Mumbai Court December 1974 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.
Bhagirathibai and anr. Vs. Lalchand Balaram and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Bom301; 1975MhLJ295
1. The only question which arises in this second appeal by the defendants is whether as a result of a will made by deceased Gangaram, husband of the defendant No.1 one rupchand who was his nephew had acquired a vested interest as contemplated by Section 119 of the Indian Succession Act Admittedly, Gangaram had a brother by name Balaram. Balaram had three sons - Rodmal, Rupchand and Lalehand, Rodmal died in 1941, and defendant No. 3. Godavaribai in his widow, Gangaram himself died on 10.2.1949, and Rupchand died on 14.8.1952. Defendants No.3 Godavaribai in his widow, Gangaram died on 10.2.1949, and Rupchand died on 14.8.1952. Defendant No.3 Godavaribai is said to be in possession of some of the suit property and defendant No.5 is the daughter of Godawari . Now, the will provided that after the death of testator provided that after the death of testator Gangaram Now, the will provided that after the death of testator Gangaram his widow Bhagirathibai should enjoy the income from the suit ...
Mehboob Productions Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bomba ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-1974
Reported in: [1977]106ITR758(Bom)
Desai, J. 1. This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay Bench 'C', Bombay, and the following two questions have been referred to us for our consideration : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 10,67,212 recovered by the assessee-company in the year of account could be included in its total income for the year 1959-60 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, 1/3rd of the medical expenses claimed by the assessee-company for the treatment in the U. S. A. of the meaning director could be disallowed under section 10(4A) ?' 3. For the purpose of deciding these questions and giving our answers thereto it is necessary to set out the following facts which are to be found from the statement of the case submitted by the Tribunal and the annexures thereto : The assessee, viz., Mehboob Productions Private Ltd. i...
Balkrishna Raghunath Sawant Vs. Jagannath Sitaram Akarte
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1974
Reported in: (1976)78BOMLR234
Bhole, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalgaon setting aside the order of conviction passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Jalgaon in a case in which a Police Inspector prosecuted the Special Public Prosecutor for having used defamatory language.2. This matter arose because of a Sessions case on account of communal riots, which broke out at Jalgaon on May 8, 1970, As a result of these riots forty-three lives were lost and several houses set on fire. The complainant was the Police Inspector attached to the city police station, Jalgaon and was posted on duty in the locality where Maniyar Mohalla and Jumma Mashid were situated. It was the complainant who had given the first information reports in respect of some of the offences alleged to have been committed in the Muslim localities and he was, therefore, the person who had investigated into some of the offences. It has also come on record that the complainant Police Inspector was s...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore Vs. Purushotam Gangadhar Bhende
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-1974
Reported in: [1977]106ITR932(Bom)
Vimadalal, J. 1. The assessee is a citizen of Goa, governed by the Portuguese Civil Code. He was married as per the custom of Goa, and under the relevant provisions of the Portuguese Civil Code, a house property which yielded an income of Rs. 3,810 during the assessment year 1968-69, with which the court is concerned in the present reference, thereupon became the property of the communion of the husband and wife. It will hereafter be referred to as 'communion property'. The Income-tax Officer determined the status as 'body of individuals' of husband and wife and taxed the income from the house property accordingly. That decision was reversed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who held that the respective shares of the husband and wife must be taxed in their individual hands separately under section 26 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. On appeal to the Tribunal, on a consideration of the relevant provisions of the Portuguese Civil Code, it has held that each of the consorts had a vested...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. S.K. Manekia
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-1974
Reported in: [1975]36STC249(Bom)
Kania, J.1. These two reference have been made under section 23(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). A common question has been referred to us in these references and the facts are substantially similar. Therefore, these references are being deposed of by a common judgment. 2. The question, which has been referred to us for our consideration, is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in holding in Rectification Applications Nos. 26 and 27 of 1968 decided on 30th December, 1969, that a mistake within the meaning of section 23A of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1946, existed in its decision dated 20th December, 1966, given in Revision Applications Nos. 144 and 145 of 1964 ?'3. The facts on which this question arises can be briefly stated as the references are being disposed of by us on a preliminary objection taken by Mr. Patel, the learned counsel for the respondent. The respondent was a regist...
Gopal Shiroam Bhankhed Vs. Sagirabegum
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Bom270; 1975MhLJ444
Tulzapurkar, J.1. This matter has been refereed to a Division Bench by Mr. Justice Masodkar since he felt that there was an apparent conflict between a decision delivered by , Mr. Justice Padhye on 20th/21st September, 1966, in Madhav v. Shripat, (Special Civil Appln. No. 929 of 1965) (Bom) and the view taken by Mr. Justice Deshmukh in Baburao v. Shionath, 1967 MLJ 670, and the petition involved a question as to what would be the correct position applicable to this class of cases where a protected tenant had taken proceedings under Section 9 (3) of the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases act, 1951 (hereinafter refereed to as the Berar Act 1951) to challenge the notice served upon him by his landlord under Section 9(1) of the said Act.2. The facts giving rise to the present petition may be stated. The respondent is a landlady of certain field, bearing survey number 3, admeasuring 29 acres 19 gunthas, situated at mouza karak, in tahsil Yeotmal. The petitioner has been a tenant of his...
David Alias Balasaheb Sunderrao Takalkar Vs. Kalpana Alias Mai Alias V ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-1974
Reported in: (1976)78BOMLR85
Gandhi, J.1. This is a petition filed by the husband who is an Indian Christian under the Indian Divorce Act and under Clause 35 of the Letters Patent for obtaining a decree that his marriage with the respondent be declared null and void. The original petition has been amended pursuant to the order dated April 3, 1974 on April 17, 1974, making allegation that the respondent committed frequent acts of adultery with the co-respondent since December 6, 1970. An additional prayer has been made that in the alternative to the prayer of declaring the marriage null and void, the Court may pass a decree of divorce in favour of the petitioner. Though this was an ex parte matter, after recording the evidence of certain witnesses, my brother Kania J. felt that the petition raises some important questions of law and the Court would require assistance of some advocate and made an order requesting Mrs. Manohar to appear as amicus curiae to assist the Court. After this order, the petitioner has amende...
Virendra Kumar Khairulal Jaiswal Vs. K.L. Aney
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-1974
Reported in: AIR1976Bom125; 1975MhLJ80
Padhye, J.1. The plaintiff has filed this appeal challenging the dismissal of his suit on the preliminary ground of limitation. The plaintiff filed this suit for damages amounting to Rs. 1500/- against the defendant, who was at the relevant time a Police Sub-Inspector on the ground that he had *Against order of P.D. Apshankar, Civil J., Sr. Division, Yeotmal, in Suit No. 2 of 1972.) illegally seized the goods of the plaintiff which he had purchased from the Hyderabad Firm. The seizure of the goods was on 24-7-1971. The goods were seized by him purporting to act under the Bombay Prohibition Act.2. The plaintiff gave a notice to the defendant under Section 80 of the Civil P.C. on 28-1-1972. The suit is, therefore, filed beyond the period of four months and within the period of six months from the date of the act complained of. The defendant, therefore, raised a preliminary objection before the lower Court that the suit not having been filed within a period of four months from the date of...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Indokem Private Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-1974
Reported in: [1975]35STC432(Bom)
Madon, J.1. The question which has been referred to us in this reference under section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, is, 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on true and proper interpretation of rules 40 and 45 of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the Ahmedabad branch of the respondent could not claim set-off under rule 40 in respect of the stock held at Ahmedabad as on 1st January, 1960, and sold there in in its own assessment proceedings but that the head office at Bombay alone was entitled in law to claim set-off in respect of taxes paid on its purchases of goods held in stock by its branch office at Ahmedabad ?' 2. In order to appreciate the facts which have given rise to this reference it is necessary first to know certain relevant provisions of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, and the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959, framed thereunder. The said Act came into force on 1st January, 1960, which date is...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i Vs. Asbestos, Magnesia and F ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1974
Reported in: [1977]106ITR286(Bom)
Desai, J. 1. This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income tax Act, 1922, and two questions are referred to us for our consideration, one at the instance of the Commissioner and the other at the instance of the assessee. These two questions are as follows : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a proper construction of section 15C(2)(i), the assessee is entitled to the exemption in section 15C(1) for the assessment years 1958-59 to 1961-62 in respect of the textile department unit (2) Whether wealth-tax payable by the assessee is an allowable expenditure in the computation of the business income under the Income Tax Act ?' 2. Now, as far as question No. 2 which is referred to us at the instance of the assessee is concerned, counsel have stated that the matter is concluded by the amendment made to the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, by section 4 of the Income-tax (Amendment) Act of 1972 (No. 41 of 1972), and further that the point is also c...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »