Mumbai Court December 1976 Judgments
Dattu Rama Kadam Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-23-1976
Reported in: (1977)79BOMLR432
Sawant, J.1. This is a revision application filed by the original accused No. 3 against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Thana, in Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 1976, confirming his conviction for the offence under Rule 46(5) read with Rule 36(7) of the Defence of India Rules, 1971, (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules), and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for five months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.2. The revision-petitioner was at the relevant time working as Director, Physical Education in Sonopant Dandekar College of Arts at Satpati, taluka Palghar, District Thana. He was residing at Satpati which is about five miles from the Palghar Railway Station. At about 11-30 p.m. on December 7, 1975, police Head Constable Ramchandra Jadhav (P.W. No. 2) attached to the Palghar police station received information from his constable that some anti-Government posters were freshly pasted on the platform of the Pa...
Tag this Judgment!B. Mehta and Co. Vs. Puranmal Bubna and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-22-1976
Reported in: [1979]49CompCas98(Bom)
Mridul, J.1. By this report the official liquidator seeks, inter alia, a direction as to whether he should obtain consent of the Central Government under s. 35 of the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974, for continuance of liquidation proceedings in respect of Edward Textiles Ltd. in liquidation (hereinafter called 'the company'). He also seeks directions as to whether he should withdraw misfeasance summons which he had taken out against erstwhile officers and directors of the company having regard to the impact of the directions of the National Textile Corporation as also the Central Government. Notices were issued to the National Textile Corporation and the Central Government. They appeared before me through their counsel and have made submissions in respect of the directions sought for by the official liquidator. 2. On 4th August, 1967, the company was directed to be wound up by this court under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. On 4th July, 1972 the offic...
Tag this Judgment!Balkrishna Raghunath Gharat Vs. Sadashiv Hiru Gharat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-21-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Bom412
1. Plaintiff's suit for a declaration that the adoption made by him of the Defendant-Respondent is void, having been dismissed by the lower Court and confirmed in appeal by the learned District Judge, Kolaba, he has come in second appeal.2. The appeal does raise a somewhat important point of Hindu Law on which the authorities of this Court at least do not appear to be unanimous. The question as to whether the adoption of a boy over 15 years of age is void, or valid being sanctioned by custom, arises in this way:The Plaintiff who had taken the defendant in adoption on 12th February 1968 and got the adoption deed registered, alleged that according to the custom in' his community adoption of a boy more than ten years of age at the date of adoption is not valid. As the defendant was 22 years of age at the date of the alleged adoption the said adoption is ipso facto bad in law and not binding on the plaintiff.3. The short answer made by the defendant was that they are the members of Somavan...
Tag this Judgment!Western Automobiles (India) Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Cit ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-1976
Reported in: [1978]112ITR1048(Bom)
Desai, J.1. By this reference the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question for our consideration : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, penalty was not imposable on the assessee under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1959-60 ?' 2. As the assessee has taken out a notice of motion for further question, we may briefly refer to the facts and then consider the assessee's application. 3. As the question referred to us indicates, we are concerned with the assessment year 1959-60. the assessee was a registered firm dealing the motor spare parts and accessories. In the course of assessment proceedings for the assessment year concerned, the Income-tax Officer discovered in the account books of the assessee hundi loans to the tune of Rs. 90,000, which, according to the Income-tax Officer, represented concealed income. When these hundi loans were considered in the assessment, the assessee-firm agreed to the addi...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-1 Vs. Investa Industrial Corpo ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-1976
Reported in: [1979]119ITR380(Bom)
Tulzapurkar, Actg. C.J.1. The question that has been referred to us by the Tribunal in this reference under s. 256(1) of the I. T. Act, 1961, runs thus : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 1,86,000 outstanding in the account of Palanpur Co. could be allowed as a deduction in determining the assessee's business profits for the assessment year 1963-6 ?' 2. The question relates to the assessment year 1963-64, the corresponding previous year being the year which ended on March 31, 1963. The assessee-company was incorporated in 1941 for carrying out the objects mentioned in its memorandum of association. In particular, from its very inception, it started carrying on business as managing agents and became the managing agents of two companies, viz., (1) Investa Machine Tools and Engineering Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Tools Co. ') in 1942 and (2) Palanpur Vegetable Products Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Palanpur Co. ') in the year 1946...
Tag this Judgment!Rupam Pictures and anr. Vs. Brijmohan and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Bom425; 1977MhLJ298
ORDER1. Opponent No. 1 Brijmohan filed an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act against the applicants as well as opponents Nos. 2 to 5 contending that the original opponents had entered into an agreement with him on 24-11-1965 whereunder he had advanced an amount of Rs. 26,250/- to the opponents on the terms and conditions enumerated therein. Further, according to him, as the opponents failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement, vide registered notice dated 11-11-1967 he asked them to pay an amount of Rs. 31,885.86 as dues on account of his business commission. Vide reply dated 27-9-1968 the opponents contended that the entire dues were pai dto his father and as no business was done for the concerned pictures for November 1967 onwards, nothing more was payable to him. Therefore, as according to opponent Brijmohan, a dispute or a difference had arisen between the parties, to which the arbitration agreement applied, he filed an application under Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) Vs. Tolaram Jalan and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-1976
Reported in: [1986]160ITR811(Bom)
Desai, J.1. This is a reference at the instance of the Commissioner under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. Respondents to the reference are three individuals : (1) Tolaram Jalan, (2) Amarchand Jalan, and (3) Champalal Jalan. The assessment year involved in each case is the assessment year 1958-59, governed by the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. A few facts may be stated : In this reference, we are concerned with two firms. The facts pertaining to both are almost identical, as the Tribunal observes in its statement of case. The two firms are : M/s. Ramkumar & Co., a firm of Delhi, and M/s. Birla Cotton Mills Cloth Shop. M/s. Ramkumar & Co. was at all material times governed by a deed dated January 20, 1954, and there were 12 partners in the firm who were all members of either the Jalan family or the Kejriwal family, although they did not represent these families. On December 28, 1956, which date falls in the accounting year, the firm, Ramkumar & Co., constituted by the dee...
Tag this Judgment!YasIn Dadu Patil Vs. Kasim Babalal Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-09-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Bom341; 1977(79)BLJR375; 1977MhLJ902
1. The plaintiff has filed this appeal against a concurrent decree passed by both the Courts dismissing his suit on a preliminary ground that the present suit was not maintainable in view of a decree passed in an earlier suit for redemption being Civil Suit No. 235 of 1945. One Shekan Kasim Patil was the owner of survey No. 16/6 admeasuring 39 gunthas situate at village Kundalwadi, Taluka Walva, District Sangli. By a usufructuary mortgage dated June 6, 1927 Shekan Kasim Patil mortgaged this property to one Aba Farid Bargir to secure repayment of Rs. 150/- borrowed by him. Aba Farid Bargir, the mortgagee, by a registered deed of assignment dated May 25, 1938 assigned his interest in the mortgage in favour of defendant Kasim Patil. The plaintiff purchased the equity of redemption from Shekan Kasim Patil by a registered deed dated 26-10-1956. The plaintiff filed a suit in the year 1967 for redemption of this mortgage. It was inter alia contended by the defendant in the written statement t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i Vs. Gilbert and Barker Manuf ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-1976
Reported in: [1978]111ITR529(Bom)
Tulzapurkar, J. 1. Two questions have been referred to us in this reference for our determination; the first one at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax on a direction issued by this court on his notice of motion under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, while the other at his instance by the Tribunal itself under section 256(1) of the Act. The two questions are as follows : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in permitting the respondent assessee-company to agitate before it for the first time, its contention to the effect that its income was assessable under the head 'business' thereby placing the appellant in a worse position than before '(2) Whether the fees earned by the assessee under the agreement dated November 27, 1958, are liable to be assessed as business income under section 28 or as income from the sources under section 57 ?' 2. The short facts giving rise to these two questions may be stated : The ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-ii, Bombay Vs. Maltida Ferreir ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-07-1976
Reported in: [1977]108ITR616(Bom)
Desai, J.1. This is a reference under section section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and the following question has been referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal : 'Whether, on the Tribunal's finding that the Ferreira Mansion was actually constructed and owned by Dr. Ferreira, the assessee could be assessed in respect of the income thereof for the relevant accounting years in view of the consent decree dated 11th April, 1960 ?' 2. Although the statement of case refers to four assessment years, we are really concerned with the two years 1956-57 to 1957-58 only, the corresponding accounting period being the years ended on 31st March, 1956, and 31st March, 1957, respectively. 3. The assessee is one Mrs. Maltida Ferreira (nee Fonseca). On 21st March, 1923, the assessee's father settled certain properties in trust. The trustees were directed to collect all the rents and profits and to pay therefrom all the costs incidental to the collection thereof and to pay the net i...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »