Skip to content

Mumbai Court April 1969 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.

Apr 01 1969

Padgirwar Brothers Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Poona

Court: Mumbai

Decided on: Apr-01-1969

Reported in: [1971]80ITR96(Bom)

Abhyankar, J. 1. The question referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount advanced by the assessee firm to Shri V. Nagayya can be allowed as a deduction in the computation of its business income either as a bad debt or as a business loss for the assessment year 1962-63 ?' 2. The statement of the case leading to this reference is as follows : The assessee-firm has been carrying on business as a commission agent for the sale of the products of M/s. Kirloskar Bros. Ltd., M/s. American Spring and Pressing Works (Private) Ltd., and M/s. Tata Fizon Ltd., for the Vidarbha region, besides selling hardware goods, agricultural implements and accessories. In an earlier year the assessee-firm had advanced a sum of Rs. 12,000 to one Nagayya, film producer and an artist to Madras, under an agreement of joint venture to purchase dismantled building material consisting of canvas, iron angles, wooden structures, c...


Apr 01 1969

Radheshaym Mohanlal Kaitan Vs. the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal Nagpur ...

Court: Mumbai

Decided on: Apr-01-1969

Reported in: AIR1970Bom138; (1970)72BOMLR326; ILR1970Bom867; 1969MhLJ689

ORDER1. The petitioner is the landlord of four fields with an area of 38.18 acres situated at village Randala, Tahsil and District Nagpur. The contesting respondent No. 4 who claimed to be a tenant cultivating these fields, filed an application on 26-2-1964 alleging that he was dispossessed of these fields otherwise than in accordance with law and that he was, therefore, entitled to be restored to possession. The application, however, does not state the exact date of dispossession but it is not now disputed that he was dispossessed on 10-6-1959. In respect of these fields proceedings under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, were taken by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nagpur, in which according to the tenant, the Tahsildar, Kamptee, was appointed a receiver and he was placed in possession of these fields on 28-11-1959. These proceedings under Section. 145, Criminal Procedure Code, terminated in favour of the petitioner landlord and in accordance with the decision of the Civil Court ...


  • Next ›

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial