Mumbai Court March 1975 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.
Tukaram Bapuji Nikam Vs. Belgaum Bank Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-1975
Reported in: (1977)79BOMLR419; [1979]49CompCas937(Bom)
Vimadalal, J.1. This is a civil, revision application filed by the original plaintiff to set aside the order of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kolhapur, dismissing the plaintiff's suit with costs. The facts necessary for the purpose of disposing of this revision application are simple, but it raises an interesting point of law of some importance to the business community, which, as far as the learned advocates before us were able to find out is not covered by any decision of this court. One Dundage, who carried on business at Shankeshwar, had purchased some gramdal from the plaintiff who carried on business at Kolhapur which, the evidence shows, is at a distance of 38 miles from Shankeshwar. The agreed price of the said goods was Rs. 863.94 out of which Dundage had already made a part payment of Rs. 180 on the 17th of August, 1965. On that date, the goods in question were loaded in a truck, but were looted at Kolhapur in the course of some disturbances there, and the balance...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Bombay Vs. Raghuvanshi Mills Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-1975
Reported in: [1976]104ITR544(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J.1. At the instance of the revenue this reference has been made for determination of the questions for the wealth-tax assessments of 1957-58 and 1958-59, for which the relevant valuation dates are March 31, 1957, and March 31, 1958. The assessee is a limited company carrying on business of manufacture and sale of textile goods. The first question relates to the valuation of the fixed block of assets. For both these years the Wealth-tax Officer adopted the balance-sheet values of these assets rejecting the assessee's contention that the value should have been taken according to the depreciation to be provided in accordance with the Indian Income-tax Act. The balance-sheet figures of the fixed assets were higher than the written down values of the assets in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act. That was because the assessee had provided for depreciation at rates lower than those allowed under rule 8 of the Income-tax Act. In an appeal by the assessee ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Poona Vs. S. Moonalal and Co. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-1975
Reported in: [1976]104ITR688(Bom)
Tulzapurkar, J.1. The question that has been referred to us for our determination by the Tribunal at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, runs thus : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, and on a proper construction of the document dated December 1, 1957, there was a valid partnership constituted so as to be eligible for registration under section 26A ?' 2. The question relates to proceedings under section 26A for the assessment year 1959-60, the relevant previous year being S.Y. 2014 which falls between October 24, 1957, and November 11, 1958. It appears that there was a family consisting of Chhaganlal Surajmal, Walchand Surajmal and Moonalal Surajmal, all being brothers. Moonalal dies prior to the relevant period leaving a son, named Ramesh, or on 26th May, 1951. On 24th December 1957, there was a partition of the family business in money-lending. After the partition Chhaganlal Surajmal and Walch...
Tukaram Bapuji Nikam Vs. the Belgaum Bank Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Bom185
Vimadalal, J.1. This is a Civil Revision Application filed by the original plaintiff to set aside the order of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kolhapur, dismissing the plaintiff's suit with costs. The facts necessary for the purpose disposing of this Revision Application are simple, but it raises an interesting point of law of some importance to the business community which, as far as the learned advocates before us were able to ding out, is not covered by any decision of this Court. One Dundage, who carried on business at Shankeshwar, had purchased some gram dal from the plaintiff who carried on business at Kolhapur which, the evidence shows, is at a distance of 38 miles from Shankeshwar. The agree price of the said goods was Rs. 863. 94 P. out of which Dundage had already made a part payment of Rs. 130/- on the 17th of August 1965. On that date, the goods in question were loaded in a truck, but were looted at Kolhapur in the course of some disturbances there, and the balanc...
Shivlal Khupchand Shop Vs. Trimbak Kashinath Raktate and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Bom226; (1976)78BOMLR358; 1976MhLJ354
Naik, J. 1. This is an appeal by the original plaintiff against the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmadnagar in Special Civil Suit No. 7 of 1965 on the file of his Court.2. The plaintiff-appellant filed the suit giving rise to this appeal under Order XXI, Rule 63 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for setting aside the order passed by the Executing Court under Order XXX, Rule 60 and for a declaration that he has a right to attach the properties in suit.3. The facts leading to this suit which are numerous are briefly these, in so far as they are relevant: One Sakharam had three sons viz., Gangadhar, Tatya and Kashinath. Sakharam died in 1910 leaving behind his sons and ancestral properties. After Sakharam's death, Gangadhar was the Karta of the joint family. It may be mentioned that Gangadhar's brothers Tatya and kashinath also died soon after the death of Sakharam. Tatya died living behind a minor son Babu who died in 1959 and the 2nd defendant Mathuraba...
Kalgonda Babgonda Patil Vs. Balgonda Kalgonda Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1975
Reported in: (1976)78BOMLR720
Vaidya, J.1. An important question regarding the effect of Section 4 of the Bombay Inferior Village Watans Abolition Act, 1958 (which will be hereinafter referred to as 'the Watans Abolition Act') arises in the above three First Appeals directed against the judgment and decree dated July 20, 1965 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Kolhapur, in Special Civil Suit No. 23 of 1963.2. The suit was instituted by Kalgonda Babgonda Patil on June 12, 1963, alleging the following genealogical tree of the family of the plaintiff and the defendants:___________________________________________________________________________________ Aadgonda (deceased)___________________________________________________________________________________Dharmagonda (deceased) Annappa alias Anna (deceased)Kagoda Raygonda Maygonda Babaji alias Tatya (deceased) (deceased) (deceased) Babgonda (deceased) (extinguished) (deceased) Kalgonda (plaintiff) Pirgunda Bhimgonda (deceased) (deceased) Raygonda ...
Navnitlal Ambalal and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-1975
Reported in: [1976]105ITR735(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J.1. At the instant of the assessee the Tribunal has referred to us under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the following question for our determination :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal justified in refusing to allow the set-off carried forward losses of speculation business against the speculation profit of Rs. 11,369 of the assessment year 1958-59 ?' 2. Ambalal Narsidas, the assessee, has income from speculative transactions, business in ready shares and dividends. He has been assessed in the status of an individual. For the assessment year 1958-59, according to the profit and loss account for the relevant year, the loss that the assessee had suffered was shown at Rs. 6,866. This amount of Rs. 6,866 was arrived at after deducting from the total loss the dividend income of Rs. 51,274 and speculation profit of Rs. 11,369. The total loss without deducting those two items of dividends and speculation profit was Rs...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i Vs. E. Hiller
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-1975
Reported in: [1977]108ITR493(Bom)
Tulzapurkar, J.1. The question in this reference is whether the income-tax paid by the assessee's employer on behalf of the assessee is liable to be included in the taxable income of the assessee and the controversy centers round the proper interpretation of section 10(6)(vii)(a)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which grants some concession in respect of income-tax to foreign technicians taking up employment in India, who fulfil certain conditions. 2. Assessee, Shri E. Hiller, is a foreign technician, who first came to India in November, 1957, as an employee of Hochtief-Gammon (hereinafter referred to as 'M/s. H. G.'). By their letter dated March 4, 1958, the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry approved the assessee's appointment with M/s. H. G. for period of three years, i.e., the financial year in which he came to India and the two following years. That period expired in November, 1960, but the assessee continued in service with M/s. H. G. for another year. W...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i Vs. Caltex Oil Refining (i) ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1975
Reported in: [1976]102ITR260(Bom)
Tulzapurkar, J.1. Two questions have been referred to us for our determination by the Tribunal at the instance of the revenue and those question are : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the fencing constructed around the refinery processing units constitute 'plant' for the purposes of grant of depreciation allowance under section 10 (2) (vi)(via) and development rebate under section 10(2)(v)(vib) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1959-60, 1960-61 and 1961-62 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the capitalised interest of Rs. 17,97,201 on debentures and bank overdraft utilised for construction of the refinery can be added to the cost of the assets for the purpose of grant of depreciation allowance under section 10(2)(vi)/(via) and development rebate under section 10 (2) (vib) of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1959-60 ?' 2. At the outset it may be mentioned that, so far as the second questio...
Sitaram Deoba Maratha Vs. Hawadva Piraji Naobudha and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Bom1; 1975MhLJ521
Deshmukh, J.1. This writ petition arising out of the proceedings under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Vidarbha Tenancy Act) had been referred by a (Masodkar. J.) to a Division Bench as the learned Judge found that there was a conflict of decisions between his own earlier judgment in Special Civil Application No. 14 of 1971 (Bom). Madhukar v. Gajanan, decided on August 2 , 1973 and a judgment delivered by another learned Single Judge of this court (Padhve.J) in special civil Application No. 452 of 1971 (Bom). Dattatrava v. Rama decided on September 11. 1974.2. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides and after going through the provisions of the Vidarbha Tenancy Act and the judgments of the Supreme court as also the Division Bench of this Court, directly and indirectly dealing with these provisions or similar provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Bomba...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »