Mumbai Court September 1967 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Anant Sadashiv Netravali Vs. Chitale Agricultural Products Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-1967
Reported in: [1968]38CompCas292(Bom)
1. This is a creditors' petition for an order for winding up of a company registered under the Companies Act, named Chitale Agricultural Products Ltd. 2. The petition is based on the ground that the company is unable to pay its debts, and in support of that contention reliance is placed on the provisions both of section 434(1)(a) and of section 434(1)(c) of the Companies Act. The petitioner has claimed a sum of Rs. 5,320 in respect of which a statutory notice as contemplated by section 434(1)(a) has been given, and it is an admitted position that the said amount has not been paid by the company. On that ground alone, the petitioner is entitled to a winding-up order being made on this petition. 3. Mr. Sorabji for the petitioner has, however, further contended that the company is also commercially insolvent within the terms of section 434(1)(c) of the Companies Act, and, in support of that contention, he has pointed out that, on the company's own balance-sheet for the year ended July 31,...
In Re: Indo-pharma Pharmaceutical Works Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-1967
Reported in: [1968]38CompCas313(Bom)
1. Mr. Mody has relied on Jayantilal Ranchchoddas Koticha v. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. : AIR1958Bom155 in support of this petition. Confirmation of the alteration of the objects specified in the memorandum is a discretionary order, as Chagla C.J. has observed in the said decision itself, even if the conditions laid down in section 17 of the Companies Act are satisfied. That discretion is, no doubt, a judicial discretion, but it has to be exercised on the facts of each case, and the exercise of it is not a matter that can be governed by judicial decisions. Though it is primarily for the company to decide what is for its good and whether the alternation sought to be effected will enable it to carry on its business more efficiently within the terms of section 17(1)(a), the court may, in exercising its discretion, have regard to considerations of business morality or national interests. In may opinion, however, those considerations should not prevent me from sanctioning the alteration o...
M.L. Dahanukar and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bomba ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-1967
Reported in: [1968]68ITR533(Bom)
Kotval, C.J. 1. Two questions have been referred for our decision under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, They are as follows : '1. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 2,00,000 (Rupees two lakhs) or any part thereof should have been allowed as a valid deductions either under the provisions of section 10(2) (xi) or otherwise under section 10(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 and 2. Whether there is any material whatever to support the finding that the sum of Rs. 2,00,000 (Rupees two lakhs) or any part thereof did not become bad or irrecoverable during the previous year relevant for the assessment year 1953-54 ?' As stated in the second question itself we are concerned with the assessment year 1953-54, the corresponding year of account being the Divali year October 31, 1951, to October, 18, 1952. This corresponds to Samvat year 2008. We state his this here because accounts of the two companies with which we are concerned in this case ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Ii Vs. Industrial Investment T ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-1967
Reported in: [1968]67ITR436(Bom)
V.S. Desai, J.1. This is a reference under section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act referring to this court a question of law, which arises in the assessment orders made on the assessee for the assessment of eight years, viz., the assessment years 1951-52 to 1958-59. 2. The assessee is a company incorporated under the Indian companies Act having for its principal business, acquisition and holding of investments in stocks and shares, etc. It has extensive holdings and derives income from dividends and interest on securities. In all the assessment years, which are involved in this reference, the nature of the business of the company and its earning was the same. It is, therefore, necessary to give the figures of income only for the first year as the said figures are typical with regard to the subsequent years also. In the assessment years also. In the assessment year 1951-52 the company derived income from dividends to the extent of Rs. 7,61,407. Our of this amount, a sum of Rs. 5,86,...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Ii Vs. London Hotel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-08-1967
Reported in: [1968]68ITR62(Bom)
Kotval, C.J.1. The following question of law has been referred for our decision at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City II : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to the allowance under section 10(2) (vii) in respect of demolition of a part of the building, even though the loss is not actually written off in the books of the assessee ?' 2. The question has arisen with reference to the assessment year 1957-58, and upon the following facts : Messrs. London Hotel, Bombay, are a firm and they run a hotel called 'London Hotel'. The premises in which this hotel was being run were originally purchased by the three partners of Messrs. London Hotel on 7th September, 1945, for a sum of Rs. 1,15,000. They contributed to the consideration equally and when the London Hotel was started they treated the premises as being let out to the firm, the proprietary right vesting in the three partners jointly. The rent paid by the firm to ...
Union of India Vs. Haim Aghajan Jer Manor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Bom366; (1968)70BOMLR95; 1968MhLJ346
Patel, J. (1) This is an appeal by the Union of India against the decree of the City Civil Court which declared the penalty imposed by the Customs Collector upon the respondent-plaintiff to be invalid and directed refund of the fine recovered from the plaintiff. The plaintiff exported some semi-precious stones outside India to which restrictions under S. 12 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act applied. In terms of this section he was required to make certain declarations. These declarations were made by the plaintiff in the invoices dated April 6, 1956; April 9, 1956 and April 20, 1956. He declared in the first invoice that the full export value of the articles was Rs. 52,291-3-0 though the correct value was Rs. 63,305-5-0. Similarly, in the second invoice he declared the full export value as Rs. 39,256-10-0 though the correct value was Rs. 41,968-7-0, while the third invoice he declared the full export value as Rs. 30, 291-1-9 though the correct was Rs. 32, 446-10-9. On some informa...
The Chatusshakhiya Brahmavrinda Gayaran Trust Vs. the Union of India ( ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-1967
Reported in: (1968)70BOMLR407
Chitale, J.1. This is a group of appeals preferred against the award passed by the learned Arbitrator, who was the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nasik, under Section 8 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (Central Act No. XXX of 1952), hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1952. Some appeals are preferred by the claimants and some are by the Union of India disputing the correctness of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Arbitrator.2. These appeals are preferred on a fixed Court-fee of Rs. 5 each, although the claim in these appeals runs into thousands of rupees. We felt doubtful about the correctness of the amount of Court-fee paid and on inquiry we were told that fixed Court-fee of Rs. 5 was accepted by the office of this Court in view of the decision of this Court in Hirji Virji v. Government of Bombay [1944] 47 Bom. L.R. 327, which was followed in a subsequent unreported decision of this Court in The Government of Maharashtra v. Laxman ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City 1 Vs. Cooper Engineering Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-01-1967
Reported in: [1968]68ITR457(Bom)
Kotval, C.J. 1. The question referred for our decision is as follows : 'Whether on the finding that all the services by the non-resident company were performed outside the taxable territories, and, therefore, the interest accured outside the taxable territories, the assessee was liable to deduct under section 18(3B) of the Act, tax on interest payments of Rs. 2,224 made to the non-resident company, Tata Ltd. ?' 2. The department had, however, posed for reference before the Tribunal a slightly different question. They had omitted all reference to the findings of the Tribunal and had merely posed the following question : 'Whether the assessee was liable to deduct under section 18(3B) of the Act, tax on interest payments of Rs. 2,224 made to the non-resident company, Messrs. Tata Ltd. ?' 3. The Tribunal, however, has referred the question as posed by the assessee and not the letter question and before us the Commissioner has taken out a notice of motion for reframing of the question. We s...
H.R. Gokhale Vs. Bharucha Noshir C. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-01-1967
Reported in: AIR1969Bom177; (1968)70BOMLR466
ORDER1. This is an application for inspection of ballot papers and the contents of ballot boxes by the petitioner in an election petition flied by him under Section 100(l)(d)(iii) and (iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, challenging the election of the 8th Respondent to the House of the People from the Bombay North-West Parliamentary Constituency at the general election held on the 21st of February 1967, on the ground of improper reception as well as improper rejection of votes, as well as on the ground of non-compliance with certain provisions of the said Act and of the Rules framed thereunder. Respondents Nos. 1 to 7 are the other candidates who had contested the election to the said seat, and respondent No. 9 is the Returning Officer within the meaning of the said Act. By the present application, the petitioner has prayed, (a) that the 9th respondent be ordered to give inspection, or to cause inspection to be given, of all the rejected votes cast at the said election,...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›