Mumbai Court October 1972 Judgments
Jaichand Housilal Gujarathi Vs. Ananda Tanji Patil and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-27-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Bom165; 1973MhLJ272
ORDER1. These proceedings have been filed against the order made by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal allowing the revision under Section 111 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tenancy Act').2. Two issues were referred by the Civil Court in Civil Suit No. 288 of 1961 and issue No.5 was to the following effect:-Whether the defendants have become tenants of the suit land as alleged by themWhen the matter went before the tenancy Court, parties filed their statements and pleaded their respective cases. By a written statement dated 6-6-1963 the purported tenant stated that they were on the land under an agreement of lease. They also gave the details thereof. Further they pleaded that because they became the owners on 1-4-1961 under the Act being contractual lessees, the earnest note for the sale of the said land was invalid.3. The landlords filed their statement saving that they were upon the land inducted because of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Steel Plant Private Ltd. Vs. the Republic Forge Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-27-1972
Reported in: (1974)76BOMLR13
Nain, J.1. This Motion appears to be misconceived as well as mala fide. The Motion is for stay of the suit on the ground that by an agreement between the parties they have excluded the jurisdiction of Courts in Bombay and conferred exclusive jurisdiction on Courts at Hyderabad in Andhra Pradesh in respect of the subject-matter of the suit. It is undoubtedly correct that by an agreement the parties can confer exclusive jurisdiction on one of the Courts1 of competent jurisdiction and exclude jurisdiction of the other Court of competent jurisdiction. Even if this has been done in this case, in my opinion, this would be a defence to the suit on the ground that this Court has no jurisdiction. If the Court so holds the plaint will have to be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court. In my opinion, stay of the suit is not the proper remedy. Even if it were, I would not grant a stay because stay would only put the plaintiffs' suit in cold storage and prevent him from gett...
Tag this Judgment!Sitaram Tensukhrai Lekaria Vs. V.R. Bhoware and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-26-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Bom103; ILR1973Bom1227; 1973MhLJ15
ORDER1. This petition is directed against an order made by the Collector, Wardha, directing the petitioner under Clause 23 (1) of the C. P. & Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order 1949, to let the premises to respondent No.1. The said respondent has not appeared in these proceedings. However, Collector is represented by the learned Assistant Government Pleader.2. The brief facts upon which the relief is sought under Article 227 of the Constitution are that on June 10, 1972, the present accommodation became vacant and, as required by the provisions of the Order, a due intimation was given on June 12, 1972 by the present applicant-landlord. He intimated that he needed the premises for bona fide personal occupation. It appears that the landlord also filed some separate statement pointing out that the present space available to him was insufficient for the requirements of his family which was of 12 members and, therefore, he did not wish to let out the same to anybody. It was spec...
Tag this Judgment!Somnath Vs. Tipanna Ramchandra Jannu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-20-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Bom276; (1973)75BOMLR177; 1973MhLJ910
Deshmukh, J. 1. This is plaintiff's appeal. Plaintiff is described in the plaint as a major person aged 35 but of unsound mind, or a person incapable of taking care of his own affairs and, therefore, sued through the next friend, his wife. For the purpose of this appeal, it is not necessary to refer to the contents of the plaint. Suffice it to note that there appears to be a decree ultimately passed by the High Court in First Appeal No. 479 of 1961 decided on 25-7-69 arising out of Special Suit No. 108 of 1958 in the Court of the Civil Judge (s. D.) Poona, in favour of the defendant. Defendant is executing that decree in Special Darkhast No. 90 of 1968 and the suit by the next friend on behalf of the plaintiff, who is described as a person of unsound mind is for a declaration that the plaintiff has a right to remain in possession of the suit property and that that defendant is not entitled to execute the decree for specific performance obtained by him in the litigation mentioned above....
Tag this Judgment!Harbansingh Ajitsingh Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-20-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Bom363; (1973)75BOMLR559; 1973MhLJ949
ORDER1. This Civil Revision Application arises out of a suit filed by the Petitioners to claim a sum of Rs. 684-95 P. on account of loss suffered by them by reason of short delivery of woollen goods. On April 29, 1958, the goods were consigned under Railway Receipt No. 3374 of 1958 to be carried to Imphal Out Agency, North Eastern Railway. In February, 1959 when the delivery of the goods was given to the Petitioners, a certificate of damage and shortage dated February 7, 1959 was issued to them by the Station Master of the destination Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act and under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Petitioners filed a suit against the Union of India, claiming a sum of Rs. 684.95 on account of damage and shortage. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court on the preliminary objection that the notice under Section in compliance with the provisions thereof. That decision of the trial Court was confirmed by the full Court in Application No. 275 of 1962.2. Thus...
Tag this Judgment!D.M. Dahanukar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-19-1972
Reported in: [1973]88ITR454(Bom)
Kantawala, J. 1. The question in this reference relates to computation of capital gains when an assessee has sold the bonus shares allotted to him. The question of law referred to us for our decision is as under : 'Whether, for the purposes of computation of capital gains, was the assessee entitled to deduct the face value of the bonus shares from their sale value as the 'actual cost' of those shares to the assessee within the meaning of section 12B(2) ?' 2. The assessee is the investor with reference to shares of Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd. held by him (hereinafter referred to as 'sugar mills'). The assessee received certain bonus shares from the sugar mills. These bonus shares were acquired by him without paying any amount by him. The assessment relates to the assessment year 1960-61. During the relevant previous year, the assessee sold 600 bonus shares. 3. During the course of assessment, a question arose as regards the quantum of capital gains made by the assessee under section 12...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Tata Sons Private Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-19-1972
Reported in: [1974]97ITR128(Bom)
K.K. Desai, J.1. In Reference No. 33 of 1964 and also in Reference No. 35 of 1964 the questions raised relate to the true construction and effect of the provisions in sections 184 and 199 of the United Kingdom Income Tax Act, 1952, in connection with the claim of the assessee concerned for relief under section 49D of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. 2. In Reference No. 33 of 1964, the claim for relief related to the assessment years 1955-56 and 1957-58, the relevant account years being calendar years 1954 and 1956. In these two years the assessee had received the respective sums of Rs. 59,149 and Rs. 56,766 by way of dividend income, accrued without the taxable territories, i.e., income in the United Kingdom. The claim of the assessee under section 49D (1) was that it was resident in the taxable territories in the year of account. In respect of the above dividend income deduction had been made and the assessee had paid income-tax under the law in force in the United Kingdom. For this r...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City I Vs. Ahmedabad Electricity Co ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-19-1972
Reported in: [1973]89ITR77(Bom)
-Kantawala, J.1. By this reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the question that is referred for our determination is as under : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the unabsorbed depreciation allowance of the previous years deemed to be part of depreciation allowance of the current year under proviso (b) to section 10(2)(vi) of the Act can be set off against income under other hands ?' 2. The assessee is a public limited company and the question referred to us relates to the assessment year 1961-62, the relevant previous year being the financial year ending March 31, 1961. 3. The income of the assessee from business under section 10 before allowing depreciation was Rs. 1,19,67,810. Out of that, depreciation for the year was deducted as amounting to Rs. 51,80,953. After taking into account the depreciation for the current year, the income left over was Rs. 67,86,857. Besides, there was unabsorbed depreciation of the previous year in ...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Line Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City I
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-1972
Reported in: [1973]90ITR363(Bom)
Kantawala, J.1. By this reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the question that is referred to us for determination is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ship, ss. Bharatsena, can be said to have been used by the assessee for the purpose of its business at any time during the previous year 1956 ?' The question for determination relates to the assessment year 1957-58, the previous year of which was the calendar year ending December 31, 1956. 2. The assessee is a company, registered under the Indian Companies Act, carrying on the business of running a fleet of cargo steamers, mostly on Indian waters. on July 1, 1947, the assessee purchased for the purpose of its business the steamers, ss. Bharatsena, for the sum of Rs. 14,45,288. Certain additions at the cost of Rs. 5,90,901 were made to the steamers and depreciation was allowed by the Income-tax Officer to the assessee on the footing that the total cost of the steamer was Rs. 2...
Tag this Judgment!The Union of India (Uoi) Vs. the ScIndia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-1972
Reported in: (1974)76BOMLR8
Nain, J.1. Defendants No. 1 have taken out this Motion for stay of the suit under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Arbitration Act'), to compel the plaintiffs to refer the suit disputes to arbitration as between the plaintiffs and defendants No. 1 pursuant to Clause 17 of the Charter Party dated November 6, 1970. Defendants No. 2 are not parties to the said Charter Party.2. Plaintiffs No. 1 are the Union of India. Plaintiffs No. 2 are The Food Corporation of India and are a Government of India undertaking. Defendants No. 1 are the owners of a steam ship called s.s. Jal-jawahar. Defendants No. 2 are the Bombay Port Trust.3. On November 6, 1970 a Charter Party was entered into between plaintiffs No. 1 and defendants No. 1 whereby defendants No. 1 agreed to carry on board s.s. Jal-jawahar between November 15, 1970 and November 30, 1970, 3000 metric tonnes of Urea in bags from United States to ports in India. The said Charter Party contains the follo...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »