Mumbai Court February 1979 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Associated Cement Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1979
Reported in: (1979)13CTR(Bom)137; [1979]119ITR855(Bom)
Desai, J.1. This is a reference at the instance of the Commissioner under s. 66(1) of the Indian I. T. Act, 1922. The question referred to us reads as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, an appeal lay to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on the orders passed by the Income-tax Officer determining the ultimate tax liability of the assessee after making adjustments for the proper amount of abatement under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement with Pakistan ?' 2. The reference arises from the common order of the Tribunal in Income-tax Appeal Nos. 19376 to 19381 of 1967-68. We are concerned with the assessment years 1952-53 to 1957-58. The assessee-company is a well-known cement manufacturing company. Two of its factories are located in Pakistan. The products of these factories are sold in Pakistan itself. Thus, the assessee-company would have a certain income chargeable in Pakistan. We are concerned in this reference with the scheme for avoidance of ...
Tag this Judgment!The Maharashtra State Electricity Board, Bombay Vs. Bhausaheb Daulatra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-1979
Reported in: AIR1979Bom280
1. This appeal has been preferred by the original defendant Maharashtra State Electricity Board challenging the decree passed by the two courts below directing the defendant to restore the electricity supply to the plaintiff and to pay an amount of Rs. 500/- towards damages.2. The facts are not much in dispute. The plaintiff is a consumer of electric energy for irrigating his field by pumping the well water with the aid of electric motor in his land bearing Survey No. 31 of village Vadanage in Karvir taluka of Kolhapur District. The plaintiff and defendant had entered into an agreement (Exh. 62) on February 10, 1965 by which defendant agreed to supply electric energy. The agreement was to remain in force till December 31, 1967, and was to continue from year to year in future if not terminated. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff paid to the defendant the service charges initially as per the bill of the defendant (Exh. 40). The plaintiff also deposited an amount of Rs. 150/- as secu...
Tag this Judgment!Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs. Milton Fr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-1979
Reported in: (1980)82BOMLR310
Kambli, J.1. The Employees State Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') by this appeal challenges the order of the Employees Insurance Court, Bombay, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Insurance Court') whereby the Insurance Court declared that the respondent-employee had suffered permanent total disablement due to the employment injury sustained by him on February 25, 1974, and whereby it further declared that due to employment injury there was total loss in the earning capacity of the employee.2. The respondent-employee was in the employment of M/s. Dinshaw Iron Works as a fitter. He was an insured person under the Employees* State Insurance Act. 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Insurance Act'). It is not disputed that the employee sustained an employment injury on February 25, 1974 while he was working with the machine in the factory of the employer. After the injury the employee was removed to Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Hospital (for brevity M.G.M. Hos...
Tag this Judgment!Elora Construction Company Vs. the Municipal Corporation of Gr. Bombay ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Bom162
ORDER1. The only question that must be determined in this petition is: is Section 211 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, as amended constitutionally valid?2. The petitioners are the holders of immoveable property situated at New Marine Lines, Bombay. The Petitioners received from the Municipal Corporation, the first respondent, notices fixing the rateable value of the said property. The petitioners complained of the fixation of the ratable value and an order was passed upon that complaint. Being aggrieved thereby the petitioners preferred an appeal under the then un-amended Section 217 to the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes at Bombay, who is the person designated under the provisions of the Act to hear such appeals. The appeal is pending and is part-heard. On 22nd September 1975, during the pendency of the appeal, an Ordinance was issued, called the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Amendment Ordinance, 1975, which amended, inter alia. Section 217. The Ordinance was repl...
Tag this Judgment!Narendra Singh Virdi Vs. N.N. Engineer and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-1979
Reported in: 1979MhLJ851
P.B. Sawant, J.1. These two petitions are between the same parties in proceedings under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Act). The facts giving rise to them are taken from Special Civil Application No. 2849 of 1974 and they are as follows:2. The premises involved are a bunglow situate on plot No. 5 in Survey No. 2 at Mundhava Road, Ghorpuri, Poona (hereinafter referred to as the suit premises) which was admittedly leased out to the petitioner-tenant by respondent No. 1 and his wife one Banoobai since deceased, under a rent note dated 10-11-1957 at a monthly rent of Rs. 130/- exclusive of electricity and water charges. Respondent No. 1 and his wife the said Banoobai, were admittedly the owners in common of the suit premises. The rent of the suit premises was increased by owners from 1-1-1963 to Rs. 150/- and the tenant paid the said rent from 1-1-1963 to 31-7-1963. Thereafter, there were arrears of rent 1-8-1963 to 31...
Tag this Judgment!Mohamed Yusuf Ahmed Vs. S.D. Pradhan, Secretary to the Government of M ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-1979
Reported in: (1980)82BOMLR32; 1980CriLJ126
P.S. Shah, J.1. The petitioner Mohmed Yusuf Ahmed Yusuf Taxiwala, who has been detained by an order dated October 4, 1978, under the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Preservation of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act'), has presented this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. By an order dated October 4, 1978, Shri R.D. Pradhan, the Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department, who was specially empowered by the Government of Maharashtra, under the provision of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Act, directed detention of the petitioner with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods, abetting the smuggling of goods and engaging in keeping smuggled goods. On October 6, 1978, the petitioner was arrested pursuant to this order of detention. The grounds of the detention were communicated to the petitioner of October 9, 1978, as required by the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 3 of the Act read w...
Tag this Judgment!State of Maharashtra and ors. Vs. Glaxo Laboratories (India) Pvt. Ltd ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-1979
Reported in: 1990LC48(Bombay); 1979(4)ELT286(Bom)
Madon, J. 1. The Glaxo Laboratories (India) Pvt. Ltd., who are the first respondents before us, filed a suit on the Original side of this High Court against the State of Maharashtra, the Collector of Bombay, the Director of Prohibition and Excise, Maharashtra, at the time when the orders complained of by the first respondents were passed, as also the Director of Prohibition and Excise, Maharashtra, at the time of the filing of the suit, and the Union of India for a declaration that the orders dated March 3, 1962, April 10, 1962 and September 20, 3952 passed by the Collector of Bombay and the order dated February 2, 1965 passed by the Director of Prohibition and Excise, Maharashtra, and the notice of demand dated July 1, 1965 issued by the Collector for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,64,415.34 P. from the first respondents by way of excise duty under the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955, were illegal, invalid and ultra vires and for a decree in the said sum of...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Maharashtra Vs. Glaxo Laboratories (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-1979
Reported in: (1980)82BOMLR46
Madon, J.1. Glaxo Laboratories (India) Pvt. Ltd., who are the respondents No. 1 before us, filed a suit on the .Original Side of this High Court against the State of Maharashtra, the Collector of Bombay, the Director of Prohibition and Excise, Maharashtra, at the time when the orders complained of by the respondents No. 1 were passed, as also the Director of Prohibition and Excise, Maharashtra, at the time of the filing of the suit, and the Union of India for a declaration that the orders dated March 3, 1962, April 10, 1962 and September 20, 1962 passed by the Collector of Bombay and the order dated February 2, 1965 passed by the Director of Prohibition and Excise, Maharashtra, and the notice of demand dated July 1, 1965 issued by the Collector for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,64,415.34P. flora the respondents No. 1 by way of excise duty under the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955, were illegal, invalid and ultra vires and for a decree in the said sum of Rs....
Tag this Judgment!Navnitdas Girdharlal Ramaya Vs. Kundalikarao Khanderao Shinde
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-1979
Reported in: (1981)83BOMLR215; 1979MhLJ381
Pratap, J.1. This petition directed against the order dated July 19, 1978, passed by the learned Special Judge, Nasik, in Special Case No. 4 of 1976, granting application by the Public Prosecutor for permission to withdraw from the prosecution raises question of some importance to the administration of criminal justice.2. With regard to facts, as the trial and the recording of evidence is yet to commence, what is presently available are only the disclosures through the investigation materials which, briefly, are as follows:In the year 1972-73 food grains including milo wheat were being despatched by the Bombay Food Corporation in the names of Collectors of Nanded, Osmanabad, Beed, Aurangabad and Parbhani, These food grains used to come to Manmad by railway. Collector's representatives unloaded these food grains at Manmad and from there took the same for storage to the Nagpur godown from where these were transported by trucks to their destination at the respective districts. In July 197...
Tag this Judgment!Navnitdas Girdharlal Ramaya Vs. Kundalikrao Khanderao Shinde and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-1979
Reported in: 1979CriLJ1242
ORDERPratap, J.1. This petition directed against the order dated 19th July 1978, passed by the learned Special Judge, Nasik, in Special Case No. 4 of 1976, granting application by the Public Prosecutor for permission to withdraw from the prosecution raises questions of some importance to the administration of criminal justice.2. With regard to facts, as the trial and the recording of evidence is yet to commence, what is presently available are only the disclosures through the investigation materials which, briefly, are as follows:In the year 1972-73 food grains including milo wheat were being despatched by the Bombay Food Corporation in the names of Collectors of Nanded, Osmanabad, Beed, Aurangabad and Parbhani. These food grains used to come to Manmad by railway. Collector's representatives unloaded these food grains at Manmad and from there took the same for storage to the Nag-pur godown from where these were transported by trucks to their destination at the respective districts. In ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »