Mumbai Court June 1976 Judgments
Govindrao Atmaramji Warjurkar and anr. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-1976
Reported in: AIR1976Bom383; 1977MhLJ320
Masodkar, J.1. The two petitioners filed the present petition on September 30, 1975, challenging the Ordinance No. VII of 1975 as void and ultra vires as well as unconstitutional and beyond the Legislative competence and the powers of the State Legislature. They sought ad interim writs regarding the enforcement of those provisions. Petitioners alleged that they are money-lenders by profession and carry on the business of money-lending and are independently registered under the Bombay Moneylenders Act. They held independent licences. This joint petition was entertained on 1-10-1975 and there being several such petitions, a common order was made as passed in Special Civil Application No. 1172 of 1975. It may be mentioned that both before this Bench as well as in Bombay, several petitions challenging the provisions of this Ordinance and thereafter the Debt Relief Act were filed. In several petitions more than one money-lenders were joined as petitioners. As the matter being urgent, one se...
Tag this Judgment!international Tractor Co. of India Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-1976
Reported in: 1977(1)ELT133(Bom)
D.M. Rege J.1. This is the petition (1) for a writ of certiorari for quashing certain orders of the Assistant Collector of the Central Excise and of the Collector of Excise in appeal therefrom levying excise on the tractors manufactured by the petitioners by including in the assessable value thereof the value of the hour meter and/or wheel weight or front end weights, (2) for a writ of prohibition against the respondents from desisting or for bearing from re-opening the provisional assessment in respect of the tractors manufactured by the petitioners by including in the assessable value of the said tractors the value of the said hour meters and/or the wheel weights or front end weights, and (3) for writ of mandamus against the said officers to withdraw or cancel the said orders. 2. The petitioners have been manufacturing in their factory tractors known as McCormic International B-276 Tractors. The tractors so manufactured were supplied with certain parts and accessories as standard equ...
Tag this Judgment!Pyase Saheb Gulsar Chhotumiya Sawasi Etc. Vs. Dashrath Wasudeo Daff an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Bom91; 1977MhLJ246
Masodkab, J.1. Both these petitions arise out of the election proceedings filed by the respondent No. 1 before the District Judge, Nagpur under Section 428 of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948 (hereinafter called the Act) read with the Rules framed under Section 420 (3) (xviii) and (xix) of the Act (hereinafter called the Rules).2. Respondent No. 1 the election-petitioner before the District Judge was the candidate to the election to elect a Councillor from Ward No. 31, called also Juna Motor stand Ward, of the City of Nagpur. There were other ten duly nominated candidates. The poll took place on 29-1-1975, counting on 31-1-1975 and the result was gazetted on 4th of February, 1975. At the counting the petitioner in the first petition Pyare Saheb, having secured 1132 votes being the highest in the number of votes polled, was declared elected. The election-petitioner polled next highest number of votes, being 803. The petitioner in another companion petition i.e., Special Civil Ap...
Tag this Judgment!Narottam Morarji and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-1976
Reported in: [1977]109ITR69(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J.1. This reference is made both at the instance of the assessee and the revenue and the questions referred for our determination are : '1. Whether the notice of enhancement given by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was valid and legal 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether in the 4 C.A.Ps. ended June 30, 1942, June 30, 1943, June 30, 1944, and June 30, 1945, respectively, the managing agency commission to be included in the excess profits tax assessment is, (1) the amount of the commission stated in paragraph 4 above as received by the assessee in the C.A.P. concerned according to the accounts of the managed company, or (2) the said amount together with the estimated addition made thereto in the C.A.P. concerned as stated at the end of paragraph 5 above, or (3) the amount as determined by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the excess pro...
Tag this Judgment!Suman C. Kirloskar Vs. Commissioner of Gift-tax, Poona
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(Bom)390
Tulzapurkar, J.1. Two questions for which rule was issued in this matter are (1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the appeal of the Gift-tax Act in view of the complicated nature of the question involved in the case and (2) Whether the order of the Tribunal allowing the appeal of the Gift-tax Officer on the narrow ground was justified and valid in law 2. The principal question that arose for consideration before the Tribunal was whether a Hindu female could throw into the common hotch-pot of the Hindu Undivided Family of which she was a member of 11,100 shares of Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd. which were her self acquired property. The case of the petitioner was that on 26-2-1971 she blended the said shares in the said HUF by throwing the same in the common hotchpot. Admittedly later on the shares were transferred to the name of the petitioner's husband as the Karta of HUF. In respect of this transaction the Gift-tax Officer ...
Tag this Judgment!Yamutai S. Kirloskar Vs. Commissioner of Gift-tax, Poona
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(Bom)392
ORDERTulzapurkar, J.For the reasons stated in the judgment delivered in Gift-tax Application No. 6 of 1975 to-day, the rule is discharged with costs. ...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-viii Vs. Hansa Dyeing and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(Bom)482
Kantawala, C.J.1. This Rule in this case deserves to be discharged. The short question arises upon true construction of section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Under this sub-section no deduction is permissible in case of a firm in respect of any payment of interest, salary, bonus, commissioner or remuneration made by the firm to its partner. The manager representing the H.U.F. was a partner and he in his personal capacity had advanced a loan. In respect of the capital contributed by the H.U.F. no interest was allowed, but in respect of the personal loan advanced by the manager in his individual capacity interest was allowed. At the time of the initial assessment of the firm no objection was taken to the payment of this interest and it was treated as a permissible deduction. However, the case was later on sought to be reopened and the Tribunal has set aside the order of rectification on the ground that this is into a proper case where the provisions of section 154 of the Act can be ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Indian Smelting and Refining Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-1976
Reported in: [1977]107ITR793(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J.1. The Tribunal in this case has taken the view that 'general reserve' should not be reduced by the amount of dividend declared while computing the capital under the Surtax Act, 1964, as it cannot be said to relate back to the first day of the accounting year. The question is raised with a view to challenge the correctness of this finding. 2. There is a well-recognised distinction between a reserve and a provision and it is apparent from the judgment of the Supreme court in the case of Metal Box Company of India Ltd., v. Their Workmen : (1969)ILLJ785SC 'Reserves are appropriations of profits, the assets by which they are represented being retained to form part of the capital employed in the business. Provisions are usually shown in the balance-sheet by way of deductions from the assets in respect of which they are made whereas general reserves and reserve funds are shown as part of the proprietor's interest (see Spicer and Pegler's Book Keeping and Accounts, 15th edition...
Tag this Judgment!Jagannath Yeshwant Badade and ors. Vs. Kazi Janimiya MainoddIn Patel a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-14-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Bom313; 1977MhLJ671
Vaidya, J.1. The only question which arises in the above second appeal and which was referred to the Division Bench, was whether the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for pre-emption having regard to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Bhau Ham v. Baij Nath Singh, : AIR1962SC1476 , and in Sant Ram v. Labh Singh, : [1964]7SCR756 , where it was laid down that the customary law of pre-emption on the ground of vicinage imposed an unreasonable right to hold, acquire and dispose of property guaranteed under Art, 19 (1) (f) and was void.2. The ground on which the learned Assistant Judge, in this case, distinguished the present case was that although the right of pre-emption based on custom, was void, according to the said decisions of the Supreme Court, the plaintiff's right to claim pre-emption on the basis of his personal law, which had continued to operate after the coming into force of the Constitution, was not affected by the said decisions.3. Mr. Abhyankar, the learned counsel for th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›