Mumbai Court July 1975 Judgments
Amritlal and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central, Bo ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1975
Reported in: [1977]108ITR719(Bom)
Tulzapurkar, J.1. At the instance of the assessee the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following three questions of law for our determination under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, half of the allowance paid to Shri Doshi and Shri Desai could be disallowed in determining the profits of the company for the year 1958-59 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amounts of Rs. 17,520 paid to Shri Dutt, Rs. 9,660 paid to Shri Khopkar, Rs. 5,500 paid to Shri Bhatt and Rs. 8,625 paid to Shri Adalja could be disallowed in determining the company's profit for the assessment year 1958-59 (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the commission paid to S/Shri Kamat and Shah could be disallowed under section 10(2)(x) in determining the company's business profits for the year 1958-59 ?' 2. The assessment year to which these questions relate is 1958-59, corresp...
Tag this Judgment!Sd. Umar Sd. Ahmed Vs. Dedamiya Husenbhai and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Bom336; 1977MhLJ261
ORDER1. I propose to dispose of all these special civil applications preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the original tenant by a common judgment. The few facts material for their disposal, stated briefly,2. Respondent No. 1 Dadamiya and other co-sharers brought three different suits in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ahmednagar, on 24-4-1968 against the present petitioner, a tenant, on three different premises forming part of the same property situate at Ahmednagar. Possession was claimed on the ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement, nuisance and default. The learned trial Judge rejected the claim for possession but made decrees for the arrears of rent claimed in the three respective suits. Against these decrees the landlord went in appeal to the District Court and the appeals were respectively numbered as 179, 181 and 184 of 1971. The learned District Judge, while maintaining the finding on the question of standard rent debated before t...
Tag this Judgment!Secretary, Bishop Cotton School, Nagpur Vs. S.M. Yakub and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-1975
Reported in: (1976)ILLJ340Bom; 1976MhLJ18
Dharmadhikari, J.1. Respondent No. 2 Mr. Q. S. Saifuddin was an Assistant Teacher in the petitioner school known as Bishop Cotton Schools. On 20-11-1967 the school management served a letter on the respondent No. 2 containing allegations regarding neglect of duties and misconduct, and he was asked to submit his written explanation before 28-11-1967. Apart from the other allegations made in the letter, it was alleged. 'That in total and flagrant contravention of Ss. 76.1.1 to 76.1.5 of the Secondary Schools Code and without any permission you have been engaged in and/or associated with the active supervision and management of the educational body known as 'The National Education Society' and the schools (s) and hostel run by this Society, and that you have been engaged in teaching and/or associated with such schools, namely. 'The English Primary School and Nagpur Residential Schools' with offices situate at Boy's Home, Sadar, Nagpur.' The respondent No. 2 submitted his explanation on 28...
Tag this Judgment!Ramchandra Ganpat Chogle Vs. the Commissioner for Co-operation and Reg ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-1975
Reported in: (1976)78BOMLR682
Mukhi, J.1. The only point which has been raised before us and is, therefore, required to be determined in this petition is whether it is permissible for the authorised person, appointed under Section 88 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to take over the proceedings after the death of the previous incumbent, to proceed on the basis of evidence already recorded by his predecessor.2. This petition arises out of proceedings under Section 88 of the Act which were commenced some time in July 1970. The authorised person, one Shri D.G. Godbole, framed charges against the petitioner and other delinquents and the proceedings went on for nearly four years, during which period, we are told, nearly hundred witnesses were examined. However, before the proceedings could conclude, Shri Godbole died on July 16, 1974. The Commissioner for Co-operation and Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Poona, respondent No. 1, passed an order which is dated...
Tag this Judgment!Bhaulal Chandulal Jivari Vs. Prabhakar Bhalchandra Jakatdar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-1975
Reported in: (1976)78BOMLR598; 1976MhLJ907
Hajarnavis, J.1. These two petitions have been filed by the tenants of respondent No. 1 against a common order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dismissing their applications for revision against the order passed by the sub-divisional officer, Chalisgaon, dismissing their appeals against the order passed by the Tahsildar under Section 32P of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter called as the 'Tenancy Act') restoring possession to respondent No. 1.2. In both these cases the respondent No. 1 who is a landlord was a minor on April 1, 1957 and he became major on October 1, 1963. During his minority, his guardian created tenancies in favour of the petitioners in the year 1958-59. As these tenancies were created after the tillers' day, they were governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Tenancy Act, On February 13, 1964, i.e. one year after his attaining majority, the respondent No. 1-landlord served notices under Section 31 of the Tenancy Act clai...
Tag this Judgment!Dilip Singh Vs. Dhaniram Narvandas and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Bom38
1. This second appeal arises out of regular Civil suit no. 54 of 1961 filed by respondents Nos. 1 to 5 Respondent No. 5 is the mother of respondents Nos. 1 to 4 and respondent No. 6 is the father of respondents Nos. 1 to 4 Respondent No. 6 was original defendant No. 3. The present appellant was defendant No.3. The present appellant was defendant No. 2 in the trial Court and respondent No. 151/1 situate at mouza Nari Nagpur. On 1-3-1937 one Sitaram Ragho Chawan acting for himself and as a guardian of his minor son Eknath made an agreement of sale in favour of original defendant No. 3 Naravandas in respect of 8 acres from field No. 151 . Under that agreement an earnest amount of Rs. 200/- was paid by defendant No.3 to Sitaram. The agreement was that the property should be sold for an amount of Rs. 2,500/- to defendant No. 3. On 19-4-1937 Sitaram acting for himself and his minor son made a sale deed in favour of Antu, the father of the defendant No. 3 Naravandas. That sale deed was for a ...
Tag this Judgment!Fakir Mohamed Abdul Razak Vs. the Charity Commissioner, Bombay and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Bom304
Vaidya, J.1. It is rather unfortunate that the above First Appeal arising from Civil Suit NO. 39 of 1953, cannot be disposed of, in the facts and circumstances of the case, so as to put an end to the litigation which was actually started in 1946 relating to the management of the Public Trust Known as 'Haji Malang Bawa Dargah' situated on a hill Talua Kalyan of Thane District.2. This litigation started between the respondent Gopal Krishnaji Ketar on the one side and Mohammed Jaffar Mohomed Hussein and another on the other said in the course of which Ketkar claimed the sole right to manage the Dargah. It is the Dargah of a 13th Century legendary and renowned Arab Pir or saint. It is worshipped along with another tomb of a HIndu princess whom the said Pir is said to have treated as his daughter.3. The litigation ended its first course with the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gopal Krishnaji Ketar v. Mahomed Jaffer : AIR1954SC5 .4. The Supreme Court laid down in paragraph (31) of its judg...
Tag this Judgment!Rajkumar Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central, Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-14-1975
Reported in: [1976]103ITR92(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J. 1. At the instance of the assessee four questions are referred to us for our determination under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. Questions Nos. 1 to 3 out of these four questions relate to one set of facts and question No. 4 relates to the next set of facts. Questions Nos. 1 to 3 relate to the assessment years 1943-44 to 1946-47, for which the relevant previous years are calendar years 1942 to 1945. The first set of three questions relates to the application of section 4(1)(a) of the Act. These questions refer to the receipts of certain sale proceeds as given below : ---------------------------------------------------------------------Assessment Sale proceeds to which section 4(1)(a)years has been applied--------------------------------------------------------------------- (a) (b) (c)--------------------------------------------------------------------- Realisations by Sales to British Indian Sales to Textiles cheques & drafts merchants. Sale procee...
Tag this Judgment!Dattatraya Hari Vaidya and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-14-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Bom42
Lalit, J.1. These two petitions concern a cadre of the Telephone Operators and some of the parties involved in the two petitions are identical. The question involved in these two matters are of a common nature and with the consent of the advocates appearing on behalf of the parties in these two petitions, these two petitions were heard together. The learned Advocates also agreed that the pleadings and the documents in these two petitions be read together. In Special Civil Application No. 141 of 1970. the petitioner is one V. K. Sule. His allegation is that a competitive examination was held by the Post Master General, Central Circle. Nagpur , for the recruitment of Telephone Operators. That examination was held in 1951. He was selected for appointment as a Telephone Operator and by a letter dated May 20, 1952, he was informed that on occurrence of a vacancy , how would receive a call from the Divisional Engineer. Telephones, Indore. For some time no vacancy was available and the Divisi...
Tag this Judgment!Ogale Glass Works Ltd. Vs. the Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-14-1975
Reported in: (1977)79BOMLR37
Mukhi, J.1. This writ petition raises an important question of law as to whether the cost of packing of excisable goods can be included for the purpose of determining the value thereof under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. Now, we should have thought that this question has already been determined and concluded by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Union v. Mansingka Industries (1974) 77 Bom. L.R. 663.3. It requires to be noticed that in that judgment reference is made to a judgment of the Supreme Court in A.K. Roy v. Voltas Ltd. : 1973ECR60(SC) , in which the scope and content of Section 4 of the Act was considered.4. The learned Counsel for the respondents has, however, contended that these decisions did not conclude the questions which arise in the petition before us. He added that there were certain contentions which did not arise in previous eases.5. It will, therefore, be necessary to examine the ratio of these...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »