Mumbai Court January 1966 Judgments
Mahadeo Gangaprasad Vs. Second Income-tax Officer, A-iv Ward, Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-1966
Reported in: [1966]61ITR384(Bom)
Tambe, ACTG. C.J.1. The petitioner, Messrs. Mahadeo Gangaprasad, is a partnership firm carrying on business in Bombay. By this petition under article 226 of the constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to get quashed the notices of demand of date 28th November, 1962, and the proceedings taken against the petitioner in pursuance thereof. The petitioner also seeks for an order against the Income-tax Officer, respondent hereto, prohibiting him or his successor in office from taking any steps or proceedings, in enforcement, furtherance, implementation or in pursuance of the said notices of demand. We are here concerned with assessment years 1956-57 to 1960-61. At all material times in the said assessment years one Bajranglal Birla was its partner, though there had been some changes during these years in respect of its partners and in respect of the shares of the partners. It is not necessary for the purpose of this case to go into any further detail. 2. The firm, at all material times, ...
Tag this Judgment!Paul Vaz and ors. Vs. Elizabeth Fernandes and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Bom389; (1967)69BOMLR172
(1) This is a suit under O, 21, Rule 103 of the Civil Procedure Code where by the plaintiffs are seeking a declaration of their title and possession of the suit land bearing Survey No. 141, Hissa No. 4, situate at Kole Kalyan in Greater Bombay.(2) According to the plaintiffs, the land in suit along with several other properties belonged to Dominie Vaz, the father of plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2, who dies on 29th April 1928 and they are claiming title to the suit land under a will dated 2nd November 1927 left by their father. The 3rd plaintiff is the wife of the 1st plaintiff and has been joined as a formal party to the suit. The plaintiffs' case is that Dominie Vaz had a son by name Maurice Vaz by his predeceased wife and the said Maurice Vaz, their step-brother unauthorisedly and without having any title thereto purported to sell the said land to one Michael Jerome Miranda by a conveyance dated 4th January 1938. Michael Jerome Miranda sold it to one Pribhan Vishram by a conveyance dated 16...
Tag this Judgment!Madhav Vithoba Wani Vs. Dhondudas Bhaudas Bairagi and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Bom250; (1966)68BOMLR526
Tarkunde, J.(1) This special civil application has been filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution. It was referred by a Single Judge to a Division Bench. The facts involved are very simple. The first respondent is the landlord and the petitioner is the tenant of an agricultural land admeasuring 6 acres and 19 gunthas situate in a village in East Khandesh. The first respondent obtained a certificate under sub-section (4) of S. 88-C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 exempting the land from the operation of Ss. 32 to 32-R of the said Act. Thus the petitioner is an 'excluded tenant' and the first respondent a 'certificated landlord' as defined by S 33-A of the Act. After obtaining a certificate under S. 88-C (4) the first respondent applied for possession of the land under S. 33-B. It is common ground that on the date when this application was filed the first respondent had no land under personal cultivation and the only land which the petitioner had under his personal ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›