Mumbai Court July 1976 Judgments
Vaishali V. Ambekar Vs. the Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1976
Reported in: (1978)80BOMLR182
Deshpande, J.1. These two petitions are directed against the promotion of Mrs. Mhaprolkar, the respondent No. 4 in both the cases, to the post of the head clerk in the office of the Chief Mechanical Engineer, Western Railway, Bombay, under the order dated October 15, 1975. The petitioners in both the cases are working in the said office as senior clerks; so was the respondent No. 4 till her promotion. A vacancy arose in the post of the head clerk before the said date. According to the Roster in force at the relevant time, the post was liable to be filled in by a member of a Scheduled Caste, in terms of the Rules providing for reservations to the Scheduled Caste employees, in compliance with the constitutional mandate. The respondent No. 4 till her marriage was a caste Hindu and admittedly not a member of any Scheduled Castes. Her husband is a 'Chamar', a caste notified as such Scheduled Caste under Article 341 of the Constitution. Respondent No. 4 was so promoted on the assumption that...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i Vs. Bharat Bijlee Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1976
Reported in: [1977]107ITR30(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J.1. The question referred for our determination are as under : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the dividend reserve was a reserve includible in the computation of capital of the assessee-company as contemplated under rule 1 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 2. If the answer to question No. 1 is in the affirmative, whether the dividend reserve includible in the computation of capital of the assessee-company as on July 1, 1964, was in the amount of Rs. 5,90,000 or in the amount of Rs. 3,60,000 ?' 2. The question referred to above relate to the assessment year 1966-67, and what is the capital employed in the business of the assessee-company as on the July 1, 1964, is relevant for the purpose of determining the statutory deductions. The balance-sheet of the company for the year ending June 30, 1964, showed an item of dividend reserve under the head 'Reserves and Surplus'. The relevant part of the balance-sheet ...
Tag this Judgment!Pratap Singh Vs. the Bank of America
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-1976
Reported in: (1976)78BOMLR549
Desai, J.1. This is an appeal from the decision of Vimadalal J. given on the preliminary issue of jurisdiction. By his judgment and order dated February 24, 1976 he held that this Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the appellant plaintiff's suit and answered the preliminary issue in the negative and against the plaintiff and consequentially the suit was dismissed with costs.2. The plaintiff had filed the suit against the Bank of America, National Trust and Savings Association (hereinafter referred to as the 'Bank of America'), a corporation incorporated in the United States of America. The plaint, however, goes on to describe the defendant further as having a principal place of business in India located at 18, Bruce Street, Bombay-1. The claim in the suit is a money claim for Rs. 5,40,000 (Rupee equivalent of 'U.S. Dollars 72,000) and for compensation and damages assessed by the plaintiff in respect of various items specified in para. 115 of the plaint. This claim for compe...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Reshma Estate Private Ltd. and
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1976
Reported in: (1976)78BOMLR654; [1977]47CompCas447(Bom)
Mridul, J.1. By this petition, the petitioners seek condonation of delay in filing the particulars of charge created by M/s. Reshma Estate Private Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the company') in their favour under an indenture of mortgage dated 30th August, 1971. This petition has been filed on 6th August, 1974, roughly after three years from the date of execution of the aforesaid indenture of mortgage. 2. The facts material for the purpose of determining as to whether the petitioners are entitled to condition prayed for by them are not very much in dispute. The company was incorporated on 9th February, 1971. Its incorporation was for the purpose of acquiring an immovable property known as : 'Krishna Mahal' situate at Netaji Subhash Road, Bombay. It appears that the company raised funds for the purposes of purchasing the said property. The loan given to the company in connection there in which by the petitioners was secured under an indenture of mortgage dated 30th August, 1971. The...
Tag this Judgment!Kamarbai and ors. Vs. Badrinarayan and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Bom228; (1976)78BOMLR579; 1977MhLJ115
Vaidya, J.64. The important question to be decided in this appeal is whether the plaintiff could take an advantage of the immoral relations which he claimed to have established between himself and defendant No. 1, even according to his own story. Mr. Karmali, the learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that the learned Civil Judge has not applied his mind to the threedecisions which are referred to by him or to the law regarding the effect of immorality vitiating the agreements and transactions under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, read with Section 6. Clause (h) of the Transfer of Property Act.65. He argued that, instead of supporting the conclusions of the learned Judge, the decision, of the Division Bench of this Court in Sabava Yellappa v. Yamanappa Sabu 35 Bom LR 345: AIR 1933 Bom 209, lays down that a suit for the recovery of possession of property transferred under a sale deed, the consideration or object of which was immoral, i.e. past or future cohabitation, thoug...
Tag this Judgment!S.R.B. Gaikwad Vs. the Union of India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Bom220
Deshpande, J.1. The building in which flat No. 8 is located and several other buildings once belonged to Messrs. Colaba Land and Mill Company Ltd. This flat and several other flats were obtained on lease by the Governor General in Council under a written agreement dated 21st June, 1944. The Garrison Engineer of the Defence Department is treated as the tenant on behalf of the Governor General. The Colaba Land and Mill Company Limited went into liquidation and the buildings were purchased in or about 1966 by a Housing Co-operative Society formed by the tenants of the flats therein under the name and style of Colaba Land Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., hereinafter referred to as 'the Society', from the Official Liquidator with the sanction of this Court. The Society had offered for sale all the flats to the Central Government held by it as tenant, in the same manner as were purchased by the other tenants by becoming a member of the Society and purchasing such shares as would justify me...
Tag this Judgment!Associated Bombay Cinema Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-1976
Reported in: (1977)6CTR(Bom)226
Tulzapurkar, J.1. The question that has been referred to us by the Tribunal under S. 66(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 in this case runs as follows : 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case there was any evidence to justify the Tribunal's findings that 'there is no information on record to show what was the expenditure in the assessee's own petition and what was the expenditure in each of the other cases and 'that there is nothing on record to show that the assessee's petition was for the purpose of recovery of the amount due to it' ?' 2. It may be stated that the question relates to assessment year 1957-58, the relevant previous year ending on 30.9.1956. The assessee company which is the owner of a theatre called 'Strand Cinema' in Bombay had leased the same to M/s. Western India Theatres Ltd. under a lease dt. 27.12.1948 for a period of 5 years with an option for renewal for a further period of two years on the same terms; the annual rental was Rs. 1,10,000/-. On 2...
Tag this Judgment!Official Trustee of Bombay Vs. Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-1976
Reported in: [1979]117ITR190(Bom)
Tulzapurkar, J.1. In this reference made to his court by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, under s. 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, the following question has been referred for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 20, 85, 649 representing the value of 1/3rd share of the trust corpus, was correctly included in the principal value of the estate of the deceased for purposes of estate duty ?' 2. The estate duty assessment pertains to the estate of Her late Highness Maharani Chimnabai Gaekwar of Baroda, who died on 23rd August, 1958. It appears that an account of the property passing on the death of the deceased was furnished to the Deputy Controller of Estate Duty, Bombay, by Prince Khanderao Raje Gaekwar of Baroda and Her Highness Usha Raje Rani of Jath, who were the administrators of the estate of the deceased and accountable persons under the Act. The Deputy Controller found that the deceased had an interest under a trust settleme...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Bombay City-i Vs. Keshardeo S. Morarka
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-1976
Reported in: [1977]107ITR576(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J.1. In this reference seven questions are referred to for our determination. Questions Nos. 1 to 5 are referred to at the instance of the assessee. As however, nobody appears on behalf of the assessee in this reference in spite of service, none of the said five questions needs to be answered. The remaining two questions are referred to at the instance of the revenue and they are as under : '(6) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the amount of Rs. 39,162 representing the decretal amount in respect of the decree passed against the assessee and others was admissible deduction in computing the net wealth of the assessee (7) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to the deduction of the sum of Rs. 1,42,320 being the tax on the additional income disclosed by the assessee to the department ?' 2. These questions relate to the assessment year 1957-58, the correspondin...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Parasharam Karekar Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-1976
Reported in: (1978)80BOMLR167
Deshmukh, J.1. This is an application by the petitioner who was cited as a witness in Criminal Case No. 606/75 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Radhanagari, District Kolhapur, and who has been directed to be made an accused by adding his name to the charge-sheet. Being aggrieved by that order of the learned Magistrate, he filed a revision application before the learned Sessions Judge, Kolhapur. The learned Sessions Judge took the view that this was an interlocutory order and he had no right to interfere at that stage. Being aggrieved he filed this application.2. Having gone through the order of the learned Magistrate and the provisions of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, we are satisfied that the entire procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate is misconceived. The undisputed facts are that the present petitioner was cited as a witness in Criminal Case No. 606 of 1975 in which there were three accused persons. A charge has been framed against t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »