Mumbai Court July 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.
Haribai Vs. Baba Anna and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-06-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Bom289; 1978MhLJ127
Vaidya, J.1. The above Second Appeal was referred to a Division Bench by Kania, J. on March 24, 1976.2. The Second Appeal arose out of a suit filed toy the appellant, Haribai Dattu Sutar, on April 4, 1967, to get possession of the property described at Serial No. 4 in para 1 and also to get possession of the remaining one-half portion of the property at Serial No. 3 in para 1 of the plaint; and for an injunction restraining the defendants NOS. 1 and 2 from obstructing the plaintiffs Vahiwat in the property at Serial No. 5 in the plaint.3. The property described at Serial Nos. 3 and 4 in para 1 consisted of agricultural lands. The property at Serial No. 5 consisted of a house and an open site. These properties originally belonged to Banubai widow of Tatoba Sutar. She had two daughters viz. the plaintiff and one Bhagirathi. Bhagirathi died long ago. Plaintiff Haribai, who was married, was staying with her mother during Banubai's lifetime, looking after the needs of Banubai. Banubai execu...
Dhrangadhra Chemical Works Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-06-1976
Reported in: [1977]106ITR473(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J.1. At the instance of the assessee the following three questions are referred to us for our determination : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 12,790.30 incurred by the assessee in obtaining and securing loans from the Industrial Finance Corporation was not allowable under the provisions of section 10(2)(xv) of Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 2,03,903 was exempt under section 4(3)(vii) of the India Income-tax Act, 1922 3. If the answer to question No. 2 is in the negative, whether the said sum of Rs. 2,03,903 was liable to be taxed in the assessment year 1955-56 as held by the Tribunal So far as the first question is concerned, the counsel for the assessee as well as the revenue are agreed that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of India Cements Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax : [19...
Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. Vs. Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-1976
Reported in: [1979]49CompCas686(Bom)
R.L. Aggarwal, J.1. This writ petition arises under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (hereinafter refereed to as 'the MRTP Act'). The petitioner seeks withdrawal, cancellation and annulment of the Notice of Enquiry dated 6th December, 1974, and quashing of the order dated 25th February, 1975, passed by the 1st respondent rejecting the petitioner's application for disclosure of information, copy of the complaint and the report of the Director of Investigation, and for further and better particulars. A writ of prohibition is sought prevent the 1st and 2nd respondents from proceeding further pursuant to the said impugned Notice of Enquiry and the impugned order and from taking further steps in the matter of Restrictive Trade Practice Enquiry No. 27 of 1974. An order directing the 2nd respondent not to participate in the said enquiry and also an order directing the 1st respondent to disclose the complaint and report and to give particulars and inspection are also so...
Crompton Greaves Ltd. Vs. Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-1976
Reported in: [1979]49CompCas757(Bom)
Aggarwal, J.1. Both these petitions have been argued together an can be disposed of by a common judgment. 2. In Miscellaneous Petition No. 627 of 1975 under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ petitioner is Crompton Greaves Ltd., having its registered office at Bombay. The 1st respondent is the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission. The 2nd respondent is the Chairman and the 3rd and 4th respondents are the Members of the Commission. The 5th respondent is the Registrar of Restrictive Trade Agreements. The 6th respondent is the Director of Investigation. The 7th respondent is Electric Lamp ., having its registered office at Calcutta. The 8th respondent is General Electric Lamp of India Ltd., also having its registered office at Calcutta (the petitioner in Calcutta High Court Writ Matter No. 134 of 1975). The 9th respondent is Mazda Lamps Company Ltd., having its registered office at Calcutta. The 10th respondent is Philips India Ltd. (the petitioner in Misc. P...
Pramod M. Jhaveri and anr. Vs. Sukhdeo Ramratan and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Bom42; 1978MhLJ300
ORDER1. In this creditors' petition for an order of adjudication, an interesting but neat question of law arises for determination. The question is whether the Insolvency Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon claims based on the provisions of the Maharashtra Debt Relief Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), or whether such claims must be determined by the authorised officer constituted thereunder. In a large number of cases, whether they are petitions for orders of adjudication or notice of motion for setting aside insolvency notices, thisthreshold question arises. It was therefore, considered necessary that in the above-mentioned petition, this question be tried as a preliminary question. Having regard to the pendency of the various other matters, in which this question arises, counsel for the parties thereto, were permitted to address the Court on this question, Consequently, besides the learned counsel for the petitioning creditors and the debtors herein, counsel app...
The Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Vs. Dossibai N.B. Jeejeebhai, B ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(Bom)483
Kantawala, C.J.1. The Rule Nisi issued in this case deserves to be discharged. The question relates to taxation of the interest received by the owner on the compensation in respect of acquisition of his property and the question is whether such amount of interest on the additional compensation that may be awarded pursuant to the order of the Supreme Court has to be taxed in the year in which the amount of interest is so received or has to be spread over from the date of taking possession till the date of payment. It is very clear having regard to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act that an owner whose property is compulsorily acquired under the Statute is entitled to interest on the amount of compensation from the date of taking possession of his property till the date of payment of compensation. In the present case as the owner was dissatisfied with the amount awarded, he ultimately pursued the matter right upto the Supreme Court and Supreme Court by an order dt. 18-2-1966 awar...
The Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Iii, Bombay Vs. Dharamdas ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(Bom)426
Tulzapurkar, J.1. The following three questions, the first two relating to assessment year 1953-54 and the third one relating to assessment year 1954-55, have been referred to us for our opinion at instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City III, Bombay : (1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the loss of Rs. 46,493/- in pursuance of transactions under Annexure 'A' is liable to be disallowed under the second proviso to section 24(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 in the assessment for 1953-54 (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 25,283/- being the speculation loss could be carried forward under section 24(2) in the individual assessments of Dharamdas and Gordhandas so as to be set off against the profits from any business in speculative transactions carried on by each of them in the next year (3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal acted rightly in holding that the loss ...
K.M. Sheth Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax/Wealth-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-1976
Reported in: [1977]107ITR45(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J. 1. The two questions referred to us in the reference, one of them being under section 66(1) /256(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, an the other being under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, are as under : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the dividend income from the 1,500 shares of Changdeo Sugar Mills Ltd., is rightly includible in the applicant's assessment under section 16(3)(b) (assessment year 1961-62) and under section 64 of the 1961 Act (assessment year 1962-63) 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in the wealth-tax assessment for 1960-61, the value of 1,500 shares of Changdeo Sugar Mills Ltd., is rightly includible in the applicant's net wealth under section 4 of the Wealth-tax Act ?' 2. The assessee is an individual having substantial income from salary, property and dividends. By a deed of trust dated March 30, 1960, he settled upon trust and transferred to the trustees mentioned in the sa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›