Mumbai Court March 1976 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.
Pure Drinks Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mumbai Mazdoor Sabha, Bombay and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-1976
Reported in: (1978)IILLJ218Bom
Lentin, J.1. This Special Civil Application has been filed by the petitioner-company against the Mumbai Mazdoor Sabha, viz., the 1st respondent, for setting aside the order dated 8th November, 1974 passed by the Industrial Tribunal. 2. The petitioner-company carries on business of manufacturing soft drinks and aerated waters at Bombay. The 1st respondent is a trade union representing the workers employed by the petitioner-company. One of such workers was Inderjit Singh (referred to here after as 'the workman') who until his dismissal on 18th February, 1972, was in the employment of the petitioner-company as a driver-cum-salesman. On 30th November, 1971 the petitioner-company gave a show cause notice to the worker to which he gave his explanation on 2nd December, 1971. After the completion of preliminary inquiries by the petitioner-company. The workman was given a charge sheet dated 6th December, 1971 in respect of certain acts of misconduct, to wit, misappropriation. The date for holdi...
Prabhudas Tribhavandas Sanghvi and anr. Vs. the State of Maharashtra a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-1976
Reported in: 1976CriLJ1788
Deshpande, J.1. Petitioner No 1 claims to be a personal friend and political colleague of the detenu, petitioner No 2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was originally filed by petitioner No. 1. In the course of the hearing an application was made ,by petitioner No. 2 herself for leave to implead her as petitioner No 2. The said application has already been granted.2. An order of detention was passed against petitioner No. 2 on 26th June, 1975. On the same date, another order was passed directing her to be detained as Class I Security Prisoner. This detention order has subsequently been reviewed and approved by the Government on 5-7-1975. Petitioner No. 2, however, was not actually arrested till 21st December, 1975. She was arrested in Bombay on that day. under the order of the Governor dated 22nd December, 1975. She was directed to be detained in Akola jail, Actually she was lodged in Akola Jail on 25-12-1975. It appears that petitioner No. 1 interviewed her on 5-1-1...
New Consolidated Construction Co. Ltd. Vs. Glaxo Laboratories (India) ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-1976
Reported in: (1976)78BOMLR441
Vaidya, J.1. The appellants, New Consolidated Construction Company Limited, filed on November 6, 1973, a petition tinder Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, praying: (a) that it may be declared that there was an arbitration agreement between them and the defendants, Glaxo Laboratories (India) Limited, as per Clause 43 of the general conditions of the contract mentioned in the petition, and that the said agreement applied to the dispute and differences which had arisen between the plaintiffs and the defendants as set out in the correspondence to the petition and also in the para. 8 of the petition; (b) that it may be ordered that the said agreement be filed in Court and the disputes be referred to arbitration in accordance with the arbitration agreement; and (e) that the defendants be ordered to pay to the plaintiffs costs of the petition.2. The allegations made in the petition may be briefly summarised as under:The appellants, referred to as the plaintiffs, in the petition, number...
Govindrao Ranoji Musale Vs. Sou. Anandibai and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-1976
Reported in: AIR1976Bom433; (1977)79BOMLR73; 1977MhLJ144
1. This is an appeal by the husband, who has been unsuccessful in both Courts below. Very few facts are necessary for appreciation of the controversy arising in the appeal. Both the principal parties viz. the appellant and respondent No. 1, as well as respondent No. 2, are Hindus governed by the Hindu Law. In 1934 the appellant was married to respondent No. 2 according to Hindu rites and they lived as husband and wife. The appellant did not have any child by respondent No. 2. On 24th May 1959 the appellant went through a ceremony of marriage according to Hindu rites with respondent No. 1. A the time when this ceremony was gone through by the parties, respondent No. 2 was alive and she is still alive; and the marriage between the appellant and respondent No. 2 was subsisting then the is still subsisting. There is no dispute at this stage that the fact found show that in March 1963 the appellant and respondent No. 2 drove away respondent No. 1 and since then she has been residing with he...
Marine and General Insurance Co. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Balkrishna Ramchand ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Bom53; (1976)78BOMLR262
Vaidya, J.1. The above First Appeal is filed by the Insurer M/s. Marine and General Insurance Co., Ltd., Appellant No. 1, the insured owner of the motor lorry, bearing No. MRT 8615 Minu D. Mehta -- Partner, Cawasji Behramji and Co., Appellant No. 2 and the said partnership firm, Appellant No. 3, under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, against the award passed against them in the sum of Rs. l,43,400/- on an application for compensation made to the Tribunal by Respondent Dr. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan.2. By the award a sum of Rupees 500/- was also awarded to Smt. Malati M. Deshmukh, nurse and a further sum of Rs. 1,000/- was awarded as costs to Dr. Nayan. It is not in dispute that the appeal filed by the Insurance Co. against the award passed in favour of Smt. Malati M. Deshmukh for Rs. 500/- and costs at Rs. 100/- has been dismissed summarily on August 14, 1975.3. The award In favour of Dr. Nayan is challenged on two grounds by the appellants; Firstly, on the ground that t...
Associated Bombay Cinema P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bomba ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1976
Reported in: [1978]111ITR942(Bom)
Tulzapurkar, J. 1. In this reference made to this court under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the following two questions have been referred to us for our opinion : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the income from the lease rent earned by the applicant from letting out the Strand Cinema was income assessable under section 12 and not under section 10 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in not allowing the item of Rs. 75,000 as expenditure of revenue nature ?' 2. The question which principally arises pertains to the item of Rs. 75,000 which has been incurred as an expenditure of the assessee-company in prosecuting certain winding-up petitions which had been preferred by several creditors of the lessee-company, viz., M/s. Western India Theatres Ltd. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that the ...
V.H. Gangal Income-tax Officer Vs. Cables and Wireless Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-1976
Reported in: [1977]107ITR293(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J.1. The Income-tax Officer, Companies Circle, Bombay, has filed this appeal against the judgment and order of K. K. Desai J. whereby he quashed the assessment order passed by the appellant on March 30, 1967. By the said order the petitioners were assessed to tax on capital gains to respect of the amount received by them as and by was of distribution of capital on liquidation of their subsidiary company by name Indian Radio & Cable Communication Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the company'). The petitioners are a non-resident company within the meaning of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioners held in the company 18,011 ordinary shares of Rs. 100 each, 20,508 bonus shares of Rs. 100 each and 15,335 deferred shares of Rs. 100 each. With effect from January 1, 1947, the Government of India took over the business of the company and the company was taken into liquidation on May 11, 1949. The liquidator of the company, inter alia, d...
Tambe and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-ii
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-1976
Reported in: [1977]110ITR309(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J.1. The question that has been referred for our determination i : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has rightly held that the assessee was not entitled to be treated as a registered firm for 1962-63 ?'2. By an indenture of partnership dated March 18, 1960, four persons, namely, S. V. Tambe, S. S. Tambe, V. S. Tambe, and D. S. Tambe, entered into an agreement to carry on restaurant business and agreed to share the profits thereof respectively, at the ratio of 22 nPs., 34 nPs., 22 nPs. and 22 nPs. Under clause 2 of the partnership deed the partnership was to commence with effect from January 1, 1960. Under clause 7 thereof the accounting year was to be the calendar year or any other year as might be decided from time to time. In actual practice, the accounts were kept on calendar year basis. Under clause 9 thereof the partnership was to be a partnership at will. Clause 11 of the partnership deed is as under : '11. In the case of death...
Dhanji Lalji Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Poona
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1976
Reported in: [1977]107ITR395(Bom)
Tulzapurkar, J.1. Four questions have been referred to this court by this reference under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, at the instance of the assessees, who are M/s. Dhanji Lalji, Kolhapur, Shri Dhanji Lalji, individual. The two questions concerning the assessment of the firm, M/s. Dhanji Lalji, are as follows : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the several restrictions contained in the instrument of the partnership, dated a November 12, 1958, rendered the partnership void in law so as not to entitled the applicant-firm to registration under section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and upon the true construction of the partnership deed dated November 12, 1958, there was any evidence to support the findings of the Tribunal that : (i) it could of the partners was no more or higher than that of the dignified employees : (ii) it could not be taken that the agency of the par...
Manik Mallappa Karale Vs. Kisan Nagurao Patil and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Bom19; 1976MhLJ621
Chandurkar, J.1. The petitioner in this petition had filed an election petition under Section 27 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Zilla Parishads Act') challenging the election to the Panchayat Samiti of North Sholapur from three wards, namely, Mardi-Wadala, Kasbe Sholapur-Bale and Degaon Kumthe from which each of the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 respectively were candidates. The petitioner himself is a voter only from Degaon village and it is not now disputed before us that he would be entitled, if at all, to challenge the election only so far as respondent No. 3 is concerned. In other words, it is conceded that the challenge to the election of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 was not maintainable at the instance of the present petitioner.2. The petitioner's case against respondent No. 3 appeared to be that he was in arrears of the amount of hire in respect of engine of the North Sholapur Panchayat Samiti taken by him on hire from ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »