Mumbai Court August 1977 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.
Gleitleger (India) Private Limited Vs. the Special Land Acquisition Of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-1977
Reported in: (1978)80BOMLR302
Aggarwal, J.1. [His Lordship, after stating the facts of the case and dealing with points not relevant to this report, proceeded.] This bring us to the last category consisting of sale of survey Nos. 139, 168, 169, 173, 194, 282, 284, 287, 304, 306, 307, 360 and 421 admeasuring 15 acres 37 gunthas by Seva Mandal Trust to M/s Voltas Ltd. The price of Rs. 7-25 per square yard was fixed by Award dated September 12, 1967, exh. 121 declared by Shri Kantilal T. Desai. Mr. Khambatta submitted that this price can be taken into consideration in arriving at the market value of the acquired lands. The parties had agreed to sell and purchase the said lands and merely left the question of price to be determined by an experienced retired Judge. Mr. Khambatta further submitted that before making the award, the learned arbitrator had fixed several meetings and heard advocate for M/s Voltas Ltd., and also done all things necessary to enable him to determine the price and therefore this sale instance re...
Shivagonda Ravaji Sankpal Vs. Chandrakant Dnyanu Sutar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-1977
Reported in: (1978)80BOMLR371; 1978MhLJ169
Deshpande, J.1. This reference of the Special Civil Application under Clause 36 of the Letters Patent is occasioned because of the difference of opinion between Deshmukh and Mridul JJ. on the two points indicated therein. The respondent herein is one of the heirs of the mortgagor owning 2 Annas and 8 Pies share in the two agricultural lands mortgaged by his ancestor with possession under a registered deed dated July 30, 1897 for a loan of Rs. 5,000 in favour of the ancestor of the petitioner herein. The mortgage deed did not fix any period for repayment and consequently the right of redemption stood expired in the year 1957 in ordinary course under Article 148 of the Limitation Act of 1908, now repealed by the Act of 1963, because of non-payment of the debt thereunder resulting in the extinction of the mortgagor's title in the lands under Section 28 of the repealed Act.2. After the enforcement of the Maharashtra Debt Relief Act of 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') with effect...
Gopaldas T. Agarwal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-1977
Reported in: [1978]113ITR447(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J. 1. At the instance of the assessee pursuant to the application of the applicant the High Court had required the Tribunal to refer the following question for our determination : 'Whether the burden of proving the sources of acquisition of the assets by the deceased, Tulsiram Devidayal, was the same as in the case of acquisition by the assessee himself, and whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the assessee has discharged the burden of proof ?' 2. Assessee, Lala Gopaldas T. Agarwal, is the legal heir of late Lala Tulsiram Devidayal who died on March 9, 1060. Lala Gopaldas is an assessee in his representative capacity is respect of income of his father, late Lala Tulsiram. The question relates to the assessment year 1957-58, for which the corresponding previous year ended on March 31, 1957. Tulsiram filed a return of his income for the assessment year 1957-58 on June 27, 1958, disclosing an income of Rs. 28,057 as under : Rs.1. Remuneration received fro...
Modella Woollens Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-1977
Reported in: [1979]120ITR726(Bom)
Tulzapurkar, J. 1. In this reference made by the Tribunal under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the following questions have been referred to us for our determination : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 12,319 was a capital expenditure not allowable under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the preliminary expenses and share capital issue expenses were includible in working out 'capital employed in the undertaking' within the meaning of section 84 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with rule 19 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the moiety of the profits was includible in the capital employed in the industrial undertaking having regard to rule 19 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (4) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the payment of the advance tax under section 212(3) of the Income-tax Act...
B.M. Dhup, General Secretary, Maharashtra Mazdoor Congress, Bombay Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-1977
Reported in: (1978)80BOMLR415; (1979)IILLJ241Bom
1. In this petition the petitioner, who is the General Secretary of the Maharashtra Mazdoor Congress, has impugned the order of the 3rd respondent in Ref. (ULP) No. 21 of 1977, decided by him on 17th June, 1977. This was a reference under S. 25(1) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The reference was at the instance of the 1st respondent-company, who had sought a declaration to the effect that the strike notice dated 14th May, 1977 given by the petitioner-union was not in consequence with the mandatory provisions of the Act and for the consequential declaration that the strike pursuant to such notice be declared illegal. The contentions of the respondent-company were accepted by the 3rd respondent who ultimately held that the mandatory requirements regarding the strike notice were not observed, that the strike was also invalid by reasons of the provisions contained in S. 24(1)(h) o...
PravIn R. Geglani Vs. Beharilal Beniprasad Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Bom255; (1978)80BOMLR64; 1978MhLJ641
1. This is an appeal by the original plaintiff in suit No. 172 of 1970 on the file of the Supreme Court of Aden, against the order of the learned Judge of the City Civil Court at Bombay dated 6th April 1976 by which he set aside his own order dated 17th February, 1976, making the notice under Order 21, R. 22 of the Civil P. C. absolute.2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this appeal are these: It appears that the plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants in the Supreme Court at Aden. After serving the defendants an ex parte decree was passed. The plaintiff had claimed an amount of Y. D. 423 i.e. about Rs. 10,000/- and he got an ex parte decree for Y. D. 390 equivalent to Rupees 9080/-, After securing the certified copy of the decree passed by the Supreme Court at Aden, the plaintiff filed the certified copy of the decree in the City Civil Court and sought for its execution.3. A notice under Order 21, Rule 22, having been issued the same was resisted by the defendants-respond...
Deorao Pandurang Mangrulkar Vs. the Collector, Chandrapur and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Bom293; 1978MhLJ47
ORDER1. These two writ petitions can be conveniently decided by a common judgment as practically same or similar points arise in both of them. The Rent Controller, Chandrapur, granted permission to the landlord to terminate the tenancy on the ground that the premises are needed for bona fide occupation of the landlord. This permission was granted under Clause 13 (3) (vi) of the C. P. & Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Control Order), After the landlord obtained possession on the basis of that permission, the Collector allotted the premises to some one else, holding that the tenement was not needed by the landlord. The controversy is whether this is permissible.2. The petitioner is an owner of a building standing on a Nazul Sheet No, 10, Plot No. 44-45 at Chandrapur. This building consists of six blocks. Respondent No. 2 in Special Civil Application (Spe. C. A.) No. 1074 of 1972 is Mansur Husain and he was occupying block No. 6 as...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i Vs. Shamsunder Juthalal (Dec ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-1977
Reported in: [1978]112ITR927(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J. 1. The controversy in this reference lies in a very narrow compass. At the instance of the revenue and subject to the modification made by the High Court, the following two questions are required to be determined by us : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that the assessee was entitled to set off to the extent of one-fourth share of losses of his father in the firms in question 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to claim a set-off of the losses suffered by his father for the assessment year 1958-59 ?' 2. The questions referred to relate to the assessment year 1958-59 for which the relevant previous years is the Maru year 2013-2014 (covering the period November 3, 1956, to October 23, 1957). Shamsunder, the assessee is the son of one Juthalal Motilal. Juthalal was a partner in three firms, namely, (1) M/s. Chimanram Motilal (Cotton & W...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›