Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Sorted by: old Court: mumbai Year: 1977 Page 1 of about 68 results (0.014 seconds)

Jul 14 1977 (HC)

Janu Chandra Waghmare and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jul-14-1977

Reported in : AIR1978Bom119; (1977)79BOMLR499

..... capacity as owners or as persons having proprietary interest in the produce and not as traders and as such the effect of the acquisition on their trade is secondary and mediate and not direct or immediate. in our view, the position arising under the acquisition act would be comparable to a couple of instances which would be in pari materia. suppose ..... rigorous test has been laid down by our supreme court, namely the effect or impact of the restriction on free trade, must be direct or immediate and not indirect or mediate and in the context of such test the object or purpose for which the acquisition or expropriation is authorised by the enactment would be relevant and material. 52. having regard ..... free flow or movement of trade and that if the impact or effect of the impugned restrictions on trade and commerce is direct and not remote and immediate and not mediate, such restrictions would offend the freedom guaranteed by article 301.45. in the automobile case : [1963]1scr491 the constitutional validity of rajasthan motor vehicles taxation act, 1951 and the provisions ..... that would fall within the purview of article 301. the argument that all taxes should be governed by article 301 whether or not their impact on trade is immediate or mediate, direct or remote, adopts, in our opinion, an extreme approach which cannot be upheld. if the said argument is accepted it would mean, for instance, that even a legislative enactment .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 10 1977 (HC)

Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. 16/35 Movie Productions

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jan-10-1977

Reported in : (1977)6CTR(Bom)285

madon, j.1. in this reference under s. 61(1) of the bombay sales tax act, 1959, made at the instance of the commissioner of sales tax, the following two questions have been referred to us for our determination : '(1) whether, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, the tribunal was justified in law in coming to the conclusion that from the turnover of sales of films there should be deducted an amount of rs. 17,125 paid to artists engaged in the making of such films (2) whether, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the absence of any written contract, the tribunal was justified in holding that the nature of the contract could not be in any manner different from the contracts which were the subject-matters of messrs cine graphic arts vs. the state of bombay and messrs ama advertising films private ltd. vs. the state of maharashtra ?' 2. this reference has had a chequered history. it first reached before us on february 17, 1975. on that day after hearing the reference for some time we found the statement of the case so inadequately drawn up as to leave us totally mystified about the facts of the case which have given rise to this reference. accordingly, in exercise of our powers under s. 61(3) of the said act we referred the case back to the tribunal, directing it to draw up a proper supplemental statement of the case. a supplemental statement of the case has been drawn up and the matter now again comes before us for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 10 1977 (HC)

Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jan-10-1977

Reported in : [1977]39STC418(Bom)

kania, j.1. this is a reference under section 61(1) of the bombay sales tax act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said act'), made at the instance of the commissioner of sales tax. the question referred to us for our consideration is as follows : 'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was justified in law in the holding that the electric powered fork-lift truck sold by the respondent falls under entry 22 of schedule e and not under entry 58 of schedule c to the bombay sales tax act, 1959 ?' 2. the facts giving rise to this question can be very briefly stated. the respondent made an application dated 10th july, 1965, to the applicant, the commissioner of sales tax, under section 52 of the said act requesting him to determine the entry under which the sale of an electric powered fork-lift truck, made by the respondent under their sale memo no. clr 38 dated 6th january, 1965, would fall. the contention of the respondent-company was that the fork-lift truck sold by them would fall under the residuary entry, viz., entry 22 of schedule e to the said act. the commissioner, however, came to the conclusion that the fork-lift truck would fall within entry 58 of schedule c to the said act. the respondent then appealed to the sales tax tribunal, which took the view that the fork-lift truck was not a truck in the sense in which they understood it and that the vehicles enumerated in entry 58 of schedule c were vehicles meant for long distance .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 11 1977 (HC)

Babasaheb Dnyanu Patil Vs. Shripatrao Shankarrao Bondre and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jan-11-1977

Reported in : AIR1978Bom177; 1977MhLJ61

tulzapurkar, ag. c. j.1. by this writ petition filed under arts. 228 and 227 of the constitution the petitioner (babasaheb dnyanu patil of bhuye, taluka karvir, district kolhapur) is seeking to challenge the legality of the order passed by respondent no, 4 (commissioner, poona division) on 11th august 1976, whereby the learned commissioner rejected his request that he be declared to have been elected to the board of directors of respondent no. 2bank (kolhapur district central cooperative bank ltd., kolhapur),2. a few facts giving rise to this petition may be stated. respondent no. 2 bank 13 a specified society within the meaning of section 73-g of the maharashtra co-operative societies act, 1960, the elections to the board of directors of which were required to be held through the collector. it appears that the board of directors of respondent no. 2 bank consisted of 18 directors 17 elected and one nominee of the financing bank. the triennial elections to the board of directors for the three years 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76 were held in the month of november 1973. the last date for filing the nomination papers was 23rd oct. 1973 and after scrutiny of the nominations was over the last date for withdrawal of nomination papers was fixed as 1st nov. 1973. in all seven candidates had filed their nomination papers, but with the withdrawal of five nomination papers, which was done before 1st nov. 1973, only two candidates remained in the field, viz. the petitioner and respondent .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 12 1977 (HC)

Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Voltas Ltd.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jan-12-1977

Reported in : (1977)6CTR(Bom)281

madon, j.1. this reference under s. 61 (1) of the bombay sales tax act, 1959, arises out of determination proceedings under s. 52 of the said act. 2. the respondents, voltas ltd. are a public limited company. at the relevant time they were acting as distributors for kaira district co-operative milk producers' union, anand, in the state of gujarat. the said union manufactures various products, including cheese. the cheese so manufactured by them was marketed in various forms, including in the form of cheese cubes or as they are referred to on the record, chaplets, packed in aluminium foils and sold under the trade name 'amul'. on august 24, 1967 the respondents sold 40 packets of amul cheese to messrs empire stores for a sum of rs. 139.20p. each of the said 40 packets contained ten cheese cubes or chaplets, each weighing 25 grams, packed in aluminium foils. in their cash memo in respect of the cheese so supplied to messrs empire stores the respondents added a sum of rs. 6.96p. for sales tax at the rate of 5 per cent and rs. 4.80p. for general sales tax at the rate of 3 per cent. thus, according to the said cash memo the respondents charged and collected from m/s. empire stores sales tax and general sales tax on the basis that these cheese cubes were taxable under entry 6 of schedule e to the said act. 3. at the relevant time the said entry 6 provided as follows : ----------------------------------------------------------------------serial description of goods rate of sales .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 12 1977 (HC)

Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. National Chikki Mart

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jan-12-1977

Reported in : (1977)6CTR(Bom)296; [1977]39STC447(Bom)

kania, j.1. this is a reference under s. 61(1) of the bombay sales tax act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said act') made at the instance of the commissioner of sales tax. the question referred to us for our determination is as follows : 'whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on correct interpretation of the scope of entry 6 of schedule e to the bombay sales tax act, 1959, the tribunal was correct in law in holding that sales of 'chikki' packed in heat-sealed polythene bags were not covered by the said entry ?' 2. the facts giving rise to this question are as follows : the respondent-firm is a manufacturer of chikki and farcing and is a registered dealer under the said act. it appears that the respondent sold the chikki made by it in the following four ways (1) loose, (2) in ordinary paper packing, (3) inserting the paper-packed chikki in heat-sealed polythene bags, and (4) putting chikki in card-board box and inserting it in heat sealed polythene bags. in respect of the assessment period from 13-11-1966 to 2-11-1967 the sales tax officer, in effect, held that the chikki sold by the respondents in the manner described in categories (3) and (4) set out aforesaid was sold in sealed containers. it may be mentioned here that the contention of the respondent was that the sales of chikki made by the respondent were covered by entry 31 of schedule c to the said act. this contention was rejected by the sales tax officer as far as the chikki sold by the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 18 1977 (HC)

The Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Sultan Shev Co.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jan-18-1977

Reported in : (1977)6CTR(Bom)385

madon, j. 1. this reference under s. 61 (1) of the bombay sales tax act, 1959, arises out of determination proceedings under s. 52(1) (e) of the said act. 2. the respondents, who are registered dealers under the said act, sold five kilograms of shevaya (that is, vermicelli) on august 8, 1967 at the rate of rs. 1.25p. per kilogram. by their application dated september 13, 1967 made under the said s. 52 (1) (e) the respondents stated that vermicelli so sold by them was prepared from maida purchased by them from shetkari sahakari sangh ltd. and the said commodity was exempted from tax under schedule a to the said act. after a personal hearing, the respondents also set out their case in writing by their letter dated november 14, 1967 in which they clarified that the exemption they sought was under entry 10 of schedule a to the said act and that in the alternative, they claimed exemption under entry 5 of the said schedule a. the said entry 10 of schedule a, as in force at the relevant time was as follows :- --------------------------------------------------------------------'serial description of goods conditions and exceptionsno. subject to whichexemption is granted--------------------------------------------------------------------10 cereals and pulses in all except when sold in sealedincluding atta, maida, besan containers.'suji and bran prepared therefrom,but excluding maize flour.--------------------------------------------------------------------the commissioner of sales tax .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 18 1977 (HC)

Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Sultan Shev Co.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jan-18-1977

Reported in : [1977]40STC583(Bom)

madon, j. 1. this reference under section 61(1) of the bombay sales tax act, 1959, arises out of determination proceedings under section 52(1)(e) of the said act. 2. the respondents, who are registered dealers under the said act, sold five kilograms of shevaya (that is, vermicelli) on 8th august, 1967, at the rate of re. 1.25 per kilogram. by their application dated 13th september, 1967, made under the said section 52(1)(e), the respondents stated that vermicelli so sold by them was prepared from maida purchased by them from shetkari sahakari sangh ltd. and the said commodity was exempted from tax under schedule a to the said act. after a personal hearing, the respondents also set out their case in writing by their letter dated 14th november, 1967, in which they clarified that the exemption they sought was under entry 10 of schedule a to the said act and that, in the alternative, they claimed exemption under entry 5 of the said schedule a. the said entry 10 of schedule a, as in force at the relevant time, was as follows : ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 'serial no. description of goods condition and exemptions subject to which exemptionis granted------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 10. cereals and pulses in all except when sold in sealed atta, maida, besan, sujiforms and flour including and bran prepared therefrom,but excluding maize flour. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 18 1977 (HC)

Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Mulla Akbarally Tayabally

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jan-18-1977

Reported in : (1977)6CTR(Bom)309

kania, j. 1. this is a reference under s. 34(1) of the bombay sales tax act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said act'), made at the instance of the commissioner of sales tax. 2. the questions referred to us for our determination are as follows : 1. whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a true and proper interpretation of s. 15 of the bombay sales tax act, 1953, the tribunal was correct in law in holding that the sales tax officer (xvii), enforcement branch, greater bombay, could not initiate the proceedings under that section on the ground that the original assessment under s. 14 was made by the sales tax officer, e ward, bombay 2. whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a true and proper interpretation of s. 52 of the bombay sales tax act, 1953, the sales tax officer (xvii), enforcement branch, greater bombay, bombay, had valid jurisdiction to pass re-assessment order in the case of the respondent and the notice issued and the order passed under s. 15 were valid in law 3. the facts giving rise to this reference are as follows : in respect of the period from 1st april, 1957 to 31st march, 1958, the respondent, a registered dealer under the said act, was assessed by the sales tax officer, e ward, bombay. this assessment was completed on 23rd june 1959. on 15th september 1960 the sales tax officer, enforcement branch, raided the place of business of the respondent; the said raid being euphemistically referred to by the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 21 1977 (HC)

Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Devidayal Metal Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jan-21-1977

Reported in : (1977)6CTR(Bom)424; [1978]41STC184(Bom)

madon, j. 1. in this reference under s. (61(1) of the bombay sales tax act, 1959, two questions have been referred to us, the first at the instance of the commissioner of sales tax and the second at the instance of the respondents. these two questions are as follows : '(1) whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was justified in holding that the impugned transactions covered by final bill no. b-12/19/imp-e-30 dated 25-2-1964 effected by the respondents with the scheduled units were not sales within the meaning of s. 2(28) of the bombay sales tax act, 1959 (2) whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was correct in law in not allowing the applicant to argue that on the facts of the case the sales were sales protected by article 286 being sales in course of import ?' 2. at the hearing of this reference mr. joshi, learned counsel for the respondents, stated that the respondents did not desire this court to answer the second question, and accordingly at the request of the respondents we are not answering the said question. 3. the facts which have given rise to this reference are that the respondents are established importers of copper. as such established importers the respondents applied for and obtained an import licence may 18,1963 for the importation by them of copper scrap, whether ingoted or otherwise, falling under item 42 of part i of s. ii of the schedule to the import policy statement or what is popularly .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //