Mumbai Court January 1970 Judgments
V.M. Deshpande and anr. Vs. V.S. Kondaskar, Official Liquidator
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Bom174; (1970)72BOMLR698
Desai, J. 1. This is an appeal on behalf of the original respondents from the Judgment and order of Mr. Justice Vimadalal dated September, 28, 1967, granting an order of injunction restraining the original respondents from assessing or reassessing the Colaba Land and Mills Company Limited hereinafter referred to as the Mills Company to income-tax for the assessment years 1950-51 to 1955-56. 2. It is sufficient to notice that in the Company petition No. 221 of 1958 the Official Liquidator was appointed Interim Liquidator of the Mills Company by an Order dated May 1, 1959. By an Order dated October 7, 1959, the Mills Company was ordered to be wound up and the Official Liquidator was confirmed as Liquidator of the Mills Company with all powers under Section 457 of the Companies Act 1956. By six different Notices dated August 23, 1966, issued under Section 14 of, the Income-tax Officer, Companies Circle I (8), Bombay, recorded in respect of the assessment years 1950-51 to 1955-56 that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Dudharam Janardan Chimurkar Vs. Balaji Raghobaji Band and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Bom94; 1971MhLJ224
ORDER1. This is an application in revision by the decree-holder who had attached the house of opponent No. 2, who is the judgment-debtor, on 23-2-1965 in execution of his decree passed against him, on 19-12-1964. The judgment-debtor was in possession of the house when it was attached. The judgment-debtor was alleged to have sold the house to opponent No. 1, who is the objector, on 11-1-1965 as per the registered sale-deed. The opponent No. 1 objected to the attachment of the house under Order 21, Rule 58, Civil P. C., on 19-4-1965, on the ground that the property belongs to him. The applicant-decree-holder has contested the claim of the objector on the ground that the sale deed is fraudulent and bogus and that as a result of such transaction the objector could not acquire any legal title thereunder. He has also pleaded that the house which he attached was from the possession of the judgment-debtor.2. The learned Civil Judge, who heard this application under Order 21, Rule 58, Civil P. ...
Tag this Judgment!Babulal Vithoba Vs. Jagannath Sakharamji Somkuwar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-1970
Reported in: (1970)72BOMLR835; 1970MhLJ481
Bhole, J.1. This is an application in revision by the plaintiff who had sued the opponent-defendant claiming a decree for specific performance of a contract of sale of a land situated at mouza Metpanjara, tahsil Katol, district Nagpur. The opponent had agreed to sell the land to the applicant for Rs. 700 on April 18, 1964 and on that date the applicant had also paid an earnest money its. 200. It was further agreed between the parties that the final sale deed would be executed on April 27, 1964 after receiving the balance. This agreement to sell was also reduced to writing in an Isar Chitthi dated April 18, 1964. Because the opponent did not fulfil his promise, therefore the applicant had to file this suit claiming a decree for specific performance of the contract.2. A decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff by a judgment dated June 80, 1965. The decree was drawn on July 2, 1965. Under the decree, the applicant-plaintiff had to deposit the sum of Rs. 500 as balance of consideration...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Sampat Jawanjal Vs. Harinarayan Sukhdeo and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Bom89; ILR1971Bom599; 1971MhLJ95
ORDER1. This is an application In revision by the defendant No. 1 from an order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Daryapur, under which he has framed seven issues and ordered that the issue No. 3 regarding the proof of legal necessity should be decided first and thereafter the fourth issue regarding the defendants proving that they had been tenants of the land be referred to the tenancy Court.2. The plaintiffs have filed a suit for partition and possession of their share of the suit property. Plaintiffs' case is that defendant No. 3, their father, had entered into a transaction apparently of a lease and that as a result of this transaction defendants Nos. 1 and 2, who are brothers, are in possession of the land. According to the plaintiffs this transaction which their father had with the other defendants is without legal necessity. They further plead that this transaction which appears apparently of a lease is, in fact, a loan transaction and not a lease deed at all3. The def...
Tag this Judgment!H.N. Patwardhan Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Poona
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-1970
Reported in: [1970]76ITR279(Bom)
K.K. Desai, J.1. In this reference under section 66 (10 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, two questions arising under section 16(3)(a)(iii) and one question arising under section 16 (3)(a)(iv) are referred to us for decision 2. The facts appear in the statement of the case. The facts which require to be noticed are as follows : The assessee is a member of the former ruling family of Miraj. The assessment years in question are the years 1957-58 to 1960-61, both inclusive. In 1947, the assessee acquired by way of gift an immovable property from his father. The value of the property then was Rs. 15,000. The assessee expended Rs. 1,40,000 for development of the property in 1952 or thereabouts. By a deed of sale dated August 31, 1956, the assessee sold this immovable property to his wife in consideration of the price of Rs. 1,00,000 paid to him. In connection with the return for wealth-tax, the assessee's consulting engineer valued the property at Rs. 1,50,000 as on April 1, 1957. 3. On F...
Tag this Judgment!The Union of India Through the General Manager, Central Railway, Bomba ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Bom172
1. The applicant Union of India through the General Manager Central Railway, Bombay, has come here in revision from the decree passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Akola, decreeing the claim of the plaintiff against the railway administration for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 155.20. On 17-12-1962, three ginger bags were booked at Ottappalam on the Southern Railway to be carried to and delivered to the consignee at Akola on the Central Railway. These bags never reached Akola and were not delivered. The consignee plaintiff therefore filed a suit against the Central Railway claiming a decree for compensation on 11-8-1964.2. The defendant denied the claim and contended that the suit was liable to be dismissed because it was barred by limitation. The suit was not filed within one year from 22-10-1962 when the consignment ought to have been delivered. The trial Court considered the plea and came to the conclusion that there was some correspondence between the plaintiff and the railway administra...
Tag this Judgment!Piadad Fernander Vs. K.M. Ramesh and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-1970
Reported in: AIR1970Bom376; (1970)72BOMLR569; 1970MhLJ939
ORDER1. This is a group of five Special Civil Applications by the defendants-tenants whose eviction has been ordered by the courts below under Section 13(1)(hhh) of the Bombay Rent Act from the suit premises. The five suits were heard together as common questions of law and fact were involved and for the very reason this judgment will dispose of all these five applications.2. The plaintiffs are owners of a property situate at 35, 3rd Marine Lines, Dhobi Talao, Bombay and portions of that property are occupied by the defendants as tenants. On 21-7-1958 the plaintiffs received a notice from the Municipal Corporation under Section 354(1) of the Municipal Corporation Act requiring the plaintiffs to pull down the structure on the ground that it was in a dangerous condition. On receipt of this notice the plaintiffs initiated proceedings under Section 507 of the Municipal Corporation Act and the Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes at Bombay passed an order in their favour on 29-1-1959 gr...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Piadad Fernandez Vs. K.M. Ramesh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-1970
Reported in: (1970)72BOMLR569a
S.B. Bhasme, J.1. This is a group of five special civil applications by the defendants-tenants whose eviction has been ordered by the Courts below under Section 13(1)(hhh) of the Bombay Rent Act from the suit premises. The five suits were heard together as common questions of law and fact were involved and for the very reason this judgment will dispose of all these five applications.2. The plaintiffs are owners of a property situate at 35, 3rd Marine Lines, Dhobi Talao, Bombay and portions of that property arc occupied by the defendants as tenants. On July 21, 1958, the plaintiffs received a notice from the Municipal Corporation under Section 354(1) of the Municipal Corporation Act requiring the plaintiffs to pull down the structure on the ground that it was in a dangerous condition. On receipt of this notice the plaintiffs initiated proceedings under Section 507 of the Municipal Corporation Act and the Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes at Bombay passed an order in their favour ...
Tag this Judgment!M.K. Khan Vs. Competent Authority, Assistant Housing Commissioner (Est ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-1970
Reported in: (1970)72BOMLR630; 1971MhLJ61
Chandrachud, J.1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges an order dated September 12, 1967 passed by respondent No. 2, the State of Maharashtra, confirming in appeal an order dated September 28, 1966 passed by respondent No. 1 the Competent Authority, under Section 53A of the Bombay Housing Board Act, 1948 (Act LXIX of 1948) hereinafter called 'the Act.'2. By a letter dated February 10, 1961, the Estate Manager of the Maharashtra Housing Board informed the petitioner, a hutment dweller, that it was decided to allot to him a two-room tenement at Motilal Nagar, Goregaon Colony, under the Slum Dwellers Rehabilitation Scheme. The petitioner executed a tenancy agreement in favour of the Chairman of the Board and gave the necessary undertakings in the prescribed form. Clause 17 of the agreement provides that the tenancy would be terminable by one calendar month's notice on either side. Clause 20 provides that the tenancy shall be subject to...
Tag this Judgment!Western India Oil Distributing Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-1970
Reported in: [1970]77ITR140(Bom)
K.K. Desai, J. 1. In this reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the question referred to us is as follows : 'Whether the claim of the applicant to deduct the sum of Rs. 3,00,000 or any instalment thereof as paid and the litigation expenses amounting to Rs. 69,645 in relation to its suit has been rightly rejected in the assessments of the applicant for the assessment years 1957-58 and 1958-59 ?' 2. The facts appear in the statement of the case. 3. The applicant-company has been carrying on business of importing and distributing petrol, kerosene oil and other allied products since 1932. During the Second World War, its business activities were discontinued after 1941, on account of export restrictions in other countries and the requisition by the Government of India for purposes of the war of the company's installations at Bombay, Madras and Calcutta. In the end of 1949, these three installations were returned to the company. 4. For the purpose of carrying on ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »