Mumbai Court November 1976 Judgments
Vithal Vs. Ansabai and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Bom298; (1977)79BOMLR378; 1977MhLJ669
1. Plaintiff has filed this appeal against a concurrent decree passed by both the Courts dismissing his suit for a declaration that he is the adopted son of one Deobhan Buwa and that he is entitled to possession of Survey No. 384/C admeasuring 9 acres 20 gunthas situate at village Isad, Taluka Gangakhed, and for perpetual injunction, His case in the plaint was that Deobhan died leaving two widows Yashodabai and Ansabai defendant No. 1. Both these widows adopted him on 10-7-1350 Fasli after performing due ceremonies and an adoption deed was executed which was registered at Shirad-Shahpur. According to the plaintiff, the original registered adoption-deed was in possession of defendant No. 1. He, however, was unable to produce a certified copy thereof as the records at Shirad-Shapur were transferred to the Office of the District Sub-Registrar, Parbhani and the same were burnt. His case was that in view of his adoption he became the owner of the suit property and was in possession thereof ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-iv Vs. Kishinchand Chellaram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-1976
Reported in: [1977]109ITR569(Bom)
Tulzapurkar, J.1. The question in respect of which the rule has been obtained by the Commissioner of Income-tax in this matter runs thus : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the interest paid on borrowings which were utilised at least partly for the payment of income-tax liabilities of the firm and partners could be said to be wholly and exclusively laid out for the purposes of business and accordingly allowable as deduction ?' 2. The assessee, a registered firm, comprising of three partners carried on business in different commodities from Bombay 'Pedhi' and from various branches in India and the question relates to the disallowance of a part of interest on borrowed monies in the relevant assessment years 1958-59 to 1965-66. The Income-tax Officer disallowed Rs. 64,075, Rs. 88,469, Rs. 55,199, Rs. 48,705, Rs. 63,717, Rs. 1,23,085, Rs. 1,21,988 and Rs. 1,05,984, out of the interest amount on the ground that the borrowings...
Tag this Judgment!Commr. of Inc. -tax (Central), Bombay Vs. United General Trust P. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-1976
Reported in: [1979]119ITR664(Bom)
Tulzapurkar, J.1. The question in respect of which rule has been obtained by the CIT runs thus : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in applying the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of New Great Insurance Co. Ltd. : [1973]90ITR348(Bom) to the assessment year in question without considering the effect of the amendment operative from April 1, 1968, and in thus holding that the assessee would be entitled to the deduction under section 80M on the gross dividend before deduction of the proportionate management expense ?' 2. In our view, the question as framed does not really arise out of the Tribunal's order since the only question which was agitated before the Tribunal was whether the deduction under s. 80M of the Act was to be computed with reference to the gross dividend income without deducting therefrom the proportionate management expenses and the Tribunal, relying on the decision of this court in Sa...
Tag this Judgment!Meher Rohinton Moos Vs. Rohinton Framroze Moos
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-1976
Reported in: (1977)79BOMLR131
Lentin, J.1. The Gentlemen Delegates, who are the sole Judges of facts, have unanimously found that the defendant to the suit is guilty of desertion and that the defendant to the counter-claim is guilty of constructive desertion. In the very special and peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, I shall follow the ratio of the House of Lords in Blunt v. Blunt [1943] 2 All. E.R. 76, that where injustice would result in granting relief to one party and refusing it to the other, the Court should pronounce the decree in favour of both without drawing a distinction between them.2. In Price v. Price [1968] 3 All. E.R. 543, it was held that both the husband and wife were guilty of mutual desertion as neither obtained nor sought to obtain the consent of the other and that neither thought that he or she had the consent of the other or cared whether the other consented or not. It was further held in that case that what applies to the wife applies equally to the husband.3. In Wevill v. Wevill...
Tag this Judgment!Boehringer Knoll Ltd. Vs. Employees' State Insurance Corporation
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-1976
Reported in: (1977)79BOMLR207; 1977MhLJ389
Chandurkar, J.1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Boehringer Knoll Ltd., which is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, an important question, which has boon raised is whether persons employed in the head office and branch offices of the company and the medical representatives are covered under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, hereinafter referred to as the Act,-a question on which there is some divergence of judicial opinion in some of the High Courts in the country. The company admittedly owns a factory situate at Kolshet Road, Thana where pharmaceutical products are manufactured and about four hundred persons are employed for that purpose. There is No. dispute that the employees working in the factory are covered by the Act and the company has been paying the necessary contribution required under the provisions of the Act. The head office of the company is situate at Bombay and it has branch offices at Madras, Delhi, Lucknow and Calcutta, where these branch offic...
Tag this Judgment!Ganpat Vs. Motilal Champalal Lunawat and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Bom344
ORDER1. The present writ petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution is filed by the petitioner-landlord who has lost in the trial Court as well as in the appellate Court The suit for eviction was filed on the grounds of arrears of rent and reasonable and bona fide personal requirement under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bombay Rent Act'). The respondent is the tenant. In order to understand the nature of the controversy between the parties, it is necessary to refer to some details.2. The respondent has been a tenant of the suit premises for several years. Prior to December 1958 he was paying monthly rent of Rupees 50/- to the then owner. Between December 1958 and April 1964, the owner was different. The present petitioner purchased the suit property in April 1964. The petitioner's predecessor-in-title had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 245 of 1962 against the respondent, in which the standard rent was fixed at Rs. 16/-...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. S.R. Mirchandani Vs. Ramesh Harasha Kalwani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1976
Reported in: (1979)81BOMLR20
Gandhi, J.1. This revision application arises out of the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Criminal Revision Application No. 316 of 1975 allowing revision application and setting aside the order dated August 2, 1975 passed by the Executive Magistrate, Greater Bombay in Case No, AB/MAG-SR 2 of 1974, rejecting the application made by respondent No. 1 original applicant and directing the Colaba Police Station to put the respondent No, 1-original applicant in possession forthwith. This order was passed on January 29, 1976 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are: One Mrs. S.R. Mirchandani, the petitioner before me in this revision application owned an ownership flat bearing No, 404, 4th Floor, Naigara Building, Colaba, Bombay-5, in a co-operative housing society, viz., Model Flats Co-op. Housing Society.3. That by a leave and licence agreement dated May 11, 1972 Mrs. Mirchandani entered into an agreement wi...
Tag this Judgment!The Village Panchayat of Mamurabad Vs. the State of Maharashtra and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-1976
Reported in: AIR1978Bom4
Apte, J.1. This is an appeal by the original plaintiff whose suit for declaration that a certain order passed by the Government was illegal and void and for certain other reliefs has been dismissed by the trial Court on preliminary grounds that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit was barred under the provisions of Section 4 of the Revenue Jurisdiction Act and .the suit was also barred by res judicata in view of the decision of the High Court in Special Civil Application No. 1426 of 1962, D/- 8-12-1964 (Bom).2. The facts giving rise to this litigation may now be summarised.3. The suit property consists of 13 different pieces of agricultural land situate at Mamurabad in the District and Taluka Jalgaon. These lands altogether measure 18 acres 15 gunthas. One of these 13 lands bears Survey No. 491. It is not necessary to give the numbers of the other twelve lands.4. It is common ground that these 13 lands were formerly held as 'Gao Hal' (inam land). Accordingly, the g...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City I Vs. Fairdeal Corporation Pvt ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-1976
Reported in: [1977]108ITR280(Bom)
Tulzapurkar, J.1. The short question raised in this reference pertains to the claim for deduction made by the assessee-company in respect of payment made to the widow of the ex-managing director in the accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1963-64 and the precise question which has been referred to us by the Tribunal in this reference made under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, runs thus : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the payment of Rs. 24,000 by the assessee to the widow of the ex-managing director was an allowable deduction under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The short facts giving rise to the question may be stated : The question relates to the assessment year 1963-64, the corresponding accounting period being the year ending on March 31, 1963. The assessee is a private limited company, carrying on business of manufacture of pharmaceutical products. One A. L. Chandavarkar was the managing director of this company ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-ii Vs. T.C. Dolwani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-1976
Reported in: [1978]111ITR650(Bom)
Desai, J.1. This is a reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, made at the instance of the Commissioner. A few facts may be stated : 2. The assessee is an individual. The reference pertains to the assessment year 1957-58, the accounting year being the year ended on 31st March, 1957. The original assessment for this year of the assessee was completed on 27th January, 1959, in the sum of Rs. 80,119. Subsequently, the said assessment was reopened under section 34(1)(b) on the ground that incomes derived by the assessee's wife and a minor son as partners of a firm called M/s. Standard Garage were liable for inclusion in the total income of the assessee under sections 16(3)(a)(iii) and 16(3)(a)(iv) of the Act of 1922. The reason why the Income-tax Officer considered that these provisions for clubbing were applicable was that the entire capital of Rs.80,000 contributed by the assessee's wife and minor son came from the assessee hi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »