Mumbai Court August 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.
Commissioner of Gift-tax (Central), Bombay Vs. J.N. Marshall
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1978
Reported in: [1979]120ITR613(Bom); [1979]2TAXMAN43(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J.1. J. N. Marshall, the assessee, was originally the proprietor of two businesses, viz., (1) J. N. Marshall & Co. (Engineering) and (2) J. N. Marshall & Co. (Spirax and Steel Department). The former business was converted into a partnership business with effect from February 1, 1946, by taking M. N. Marshall as a partner. It was provided in the instrument of partnership that on dissolution of the firm the stock-in -trade, goodwill and other assets would belong to the assessee alone. The second business was also converted into a partnership business with effect from February 1, 1956, by taking the assessee's son, S. J. Marshall, as a partner. In the partnership deed relating to the second business, it was expressly provided that on the termination of the partnership for any cause whatsoever the stock-in-trade, goodwill and assets of the partnership business shall belong to Jeejeebhoy (assessee) alone and Shiamak, the other partner, would be entitled to the amount, if any, ...
Venkatrao Narayanrao Ambekar Vs. the Alma Sugar Mills and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Bom38
1. This is an appeal preferred on behalf of the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee of Aurangabad challenging the order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, of Aurangabad in Summary Case No. 646 of 1974. The appellant, hereinafter referred to as the complainant is the Secretary of the Marketing Committee and the respondent No. 1, hereinafter referred to as the accused is the Manager of a Sugar Mills situated at village Phulamri on the out-skirt of Aurangabad city. There is no dispute that the area in which the Sugar Mills is situated comes within the market area as defined under the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963, of Aurangabad. The prosecution was launched by the complainant charging the accused with the offence punishable under Section 6 (1) (a) and (b) read with Section 46 of the aforesaid Act which will hereinafter be referred to as the Act of 1964. The prosecution case was that the accused was operating in the...
Mohammad Shafi Vs. ShamIn Banoo
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Bom156
1. This first -appeal is against the judgment and order passed by the Assistant Judge, Akola in Misc. Civil Application No. 57 of 1976 declaring and appointing petitioner as the guardian of minors Mohamed Races and Waheeda Begum, and also directing the return of the minors to the guardian declared by his orders.2. An application for appointment of herself as guardian and for the custody or returning the minors to her custody was filed by Shamin Banoo against her husband Mohomed Shafi under Ss. 7 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act. She alleged therein that she was married to Mohomed Shafi and bore three children from respondent Mohomed Shafi, namely, Mohomed Races whose age was given as 4 years, Waheeda Begum, whose age was given as 21/2 years and Farooque who was aged 11/2 years at the time when this application was presented. She then stated that she was given very cruel treatment by the respondent who wanted to marry another woman and drove her out, and at that time snatched Mohom...
Ganesh Rangnath Dhadphale Vs. the Special Land Acquisition Officer (i)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-1978
Reported in: (1979)81BOMLR417; 1979MhLJ786
Deshpande, J.1. [His Lordship narrated the facts of the various petitions and Proceeded.] Now, after Notifications are issued under Sections 4 and 6, the land acquisition officer is under a statutory obligation to proceed with the inquiry as to the compensation on the date indicated in the notice under Section 9 of the L.A. Act (Land Acquisition Act, 1894) 'or on any other day to which the inquiry has been adjourned' and he has to 'make an award under his hand' thereafter under Section 12 and take possession of the land under Section 16 on which the title in the land 'vests absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances'. Mr. A. H. Desai, Mr. Agarwal, Mr. Mehta and Mr. Shah and Mr. Setalvad, the learned advocates appearing for the petitioners, appear to us to be right in contending that suspending of such proceedings indefinitely, awaiting the sanction of the department concerned for the amount required, or awaiting its acquisition under the U.L.C. Act (Urban Land Ceiling and ...
Mangaldas H. Verma Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-iii
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-1978
Reported in: [1980]124ITR185(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J. 1. Mangaldas H. Verma, the assessee, owned a property at Sion consisting of two floors. He had let out the ground floor and the first floor thereof was occupied by him. In the years of account, viz., years ending March 31, 1962, and March 31, 1964 relevant to the assessment years 1962-63 and 1964-65, the assessee shifted to his bungalow at Juhu, which was constructed earlier. The first floor in Sion property was not used by him nor was it kept vacant for his use. It was, however, not let out to anybody. The simple question which arose for consideration before the taxing authorities and the Tribunal was whether the assessee was entitled to any allowance in respect of the vacancy in regard to that portion of the property. The ITO did not give any allowance on account of vacancy in the computation on the assessee's income from the property for both the years. The order of the ITO upheld by the AAC and by the Tribunal. The Tribunal took the view that the deduction under s. ...
The Bombay Wollen Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M.R. Bastikar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-1978
Reported in: (1979)10CTR(Bom)248
Desai, J.1. This petition has been referred to a Division Bench of disposal. The Petitioner has impugned two notices, both dated 6th November, 1965, Exhibit 'F' (Collectively) to the petitioner, issued by the respondent to the Petition, in which it was stated that in the view of the Income-tax Officer the petitioner's income for the assessment years 1961-62 and 1962-63 had escaped assessment within the meaning of s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioner thereafter carried on certain correspondence. The answer to this correspondence was not satisfactory, and hence the petition. According to the petitioner the impugned notice are ultra vires, illegal in excess and without jurisdiction and/or of jurisdiction on the several grounds set out and summarized in paragraph 11 of the petition. 2. Two replies to the petition have been filed; one was filed by S. S. Inamdar, Income-tax Officer, Companies Circle IV(6), who at the time of making the affidavit was exercising jurisdiction over...
U.S. Patel Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-ii
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-1978
Reported in: [1980]123ITR257(Bom)
Desai, J. 1. This is a reference at the instance of the assessee under s. 66(2) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, and the following question has been referred to us : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the gifts of shares made by the petitioner were hit by the provisions of section 16(3)(a)(iii) and (iv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ?' 2. We are concerned in this reference with the assessment years 1957-58, 1958-59, 1959-60, 1960-61 and 1961-62, for which the corresponding accounting years are the calendar years 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959 and 1960. The questions in all these years are identical. The assessee is one, U. S. Patel, an individual. He is the brother of one, C. S. Patel. These two brothers had two business associates, K. H. Patel and R. H. Patel, who were also brothers. The four persons were concerned with two private limited companies called Ashok Construction Company Private Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'Ashok') and Modern Construction Company ...
Bar Council of Maharashtra Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-1978
Reported in: (1979)12CTR(Bom)45; [1980]126ITR27(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J.1. The Bar Council of Maharashtra, the assessee, is a body corporate established under the Advocates Act, 1961 (Act 25 of 1961) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Act came into force on December 28, 1961. The assessment years concerned are 1962-63, 1963-64 and 1964-65, for which the relevant accounting periods are the period from December 28, 1961, to March 31, 1962, for the first year and the years ending March 31, 1963, and March 31, 1964, for the second and third years. The assessee derived income from securities and had also other income by way of enrolment fees. The relevant figures for the years in question are as follows : Assessment year Interest on securities Other incomeRs. Rs.1962-63 3,779 28,0351963-64 8,629 3,04,1031964-65 9,356 96,322 2. The ITO subjected to income-tax the income under both the heads for all the three years. In an appeal preferred by the assessee before the AAC, exemption was claimed in respect of other income under the provisions ...
Kothari Auto Part Mfg. (P) Ltd. Vs. K.R. Pawar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-1978
Reported in: (1979)ILLJ473Bom; 1979MhLJ425
Pendse, J. 1. The question that falls for determination in these four petitions is the correct and true interpretation of Rule 6 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to us 'the Rules'). 2. The facts of these petitions are somewhat similar and for the purposes of this judgment we will refer to the facts in Special Civil Application No. 2298 of 1977. The petitioner is a private limited company and respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are registered trade unions. After the enactment of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on February 1, 1972, respondent No. 2 has filed an application under S. 11 of the Act for being registered as a recognized trade union for the undertaking. As required by the provisions of S. 12(1) of the Act, the Industrial Court having found that the application was in order directed that a notice be...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Ajit Maneklal Choksey
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-1978
Reported in: [1979(39)FLR4]; (1979)ILLJ423Bom
1. The State seeks to challenge the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 19th Court, Bombay, on 16th July, 1977 dismissing the complaint preferred by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Bombay, under S. 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This is a prosecution of a type which is not usually found. The learned Magistrate, however, is seen to be fully acquainted with the provisions of law and has passed an order dismissing the complaint as barred by limitation. Naturally the dates involved must now be narrated. 2. One Mansukhlal was working with the respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') and his services were terminated some time prior to 1973. An industrial dispute involving his dismissal and demanding is reinstatement was referred at the instance of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour to the Labour Court. That reference was heard as (IDA) No. 69D of 1973 and by an award dated 26th November, 1974, the Labour Court at Bombay directed t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »