Court : Sales Tax Tribunal STT Mumbai
Reported in : 196011STC50Tribunal
1. These three applications which raise a common question may be disposed of by a common judgment and it would be sufficient to mention the facts in Revision Application No. 347 of 1959.2. The applicants are a partnership firm who do business under the name and style of Messrs Shah Manekchand Kundanmal & Co. The period of assessment is from 1st April, 1954, to 31st March, 1955 and in respect of this period the applicants were assessed by the Sales Tax Officer in the manner set out in his order dated 21st February, 1958. The applicants pre-ferred appeal from that order to the Assistant Collector of Sales Tax who, by his order dated 23rd February, 1959, confirmed the order made by the Sales Tax Officer. From the appellate order the applicants went in revision before the Additional Collector of Sales Tax, Bombay City Division (Revision), Bombay and that authority by his judgment dated 14th July, 1959, confirmed the order made by the Assistant Collector. It is the correctness of this ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1960)62BOMLR863
Mudholkar, J.1. The petitioner is the Central Provinces Transport Services (to which we shall hereinafter refer as CPTS) which is under the ownership of the Government of Madhya Pradesh. Before the States Reorganisation Act came into force, the CPTS as well as the Provincial Transport Services (to which we shall hereinafter refer as PTS) were owned by the former Govern meat of Madhya Pradesh and operated in Madhya Pradesh State in their respective areas. After the reorganisation of the States the CPTS were allotted to the State of Madhya Pradesh and the PTS were allotted to the Government of the State of Bombay.2. Permit No. 31 of 1955 was issued in favour of the CPTS by the Regional Transport Authority, enabling them to ply their buses on the Nagpur-Ramtek road on bazar days. This permit was granted for three years on March 15, 1955. On January 10, 1958, the CPTS made an application for renewal of their permit to the Regional Transport Authority, Nagpur. That application was granted o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1961)63BOMLR732
Kotval, J.1. This is an application for revision under Section 20-A(3) of the C.P. and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922. It relates to a municipal election dispute. General elections were recently held in several municipalities in the Vidarbha area. In this revision, I am concerned with the election of members from ward No. 7 of the Karanja Municipal Committee. The applicant Trikamji, son of Damaji, who moved the election petition, was one of the candidates for election from the said ward. Opponents Nos. 1 to 4 had also filed their nomination papers, but opponents Nos. 3 and 4, Kisan Kondba Jadhao and Nivritti Pandu Shende, respectively, withdrew their candidature within the time fixed. The nomination of opponent No. 2 Ramchandra Ganu Jadhao was rejected by the Supervising Officer and that rejection has not been disputed. Therefore, at the election there were only two contestants, namely, the applicant Trikamji and opponent No. 1 Bhikalal 'Wadilal Shah. Bhikalal has been declared elected...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1962)64BOMLR407
M. Hidayatullah, J.1. This is & tenants' appeal, with the special leave of this Court, against an order of Naik J. of the High Court of Bombay in Civil Revision Application No. 320 of 1959, by which he disallowed certain pleas raised by the appellants. The respondent is the landlord.2. On September 11, 1942, the appellants had executed a rent note, under which they were in occupation of the premises in dispute. The period of the tenancy was fifteen years, and it expired by efflux of time on March 14, 1957. The landlord thereupon filed a suit on April 25, 1957, for possession of the premises, in the Court of the Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division), Brandol. Meanwhile, under Section 6 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, (to be called the Act, in this judgment), a notification was issued, applying Part II of the Act to the area where the property is situated. The appellants claimed protection of Section 12 in Part II of the Act, which deprived the landlor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1961)63BOMLR943
Tambe, J.1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.2. A Gram Panchayat was established in Mouza Gawandi, Taluq and District Yeotmal under the Central Provinces and Berar Panchayats Act, 1946 (Act I of 1947). To this Panchayat, petitioner was elected a panch some time in the year 1956 prior to the date on which the States Reorganization Act came into force. Similarly, in due course, he was also elected Sarpanch of that Panchayat. It was then the policy of the Madhya Pradesh Government to give preference to Sarpanch as in the matter of appointing patels of the Village. In pursuance of this policy the petitioner was appointed the patel of that village after his election as a Sarpanch. As a result of the States Reorganization Act, Yeotmal district and some other territories became part of the newly organised State of Bombay, The Legislature of the State of Bombay enacted a law in the year 1959 called the Bombay Village Panchayats Act (Act III of 1959). I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1962)64BOMLR375
Gajendragadkar, J.1. These four appeals consist of two sets of cross appeals each and they arise from two petitions filed in the High Court, of Bombay at Nagpur challenging the validity of the notification dated June 11, 1958, issued by the State of Bombay, now represented by the State of Maharashtra, under Section 5 of the Minimum Wages Act XI of 1948 (hereafter called the Act). The petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 205 of 1958 are the Bidi, Bidi Leaves and Tobacco Merchants' Association, Gondia, and two others, whereas the petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 214 of 1958 are Haji Latif Ghani Kachhi and five others. The impugned notification consists of seven clauses. By the majority decision of the High Court Clauses 1 to 5 and the first part of Clause 6 are held to be intra vires, whereas the latter part of Clause 6 and Clause 7 as well as the explanation added to it are held to be ultra vires. The first part of the finding is challenged by the petitioners in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1965Bom64; (1964)66BOMLR556
(1) This is suit substantially foe ejectment of the 3rd Defendant Society from out of Shops Nos.3 and 4 on the ground floor of an immoveable property situate at Dadar and mentioned in the Plaint. For the purposes of the above relief it has become essential for the Plaintiffs to challenge the validity of a requisition order dated February 20, 1957, and an allotment order dated May 22, 1958. This suit may therefore be described as suit for challenging the validity of the above two orders. The Plaintiffs have also challenged the validity of a prior requisition order dated December 11, 1943, and a de-requisition order dated October 14, 1957. As I will point out whist dealing with the contentions of the Plaintiffs, it appears to me that the challenge to these previous requisition and de-requisition order is irrelevant to be considered in this suit.(2) In respect of the facts leading to this litigation except on the minor matter there is no substantial dispute between the parties. These fact...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1964]15STC69(Bom)
Desai, J.1. The short question which arises for consideration in the present reference is whether the respondent-company was a dealer within the meaning of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, as regards the sale of a certain old machinery of its mill. The respondent-company carries on the business of manufacture of cloth. In the years 1953-54, 1954-55, 1955-56 and 1956-57 it sold some of its old machinery and replaced it by new machinery. In August, 1956, it sold one Roto Coner and High Speed Warping Machine for a sum of Rs. 35,700. On an application made by the company to the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax to determine whether the company was a dealer within the meaning of the Sales Tax Act, 1953, in respect of the said sale, the Deputy Commissioner held that the company would be a dealer and the sale would be liable to be taxed. The company then took an appeal to the Sales Tax Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the sale could not be said to be in the course of the business activity of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1963)65BOMLR873; 1964MhLJ71
Tambe, J.1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a Writ of certiorari, or any other order or direction for quashing the order of the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Nagpur, respondent No. 1, made on September 6, 1962, wherein he has held that he has jurisdiction to enquire into an application made by respondents Nos. 2 to 5 under Section 19 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, hereinafter referred to as the new Act.2. The question that arises for consideration is whether the Assistant Charity Commissioner had jurisdiction to decide this application under Section 19 of the Bombay Act or whether the previous decision made by the Registrar under the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act (Act XXX of 1951), holding that this particular trust is not a public trust takes away the jurisdiction of the Charity Commissioner to hold an enquiry under Section 19 of the Bombay Act in respect of the same trust? The question arises thus:3. The petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1965Bom224; (1965)67BOMLR101; ILR1965Bom394; 1965MhLJ290
Kotval, J.(1) In this Special Civil Application there are challenged two Notification under the Land Acquisition Act whereby the land of the petitioner has been taken by the State of Maharashtra the third respondent before us. On 24th January 1963 a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued under the signature of the Commissioner of Bombay Division, the first respondent before us. Since almost every paragraph of this Notifications argued before us it is worthwhile to reproduce the whole of this Notifications. It runs as follows :-'No. LAQ-B - 7244-B- Whereas it appears to the Commissioner, Bombay Division, that the lands specified in the Schedule herein (hereinafter referred to as the said lands) are needed for a public purpose viz. for development and utilisation of lands as an industrial area. It is hereby notified under the provisions of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (I of 1894), that the said lands, are needed for the public purpose spe...
Tag this Judgment!