Mumbai Court August 1975 Judgments
Shantabai Vishnumal Vs. Ganpat Ladha and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Bom288; 1976MhLJ332
Mukhi, J. 1. This petition has been referred to a Division Bench because along with other pontes it involves a question of public importance.2. That question is whether in the case of tenancies of business premises the legal representative of a statuary tenant or persons residing with him at the time of His death would be entitled to be considered as the tenants of such business premises under the definition of 'tenant' under Section 5(11)(c) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rent Act').3. It is of course a matter of regret that the litigation leading ultimately to the present petition has been a long and protracted one and commenced as far ace as 1956. when, on the 3rd of September 1956 the petitioner Smt. Shantabai Vishnumal Siche deceased filed a Standard Rent Application, bearing No. R.A.N. 1032 of 1956, in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay.4. The landlord of the said application for fixing standard rent, the rent...
Tag this Judgment!Ranchhoddas Govinddas Banatwala
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-1975
Reported in: (1976)78BOMLR219; 1976MhLJ636
Madon, J.1. The interesting question which arises in this petition is whether movable property other than a liquidated sum of money is a debt as contemplated by Part X of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, so as to enable the Court to issue a succession certificate in respect thereof.2. The facts which have given rise to this question are that a Hindu lady named Taraben alias Tarabai Govinddas Banatwala died intestate at Bombay on October 28, 1963 leaving her surviving as her only heirs and next of kin according to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, by which she was governed, her husband Govinddas and three sons, namely, the petitioner, Ramesh and Mahesh. On February 9, 1966 Govinddas died intestate leaving him surviving as his only heirs and next of kin according to the Hindu Succession Act his three sons abovenamed. The petitioner applied for and obtained from this Court letters of administration to the property and credits of the said Govinddas on November 29, 1968 in Petition No. 333 of...
Tag this Judgment!Jasmine Mills Ltd. Vs. A.V. Venkateshwaran and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-1975
Reported in: (1977)79BOMLR438; 1976MhLJ400
B.M. Sapre, J.1. By this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitutions, the petitioners, M/s. Jasmine Mills, challenged the legality of the two Notices of Demand Nos. 13/67 dated September 13, 1967 and 14/67 dated October 25, 1967 for payment of Excise Duty made respectively under Rule 10-A and Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') framed under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the order for payment of the sum of Rs. 10,371/- in pursuance of the said notices. The demand seems to have been made in the alternative under Rule 10-A or Rule 9. The few material facts may be stated as follows :--- The petitioners are a private limited concern having their factory at Dharavi, Bombay 17. They are licensed for the processing of cotton fabrics. They were receiving from outside mill made duty paid grey cotton fabrics of coarse variety, for bleaching and/or dyeing and further processin...
Tag this Judgment!isaq Mahboob and ors. Vs. Vithalrao Nagorao Kelgaonkar and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-1975
Reported in: 1976CriLJ1856
Aggarwal, J.1. In this criminal application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the accused seek to quash the order dated 20th November 1974, whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Latur, framed charges against them for the offences under Sections 447, 323/34 and 427/34, I.P.C. in Criminal Case No. 898 of 1973 at the instance of the respondent-complainant.2. The complainant alleges that he is in possession of Survey No, 1A situated at Latur on the basis of an agreement for sale dated 7th October 1972 executed in his favour by accused No. 3. On 22nd July 1973 at about 1 p. m., he had been to the said land for irrigation purposes along with others. Some time thereafer, 15 accused came at the well in the land. According to the complainant, accused No. 3 abused him and stated that he would not allow the complainant to install an engine on the well. There was standing crop of maize in the field adjacent to...
Tag this Judgment!The Union of India (Uoi) Vs. M.K.C. Kutty
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-1975
Reported in: (1976)78BOMLR332
Deshpande, J.1. The respondent-plaintiff joined Central Railway (the then G.I.P.) as wireless operator on October 11, 1945, after serving in the Navy, and was confirmed therein on January 1, 1946. By an order dated February 24, 1972, he was compulsorily retired with effect from May 24, 1972 under Rule 2046(ii)(H) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Volume II, on attaining the age of fifty-five on May 9% 1972. The suit, giving rise to this appeal, is instituted for declaring that the order dated February 24, 1972, is mala fide and, therefore, void and ultra vires, and consequentially for restraining the defendants, Union of India, etc., from giving effect to the same. He also claims a decree for Rs. 24,500 for the alleged monetary loss due to withholding his promotions maliciously and unlawfully. According to the plaintiff, he has been a victim of harassment, since before he was unlawfully dismissed in 1949, which dismissal was declared void on January 28, 1957 in Suit No. 488 of ...
Tag this Judgment!Rameshkumar Sarupchand Vs. Anil Alias Lemichand Hukumchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-1975
Reported in: (1976)78BOMLR423
Mukhi, J.1. The only question that has been sought to be raised by Dr. Naik, the learned advocate for the appellants, in this second appeal is that as the original plaintiff Anil alias Lemichand Hukumchand was held to be only a half owner of City Survey No. 847, the Court could not give a declaration to him for the entire property as against the defendants.2. Now, it requires to be noticed that this point (which is said to be a point of law) has not been taken in the grounds of appeal even indirectly. It is necessary to set out some of the salient facts in order to appreciate this contention.3. Respondent No. 1 Anil alias Lemichand Hukumchand, who is the original plaintiff and who will be hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff', filed a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, at Chalisgaon, being Regular Civil Suit No. 134 of 1963. In that suit the plaintiff claimed a declaration of title and possession of the suit property, i.e. to say, City Survey No. 847, measuring...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Maharashtra Vs. Tukaram Shiva Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-1975
Reported in: (1976)78BOMLR411
Vaidya, J.1. The State of Maharashtra has filed the above application under Article 227 of the Constitution and Section 439(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying for cancellation of the bail granted to the opponents, who are accused Nos. 1 to 7, in a murder case, in respect of which Karvir police station has filed a charge-sheet in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, at Kolhapur, on December 30, 1974, numbered as C.R. No. 178 of 1974.2. The offence is alleged to have taken place on October 31, 1974, at about 8-00 p.m., in the village Koge. One Marutr Avaba Patil, was murdered as a result of continuous blows given by axes and sticks. The prosecution alleges that the accused gave those blows. The prosecution relied on dying declarations alleged to have been made by deceased Maruti.3. Opponents Nos. 1 to 6 (accused Nos. 1 to 6) were arrested on November 1, 1974. Opponent No. 7 was arrested on November 8, 1974; They applied for being released on bail in the Court o...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Mohinibai Dharmasey Vs. Khimji Tokarshi Jivraj and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Bom295; 1976MhLJ256
ORDER1. This is a tenant's petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenged the judgment delivered by the appellate bench of the Small Cause Court dismissing her appeal and affirming the judgment passed by the Trial Judge decreeing the plaintiff's claim for possession under Clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, (hereinafter called as the 'Rent Act')2. The petitioner had taken on lease for 30 years two plots of land admeasuring 825 sq. yards on 1st November 1948 from the respondent on an agreed rent of Rs. 367/- per month. This lease was for the purpose of constructing a building on those plots. On expiration of the lease, the lessee was entitled to remove the structures in case the lesser was not prepared to purchase them at half the price. It is petitioner's case that in pursuance of this agreement, the petitioner constructed a structure worth Rs. 1,00,000/- In 1953 dispute arose between the parties a...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-iii Vs. Rajkumar Ashok Pal Sin ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-1975
Reported in: [1977]109ITR581(Bom)
Tulzapurkar, J.1. The question that has been referred to us by the Tribunal under section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-III, Bombay, runs as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the whole or any part of the receipts on account of sale of forest trees could be excluded from the assessee's total income on the ground that they constituted capital receipts not liable to tax ?' 2. The question relates to the assessment years 1955-56 to 1959-60 and the corresponding previous years are the financial years ending on March 31, 1955, March 31, 1956, March 31, 1957, March 31, 1958, and March 31, 1959, respectively. 3. The facts giving rise to the question lie in a very narrow compass. The assessee, a member of the former ruling family of Mandi, is an individual whose main sources of income are a tea estate, a jagir in Punjab and a forest. It appears that in S. Y. 2002, i.e., in 1944, His ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kayarts
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-1975
Reported in: [1977]107ITR119(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J.1. The question that has been referred for our determination at the instance of the revenue is an under : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 42,338 was properly allowed as a deduction in making the assessment for the assessment year 1953-54 ?' 2. For this assessment year the relevant accounting period consists of only eight months from April 1, 1952, to November 31, 1952. The assessee-firm consists of two partners, one Kamini Kaushal, a film actress, and one P. N. Arora, a film producer. Under the agreement of partnership dated May 3, 1951, the firm was constituted with a view to produce only one talkie picture called 'Poonam'. The picture was to be produced under the banner of 'Kayarts'. Each of the partners was entitled to 50% share in the profits of the business and, in addition, Kamini Kaushal was to later on named 'Poonam' commenced in June, 1951. It was completed and released in November, 1952. According to the books of the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »