Act , 1946 (XXIV of 1946), which will hereafter be referred to as 'the Essential Supplies Act'. As we have already indicated. the other law point which was raised on behalf of the plaintiffs in these suits was wherther the Bombay Act was also redered inopertative by virtue of the notification applying s. 15 of the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952 (74 of 1952). That notification was issued on 30-7-1954, that is to s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1961)63BOMLR442
Datar, J.1. These three appeals arise out of three suits instituted by three different plaintiffs against the same defendant, the State of Bombay. They have been heard together and the principal points raised and argued before us are common to them; accordingly they will be disposed of by one judgment which will be delivered in F. A. No. 172 of 1956.2. F.A. No. 172 of 1956 is preferred by the State of Bombay against the decree passed in favour of the plaintiff, Dr. Raghunath Balkrishna Chandrachud, in Special Suit No. 46 of 1952.3. On March 14, 1925, Dr. Chandrachud was taken up in the former Baroda State Service as Principal Medical Officer of the State General Hospital and Chief Medical Officer of the State on an initial pay of Rs. 1,000 per month. The post on which he was appointed was the post of public service in the State. In January 1927, he was confirmed in his office and became a permanent member of the State Public Service. From April 3, 1945, his pay was increased to Rs. 2,0...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1917)19BOMLR211
Batchelor, J.1. This is an application by Mr. Bal Gangadhar Tilak praying this Court to revise an order made by the District Magistrate of Poona under Section 108 and the following sections of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. The order complained of directs that the applicant do enter into a bond in a sum of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties each in a sum of Rs. 10,000 to he of good behaviour for a period of one year. The ground of the order was that in the learned District Magistrate's opinion the applicant disseminated seditious matter in the three speeches which are now upon the record.3. These speeches were admittedly made by Mr. Tilak. They were made in the Marathi language, but the translations be-fore us are, it is admitted, substantially correct and in my view nothing turns upon certain small niceties of expression in which the defence suggest that the official translation contains slightly harsher words than the Marathi warrants. Thus the only question is, whether in the three speech...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1968)70BOMLR654
Tarkunde, J.1. The petitioner is a member of the Padvi tribe in the West Khandesh District, There are in that District six estates of tribal Chiefs called Mehwassi Estates. The petitioner is the owner of one such estate. His estate is known as Kathi Estate and it comprises of 99 villages in Maharashtra and 2 villages in Gujarath. The cultivable lands in the 99 villages comprised in Maharashtra are in the possession of about 7,000 cultivators.2. The Mehwassi estates are a scheduled area under Article 244 and Schedule V of the Constitution. On 24th February 1962, the Governor of Maharashtra issued a Notification under sub-para. (1) of para. 5 of the Fifth Schedule. At about the same time, in exercise of his powers under sub-para. (2) of para. 5 of the Fifth Schedule, the Governor made a Regulation called the West Khandesh Mehwassi Estates (Proprietary Rights Abolition, etc.) Regulation, 1961. The petitioner challenges the validity of the said Notification and the said Regulation and pray...
Tag this Judgment!