Mumbai Court June 1978 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.
Laxmanrao Madhavrao Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Bom276; 1979MhLJ357
Deshpande, J.1. This case, referred to the Division Bench, raises an important question as to the interpretation of Section 6 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, as amended up to date, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The family unit of which the petitioner is a member, is declared to be a surplus holder to the extent of 11 acres 3 gun-thas. It consisted of five members including the petitioner on the appointed date, i.e., 2nd October, 1975. Twin daughters were born to him thereafter on 20th June 1976, The daughters can be said to have been conceived in the womb, on the appointed day, in view of their birth within nine months therefrom. The unit is so declared surplus holder without counting the daughters, as its members in which case, the unit is entitled to retain an enlarged ceiling area under Sec. 6 of the Act.2. Mr. A.V. Savant, the learned Advocate for the petitioner, submits that, enlarging of ceiling area, under Section 6 of the Act is ai...
Urmila Vs. Controller of Estate Duty, Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-1978
Reported in: (1979)9CTR(Bom)81; [1980]122ITR958(Bom)
Desai, J. 1. In this reference which is at the instance of the accountable person, the following two questions of law are referred to us for our opinion : '(1) Whether the deceased's share in the goodwill of the three firms, (1) M/s. Natwarlal & Co., (2) M/s. Pannalal Bros., and (3) M/s. Kantilal Manilal & Co., was includible in the principal value of the property either under section 5 or under section 9 read with Explanation 2 to clause (15) of section 2 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, as may be applicable (2) Whether the goodwill of the three firms above was valued on correct legal principles ?' 2. The references arises out of the assessment to estate duty made on the accountable person in respect of the estate left by one Champaklal J. Shah, who died on August 11, 1960. At the time of his death, the said Champaklal was a partner in a firm called M/s. Natwarlal & Co., having a one-fourth share in the firm. The firm was dealing in medicines and operating under the partnership deed dat...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-ii, Bombay Vs. D.S. Bottlewala
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-1978
Reported in: [1978]115ITR441(Bom)
Desai, J.1. In this reference the following question of law has been referred to us under s. 66(2) of the I.T. Act, 1922 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the proceedings initiated under s. 34(1)(b) for the assessment year 1957-58 were bad in law ?' 2. The assessee is an individual who was formerly doing share business as a partner of a firm and was also a member of the stock exchange. He was being assessed by the ITO, A Ward, Bombay, within whose jurisdiction the business address fell. Later on, the assessee discontinued his business activities and from 1941-42 onwards his assessment was done by the ITO, D-1 Ward, to whom the case records were transferred by the ITO, A-1 Ward; this was done on August 24, 1943. The jurisdiction of the ITO, D-1 Ward, was based on the residence of the assessee. 3. In 1937, the assessee had created a trust for the benefit of himself and Miss Pilloo K. Shroff, whom he married a few mon...
Controller of Estate Duty, Bombay Vs. Fatimabai H. Jamal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-1978
Reported in: (1979)9CTR(Bom)72; [1979]117ITR979(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J.1. At the instance of the revenue the following question has been referred to us for our determination: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a proper construction of the provisions of section 10 of the Estate Duty Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the Tribunal was right in holding that only that portion of the building 'Jamal Mansion', which was in the occupation of the deceased, could be deemed to pass on the death of the deceased and not the whole of the half share which he originally owned ?' 2. This question arose out of the estate duty assessment consequent upon the death of one Hussein Jamal (hereinafter referred to as the deceased). He died on April 17, 1962, and his widow, Fatimabai Husein Jamal, rendered the account of the estate as one of the accountable persons. The controversy in this reference relates to the value to be included in the estate on account of a building called 'Jamal Mansion', situate in Bombay. This build...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. NizamuddIn Hazi Mohamedkasam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-1978
Reported in: (1978)80BOMLR407; 1978MhLJ775
Jahagirdar, J.1. By this petition the State seeks to challenge the order of discharge passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate of 28th Court, Bombay, in Case No. 5/S of 1976. In this case the opponent, who will hereinafter be referred to as the accused, was sought to be prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, read with Section 7(1) of the said Act and Rule 23 of the Rules framed thereunder. According to the averments in the complaint filed before the Magistrate, on October 7, 1974 samples were taken of several bottled drinks which were being sold by the accused who was the proprietor of a soda factory. One of the drinks was named 'Real Falsa'. A sample of this drink was sent to the public analyst who reported that the sample contained certain amount of prohibited colour. Before the charge was framed the accused tendered the sample which was with him and asked for the same being sent to the Central Food Laboratory at Calcutt...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-ii Vs. Industrial Solvents and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-1978
Reported in: (1979)8CTR(Bom)124; [1979]119ITR608(Bom)
Desai, J.1. By this reference under s. 256(1) of the I. T. Act, 1961, the following question of law has been referred to us for our consideration; 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee-company had set up business in February, 196 ?' 2. It may be stated before discussing the facts and the rival contentions that the matter had come up earlier before this court on 8th July, 1977, when after some arguments it was remanded to the Tribunal with a direction that the Tribunal should submit a supplementary statement of case recording its findings as to from what date or month between February, 1961, and September, 1961, the assessee-company obtained a reasonable quantity of the finished product irrespective of whether it was in an marketable state or not. Pursuant to this direction given by the order dated 8th July, 1977, the supplementary statement of case has been duly sent to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. In order to understand the rival content...
Commissioner of Gift-tax, Bombay Vs. Ebrahim Haji Usuf Botawala
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-1978
Reported in: [1980]122ITR62(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J.1. At the instance of the revenue, the following question has been referred to us for our determination 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the provisions of section 2(xxiv)(d) and/or section 4(1)(c) of the Gift-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') were not attracted ?' 2. By an indenture of wakf executed on March 4, 1941, the assessee created a wakf and constituted himself as a sole trustee. By the said indenture, the assessee assigned and transferred to the trustee the properties mentioned in the schedule thereto. After making provision for collection of rents and profits, payment of taxes and incurring of expenditure, by clause (3) of the indenture the gross income was to be paid to the settlor for and during his lifetime and down to his death, and after his death the same was to be paid to the children of the settlor living at the time in certain proportions mentioned in the said clause. Cl...
Ramakant Madhusudan Tipnis Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-19-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Bom382
1. The above first appeal under Section 218-D of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 was filed bythe owner of the property against the dismissal of his appeal before the Chief Judge in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay, wherein he had challenged the rateable value of his property for the year 1968-69.2. The appellant objected to the assessment of one room in the property, the monthly rent of which was estimated by the Municipal Officers at Rs. 5 for the purpose of assessment. The contention of the appellant was that that room has been unauthorisedly constructed by a trespasser and, therefore, he was not liable to pay the tax for that room. This contention was overruled by the learned Chief Judge on the ground that even though the premises were not let, under Section 146 (2) (c) of the Act, the owner of the land on which it was built was primarily liable as held in Ramji Keshavji v. Municipal Commr. of Greater Bombay : (1954)56BOMLR1132 .3. A somewhat identical point arose in F...
Pfizer Employees Union, Bombay Vs. Mazdoor Congress, Bombay and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-19-1978
Reported in: (1978)80BOMLR735; (1980)ILLJ65Bom; 1979MhLJ571
Naik, J.1. This is a petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated March 31, 1976, passed by the President, Industrial Court, Maharashtra, Bombay, under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (the Act for short). 2. The facts giving rise to this petition are briefly these : 3. Pfizer Ltd., Bombay, respondent No. 2, is a public limited company incorporated in India under the Indian Companies Act, which shall be hereafter referred to as the company. The head office of the company is situated at Express Towers, Nariman Point, Bombay-21. The said company has its factory at Thana near Bombay, and a depot for storing goods at Darukhana, Reay Road, Bombay. The said company employ about 130 workmen in its head office, about 25 workmen at its depot at Reay Road and about 1,200 workmen at its factory at Belapur road, Thanna. The petitioner is a trade union registered under the In...
Biru Nana Kolekar Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-19-1978
Reported in: (1978)80BOMLR482
Jahagirdar, J.1. His Lordship, after stating the facts of the case and dealing with points not relevant to this report, proceeded. In support of his defence that he had consumed medicinal preparation which resulted in high alcoholic level in the blood, the accused gave an explanation that he had consumed a medicine called 'Aminovin' which had been prescribed by his doctor for his stomach trouble. The doctor also was examined by the accused and he had deposed that he had in fact recommended this medicine for the accused on account of his stomach trouble. Mr. Rane suggested that the medicinal preparation consumed by the accused was covered by Section 24A of the Act and, therefore, he has discharged the burden which was placed upon him by Sub-section (2) of Section 66. With the end of showing this Mr. Rane referred to Section 6A of the Act. Sub-sections (1) to (6) of the said section provide for the manner in which the State Government may determine whether any medicinal or toilet prepara...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »