Mumbai Court March 1973 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.
Godavari Pravara Canal Co-operative Purchase and Sale Union Ltd. Vs. K ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Bom52; 1974MhLJ75
1. The original defendant Godavari Pravara Canal purchase and Sale Union, a Co-operative Society has filed this appeal against the order of remand made by the Assistant Judge Nagpur in Civil Appeal No. 241 of 1968.2. Few facts may be noticed to understand the submissions made at the Barin this appeal. Respondent Krishanrao filed a suit which is record page 27 styling it as a suit on account-books for the recovery of price of goods supplied to defendant No. 1-appellant. He instituted it on March 30, 1965. To that suit he joined one Haribhau since deceased as defendant No. 2. It is no more disputed that later on Haribhau was joined as co-plaintiff. The trial Court dismissed the suit mainly on two grounds reflected in issues 5 and 6. Though the learned Judge recorded answers against all other issues, he did not discuss any evidence nor disclosed any reasons on the basis of the evidence to reach to those conclusions. In that, it is surprising to note that the learned Judge says as to issue...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Ramchandra Vasudeo Deshpande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-1973
Reported in: (1974)76BOMLR249
Bhole, J.1. This is an appeal by the State against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge, Jalgaon, in a case where the three accused were acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 120B, 161 and 162, Indian Penal Code as well as of the offence punishable under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Accused No. 1 was a Junior Inspector of Industries working in Amalner Division with his head-quarters at Amalner. His duty was to execute the provisions of the Bombay Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1958 with the help of the manual assistant, who is accused No. 2, and the peon, who is accused No. 3. The manual assistant is appointed to assist the Inspector so that he can facilitate handling of the standards in weights and measures and to help the Inspector in attesting and stamping the weights and measures. Under the scheme of the Act the traders have to get certified as well as stamped their scales, weights and measur...
Bennet Coleman and Co. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1973
Reported in: [1977]47CompCas92(Bom)
Tulzapurkar, J. 1. These appeals have been preferred by respondent No. 1-company represented by its shareholders and by original respondents Nos. 8 and 10 in their capacity as directors of the company, principally challenging the judgment and order passed by Nain, J. on August 28, 1969, whereby the learned judge directed reconstitution of the board of directors for the company in the manner done for a period of seven years. Both the legality as well as propriety of the order directing reconstitution of the said board have been challenged on certain grounds. In appeal No. 154 of 1969, Mr. Khambatta appearing for the Union of India raised a two-fold preliminary objection to the maintainability of the appeal. According to him, this appeal by respondent No. 1-company is incompetent, inasmuch as the company had submitted to the orders of the court without any objection, subject to certain reservations that were made by it while submitting to the orders of the court. Secondly, he contended t...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Ii Vs. Trustees of Shri Cutchi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1973
Reported in: [1975]98ITR448(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J. 1. This reference is made under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), at the instance of the revenue for determination of the following question of law : 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of this case, the income of the assessee-trust is exempt under section 4(3) (i) of the Act ?' 2. As the contentions raised in this reference lie in a very narrow compass it is unnecessary to state in greater detail the facts. The assessee in this case are the trustees of Shri Cutchi Lohana Panchtade Mahajan Trust and the assessment is concerned for the assessment years 1952-53 to 1959-60 relating to the accounting periods ending Samvat years 2007 to 2014. There is no controversy between the parties on the fact that in the order the year 1837 certain members of Cutchi Lohana community of Bombay as representatives and managers of the community collected a sum of about Rs. 9,400 from the members of the community for the purpose of ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Ii Vs. Trustees of Abdulcadar ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1973
Reported in: [1975]100ITR85(Bom)
Tulzapurkar, J.1. The question that has been referred to this court for its opinion by the Tribunal at the instance of the revenue is as under : 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of this case, the income of the assessee-trust is exempt under section 4 (3) (i) of the Act ?' 2. The assessee happens to be the trustees of Abdulcadar Ebrahim Trust, Bombay, and the question referred to us arises out of the assessment made on the said trustees for assessment years 1952-53 to 1960-61, the corresponding previous years being S. Ys. 2007 to 2015. Ten persons belonging to Surat Dawoodi Bohra Mahomedan Community created a wakf on 25th January, 1937. By the deed of wakf bearing that date certain properties were settled in trust in favour of Dawat-ul-Hadiyah (Dawoodi Bohra Community) and the Dai-ul-Mutlak (Mullaji Saheb) being the spiritual head of the community was appointed the sole ex-officio trustee. The wakf properties were mainly immovable properties mentioned in the schedule to the docu...
Bennet Coleman and Co. and Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1973
Reported in: [1977]47ITR92(Bom)
Tulzapurkar, J.1. These appeals have been preferred by respondent No. 1-company represented by its shareholders and by original respondents Nos. 8 and 10 in their capacity as directors of the company, principally challenging the judgment and order passed by Nain J. on August 28, 1969, whereby the learned judge directed reconstitution of the board of directors for the company in the manner done for a period of seven years. Both the legality as well as propriety of the order directing reconstitution of the said board have been challenged on certain grounds. In appeal No. 154 of 1969, Mr. Khambatta appearing for the Union of India raised a two-fold preliminary objection to the maintainability of the appeal. According to him.this appeal by respondent No. 1-company is incompetent, inasmuch as the company had submitted to the orders of the court without any objection, subject to certain reservations that were made by it while submitting to the orders of the court. Secondly, he contended that...
Chintaman Vs. Dnyaneshwar and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1973
Reported in: 1974CriLJ542; 1973MhLJ612
Dharmadhikari, J.1. Complainant Chintaman Gajanan Deo filed a complaint against the accused-respondent No, 1 for prosecuting the accused for an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.The complainant who is an employee as a teacher under the Zila Parishad, Yeotmal, was posted to village Arjuna. He used to come from Yeotmal every day to the place of his duty, and therefore, he decided to purchase a house from the accused. So a talk in that respect took place between him and the accused. One Madse Guruii (P. W. 2), who was also a teacher, was present during the course of these negotiations. The accused agreed to sell his house for Rupees l,500/-. The complainant had made a specific enquiry from the accused as to Whether the said house was either mortgaged or had anv other encumbrances. The accused made a clear statement to the complainant that the house was free from all encumbrances and that he could purchase it safely. Relying on this representation of the accused, the compl...
A.J. Patel (by His Legal Representative) Vs. Commissioner of Income-ta ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1973
Reported in: [1974]97ITR683(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J.1. By this reference under section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), at the instance of the assessee the following two questions of law are referred to us for our determination : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances stated in the statement of case, the income derived by letting out the space on Ambalal (sic Jhaverbhai) Patel Bridge at Chowpatty is exempt from tax under section 4 (3) (i) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances stated in the statement of case, the income from the advertisements on the said overbridge could be added as income of the assessee?' 2. The questions referred for our determination relate to the assessment years 1954-55, 1955-56, 1959-60 and 1957-58, for which the previous years are calendar year ending December 31, 1953, 1954, 1958 and 1956, respectively. 3. Assessee, Ambalal J. Patel, died in June 1961. During his lifetime he was assessed ...
Dalmia Dadri Cement Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City I
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-1973
Reported in: [1974]94ITR303(Bom)
Tulzapurkar, J.1. In this reference which has been made to us by the Tribunal at the instance of the assessee in all three questions of law have been posed for our consideration and answer thereto and those questions are : '(1) Whether the contentions of the assessee with regard to the assessment years 1947-48, 1948-49 and 1949-50 are competent, in view of the decision of the High Court with regard to the assessment year 1946-47 If yes, (2) Whether, on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sale proceeds of cement manufactured by the assessee and sold by the Cement Marketing Co. of India Ltd., the Dalmia Cement Ltd. or Dalmia Cement and Paper Marketing Co. Ltd., as the case may be, to the public or to the Government in the accounting years 1946, 1947, 1948 were received by the said companies on behalf of the assessee in the taxable territories (3) Whether the Tribunal was right in rejecting the claim of the applicant company, namely, t...
Gulabsing Fattesing Vasave Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Poona
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1973
Reported in: [1975]100ITR509(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J.1. This is a reference under section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, referred to us by the Tribunal at the instance of the assessee. The question of law referred for our determination is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income derived by the assessee as a superior landholder from the lands, which were used by the tenants for agricultural purposes, was agricultural income within the meaning of section 2 (1) (a) and exempt from tax under section 4 (3) (viii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ?' 2. The question relates to the assessment year 1957-58 in respect of the previous year ending on July 31, 1956. The assessee is a superior holder of Gangetha Estate in the Akkalkuva Taluka, District of West Khandesh. The Gangetha Estate was a Mehwassi Estate. The assessee had income from forest property, ground rent, etc. In compliance with the notice under section 22 (2) of the Act, the assessee had filed a return of income s...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »