Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Sorted by: recent Court: mumbai Year: 1977 Page 1 of about 68 results (0.010 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!

Dec 13 1977 (HC)

Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Ravindra Heraeus Ltd.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Dec-13-1977

Reported in : [1978]42STC66(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. 2. the question referred to us for our determination is as follows : 'whether, on a true and proper interpretation of entry 1 of schedule e to the bombay sales tax act, 1959, the tribunal was correct in law in coming to the conclusion that 'platinum' was covered by the scope of the word 'bullion' used in the said entry ' 3. the facts giving rise to this question, briefly stated, are as follows : the respondents are registered as a dealer under the said act. on 17th june, 1969, the respondents made an application to the commissioner of sales tax under section 52(1)(e) of the said act for determination of the rate of tax payable on the sales of platinum made by them as shown in a bill dated 28th february, 1969. it was stated in the application that the fertiliser corporation of india ltd. had placed an order with the respondents for fabrication and supply of 90 per cent platinum and 10 per cent rhodium alloy gauzes. the platinum required for the fabrication of the said gauzes was supplied by the respondents and the rhodium was supplied by the said corporation. the cost of supply of the platinum was shown as rs. 6,40,213.53. after an initial determination by the commissioner there was an order of remand by the sales tax tribunal. on remand, the commissioner of sales tax held that platinum metal .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 09 1977 (HC)

Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Bombay Commercial Traders

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Dec-09-1977

Reported in : (1978)7CTR(Bom)363

madon, j.1. this is a reference under s. 9(2) of the central sales tax act, 1956, read with s. 61(1) of the bombay sales tax act, 1959. the question submitted to us for our determination in this reference is as follows : 'whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was correct in law in holding that the provisions of s. 36(3) of the bombay sales tax act, 1959, could not be imported in the assessments under the central sales tax act, 1956, to levy penalty for late payment of central sales tax and that such penalty was without the authority of law ?' 2. the brief facts necessary to be related for the purpose of this reference are that the respondents were registered as dealer under the central sales tax act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to and 'the central act'). in respect of the assessment period april 1, 1965 to march 31, 1966 the respondents were assessed to tax under the central act by the sales tax officer, a ward, unit iv, bombay, on february 18, 1969. the sales tax officer also imposed upon the respondents a penalty in the sum of rs. 1,190.60p. for delay in payment of tax under the central act for the quarter ended september 30, 1965 and for non-payment of tax for the quarter ended december 31, 1965, which amounts were shown as payable in the returns filed by the respondents. the sales tax officer imposed this penalty purporting to do so under s. 9(3) of the central act, as it then stood, read with s. 36(3) of the bombay sales tax act, 1959 ( .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 09 1977 (HC)

Misrilal Misra Vs. Ikram HuseIn and Co.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Dec-09-1977

Reported in : (1978)80BOMLR659

naik, j.1. [after narrating facts, not material to the report, his lordship proceeded.] it was argued by mr. keshavdas that the court has no power to grant temporary mandatory injunction and that in any event mandatory injunction could be granted only to maintain the status quo as on the date of the suit, for special reasons after proof of the prima facie case and the balance of convenience. in support of his submission that the court has no power to grant inter-locutory mandatory injunction he has relied upon the observations of bea-man j. which are made in rasul v. pirubhai : air1914bom42 . beaman j. who formed a division bench with shah j., no doubt observed as under (p. 291):.it has always been, in my opinion, a very open question whether in strictness a mandatory injunction can properly be made on interlocutory applications. in england whatever doubts may have existed on this point may be said to have been removed by section 25 of the judicature act, and it has long been a common place in the text-books that the courts indubitably have the power to make mandatory injunctions on interlocutory motions.2. the learned judge further observes (p. 293):an examination of this and many other cases which i have gone through, however, leaves me unshaken in the opinion that in strictness no mandatory injunction upon an interlocutory proceeding can ever be temporary.3. further the learned judge at p. 295 expressed his doubts as under:if we turn to order xxxix, rules 1 and 2, which .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 08 1977 (HC)

Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Shantilal Kalidas and Bros.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Dec-08-1977

Reported in : [1978]42STC166(Bom)

madon, j.1. these are two references under section 34(1) of the bombay sales tax act, 1953, in each of which the following two questions have been referred to us : '(1) whether the tribunal is correct in law in holding that an authority acting under section 15 of the bombay sales tax act, 1953, cannot resort to best judgment assessment (2) whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a true and proper interpretation of section 15 of the bombay sales tax act, 1953, the tribunal was correct in law in holding that the sales tax officer (viii), enforcement branch, bombay, could not initiate the proceedings under that section on the ground that the original assessment under section 14 of the said act was passed by the sales tax officer, c ward, bombay ?' 2. the brief facts necessary for deciding these references are that the respondents were registered as a dealer under the said act. their assessments for the period 1st april, 1955, to 31st march, 1956, and 1st april, 1956, to 31st march, 1957, were made by the sales tax officer, c ward, bombay. in the respondents' income-tax proceedings certain books were seized by the income-tax officer. on receipt of this information, the sales tax officer (viii), enforcement branch, bombay, also took charge of these books. on 24th february, 1964, the said sales tax officer (viii), enforcement branch, issued notices to the respondents under section 15 of the said act to show cause why turnover escaping assessment for the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 05 1977 (HC)

Dhondopant Madhavrao Inde Vs. Ashok Haribhau Patil

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Dec-05-1977

Reported in : (1979)81BOMLR265; 1978MhLJ773

vaidya, j.1. the above first appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated november 7, 1969, passed by the civil judge, senior division, bhir, decreeing the suit, filed by respondent no. 1, against the appellant, who was defendant no. 1; and his father, defendant no. 2, for declaring that the sale-deed, dated march 8, 1965, executed by defendant no. 2, in favour of defendant no. 1, was ineffective and not binding on the plaintiff, to the extent of his interest in the property; and that the plaintiff should be put in possession of the suit-land, to the extent of half, bearing s- no. 104, measuring 19 acres 16 gunthas, assessed at rs. 39.64 p., situated in village pimpalner, taluka bhir, district bhir, partition in respect of which had to be made by the collector, or his gazetted subordinate, under section 54 of the civil procedure code; and directing further an inquiry under order xx, rule 12(i)(c) of the civil procedure code, for mesne profits, from the date of the suit, till delivery of possession; and to pay costs.2. the sale was set aside, on the ground that the consideration of rs. 15,000, paid by defendant no. 1 to defendant no. 2, was tainted by imorality, inasmuch as defendant no. 2 had sold the suit-land, for the purpose of paying the amount embezzled by him in respect of the seva sahakari society, pimpalner, while he was the chairman of that society. the learned judge, in arriving at the conclusion, followed the decision in bai mani v. usajali : .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 03 1977 (HC)

Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Dharampur Leather Cloth Company Private ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Dec-03-1977

Reported in : [1978]41STC274(Bom)

madon, j.1. these are three references made by the sales tax tribunal at the instance of the commissioner of sales tax. the respondents in all these references are the same and two identical questions have been referred to us in each of these references. the material facts necessary for deciding these references are also the same, the only difference being that sales tax reference no. 100 of 1976 is under the central sales tax act, 1956, in respect of the assessment period 1st april, 1958, to 31st march, 1959; sales tax reference no. 101 of 1976 is under the bombay sales tax act, 1953, in respect of the assessment period 1st april, 1959, to 31st december, 1959; and sales tax reference no. 102 of 1976 is under the central sales tax act, 1956, in respect of the assessment period 1st april, 1959, to 31st december, 1959. sales tax reference no. 101 of 1976 is made under section 34(1) of the bombay sales tax act, 1953, while the other two references are made under the said section 34(1) read with section 9(2) of the central sales tax act, 1956. as this, however, makes no difference to the decision of these reference, it will be convenient to dispose of these by a common judgment. 2. the respondents were registered as dealers both under the bombay sales tax act, 1953, and the central sales tax act, 1956. they carry on business as manufactures, inter alia, of rexine cloth and bookbinding cloth. in respect of their assessments both under the bombay act and the central act in respect .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 02 1977 (HC)

Shri Noor Mohammad Sultan Mohammed Vs. Devilal Chunilal

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Dec-02-1977

Reported in : (1978)80BOMLR280

naik, j.1. this is an appeal against the order of the learned judge of the city civil court, bombay, dated april 14, 1977 making the defendant-appellant's notice of motion dated march 31, 1977 absolute and setting aside the ex parte decree passed against the defendant on march 2, 1977 on condition that the defendant deposits the decretal amount in court within a week and that on defendant's failure to deposit the decretal amount in court the said notice of motion to stand dismissed without further express orders of court.2. the facts giving rise to this appeal which are not in dispute are briefly these: summary suit no. 634 of 1972 was filed by the plaintiff respondent on the strength of a pro-note dated january 16, 1969 for rs. 3,400 alleged to have been executed by the defendant-appellant. it appears that at the summons stage there was an ex parte decree on june 4, 1972. that ex pane decree was set aside and unconditional leave to defend was in fact granted to the defendant. the defendant filed his, written-statement. the suit was transferred to the list of long causes on march 24, 1975. on march 2, 1977 the suit was taken up by mr. thakkar, the additional principal judge of the city civil court who was taking commercial causes and it was decreed ex pane. thereafter one praveen patel, the clerk of defendant's advocate mr. narayanan, who was entrusted to watch the daily boards of long causes, learnt on enquiries that the suit was placed on board before mr. thakkar who was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 29 1977 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-ii, Bombay Vs. Ramchand Jethma ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Nov-29-1977

Reported in : [1978]115ITR384(Bom)

chandurkar, j.1. admittedly the amounting year in respect of the assessee for the purpose of business and ordinary dividends for the period in question was the year ending october 31, 1956. the assessee held 13,990 shares out of a total capital of 20,000 shares in krishna steel industries pvt. ltd. (referred to by the tribunal as 'hindustan'). though the assessment of the assessee related to the accounting year ending october 31, 1956, the ito took the accounting year ending march 31, 1957, as the previous year for the purposes of deemed dividends under s. 2(6a)(e) of the i.t. act, 1922. on the basis of the accounts of krishna and hindustant, the ito found that in the account with krishna company, though on january 1, 1956, there was credit balance in favour of the assesse amounting to rs. 8,59,435 and this continued till october 5, 1956, there was a debit of rs. 6,23,541 as on december 31, 1956, though by the end of march 31, 1957, the assesse had again become a creditor in the sum of rs. 62,084. similarly, in the case of hindustan company, though till december 14, 1956, the assessee continued to be a creditor of the company, from december 15, 1956, there was a debit balance against the assessee which stood on december 31, 1956, at rs. 49,372 and on march 31, 1957, the debit balance stood at rs. 2,40,135. as already stated, treating the accounting year as on ending on march 31, 1957, the ito treat a sum of rs. 1,77,303 as deemed dividend under section s. 2(6a)(e) of the i.t. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 29 1977 (HC)

Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Indian Metal Traders

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Nov-29-1977

Reported in : (1978)7CTR(Bom)377; [1978]41STC169(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'). the question referred to us for our determination is as follows : 'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper interpretation of section 13 of the bombay sales tax act, 1959, the tribunal was correct in law in holding in its judgment in appeal no. 134 of 1968 that no purchase tax was payable under the said section on the purchase of the ship 'jalapratap' by the appellants under the instrument dated 10th november, 1965, and which ship was dismantled ?' 2. the facts giving rise to this reference are as follows : the respondents are a registered dealer under the said act and deal in iron and steel, iron scrap, electric motors and machinery. they also purchase unserviceable ships for scrapping and dismantling. under an instrument of sale dated 10th november, 1965, the respondents purchased a ship named 'jalapratap' along with its boats and appurtenances from the scindia steam navigation co. ltd. this purchase was made by the respondents for the purpose of breaking and scrapping the said ship. on 19th september, 1968, the respondents made an application under section 52 of the said act to the deputy commissioner of sales tax for determination of the question as to whether any tax was payable on the purchase of the said ship and if so, to determine the rate of that tax. in this application the respondents stated that they .....

Tag this Judgment!


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