Mumbai Court February 1979 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.
Seksaria Riswan Sugar Factory Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-1979
Reported in: (1979)11CTR(Bom)274; [1980]121ITR196(Bom); [1979]2TAXMAN65(Bom)
Desai, J.1. This is a reference at the instance of the assessee under s. 66(1) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922. The assessee before us was at the relevant time a public limited company owning and working a sugar factory and we are concerned with the assessment year 1953-54. The assessee-company had in the said year debited Rs. 1,68,731 to sugar sales account in forward transactions in sugar. These transactions were entered into between 9th June, 1952 and 20th June, 1952, for August 1952 delivery. The ITO observed that, as the assessee was not able to fulfil its obligations on the delivery date, the contract was settled by payment of difference between the ruling rate on the settlement date and the rate at which delivery was promised. The aggregate amount came to Rs. 1,68,731. This difference was treated by the ITO as a speculation loss to be allowed against similar profits in future. 2. The assessee then appealed to the AAC. The contentions of the assessee were rejected by the AAC who con...
Phiroze Temulji Anklesaria Vs. H.C. Vashistha and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Bom9
Jahagirdar, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks to challenge a notice dated 29th of January 1972, the contents of which would be shortly noticed, issued by the Government of India in the Ministry of Defence in the circumstances which will be clear as we proceed to narrate the facts. The property involved is a piece of land situated at 17. Right Flank Lines in Poona Cantonment and measuring 0.85 acres equivalent to 4100 sq. metres. On the said land is also situated a bungalow. The petitioner is at present the owner of the said property viz. the land and the building as a trustee. It is the allegation of the petitioner that the land included in the property is of freehold tenure and it had been purchased by his father Temulji Anklesaria, on 19th of Sept. 1918 from one Abdul Kader who himself had become the full owner of the land by virtue of succession. It is unnecessary to refer in any detail to the history prior to 1918 because it is not relevant for...
Sujanbai Haribhau Kakde and ors. Vs. Motiram Gopal Saraf and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Bom188; 1980MhLJ578
ORDER1. This revision application has been filed against the order passed by the learned Joint Judge of Akola in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No 6 of 1975 dismissing appeal of the applicants against the order of the trial Court passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 167 of 1972, granting temporary injunction against them restraining them from interfering with the possession of the suit fields.2. The subject matter of this litigation consists of two agricultural lands bearing survey Nos. 35 and 36/2 situated at Gondeshwar in Akola district. These lands admittedly belong to non-applicant No. 1. On 12th July, 1972, the present applicants had filed a suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 105 of 1972, against the present non-applicant No. 1 and Vithal for a permanent injunction restraining these two defendants from interfering with their possession and cultivation of the suit lands. It appears that the applicants had also prayed for temporary injunction in the suit and an ex parte injunction was grante...
Extrusion Process Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-1979
Reported in: [1979]119ITR287(Bom); [1979]2TAXMAN64(Bom)
Chandurkar J.1. In this reference we are concerned with the assessment of the assessee for the assessment year 1961-62. The assessee is a private limited company and carries on business of manufacture and sale of collapsible tubes. One Mr. M. L. Patel was appointed as the managing director of the assessee-company under art. 66 of the company's articles of association and in the relevant assessment year, he was paid a salary of Rs. 1,500 per month and commission at the rate of 1% on sales of the assessee-company amounting to Rs. 9,792. Originally Mr. Patel was paid a salary of Rs. 1,000 per month plus a commission of 1% on the sales of the company. Out of 1,100 shares of the company, Mr. Patel held 605 ordinary shares in his own name and some shares were owned by his wife and other relatives. In the assessment order for the assessment year 1961-62, the ITO disallowed the amount of Rs. 9,792 in the assessment of the company on the view that Mr. Patel was a managing agent within the meani...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Jayantilal Popatlal Chandrani, Etc. Etc.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-1979
Reported in: 1979CriLJ1231; 1979MhLJ584
Deshmukh, C.J.1. This is a common reference made to the Full Bench in relation to nine different matters pending before the learned single Judge of this Court.2. There is some dispute as to whether all the thirteen raids were conducted on the same day on 8th May 1967 or twelve on 8th and one on 10th May 1967 at the instance of the Forward Markets Commission under the provisions of the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952 (LXXIV of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). This difference in the date of raids has no relevance at this stage. After completing investigation, nine different charge-sheets were filed. Two cases ended in the conviction of two of the accused in each of these cases and the other seven prosecutions resulted in acquittal. Against the convictions in those two prosecutions, Criminal Appeals Nos. 76 and 77 of 1974 were filed in the Sessions Court but they were dismissed. Hence the convicted accused have filed the above-referred two revision applications. Agains...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-1 Vs. Gannon Dunkerley and Co. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-1979
Reported in: (1979)13CTR(Bom)104; [1979]119ITR595(Bom)
Desai, J.1. In this reference five questions are referred to us, some at the instance of the revenue and some at the instance of the assessee. The questions which are scattered over the statement of case may first be noted : Question No. 1 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the loss suffered by the assessee on sale of certain Government securities was allowable as a revenue loss for the assessment years 1960-61 and 1962-6 ?' The question is at the instance of the Commissioner. Question No. 2 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the company was entitled to deduct the sum of Rs. 62,484 for the assessment year 1960-61, Rs. 1,41,951 for the assessment year 1961-62 and Rs. 1,21,709 for the assessment year 1962-63, claimed under the head `Sundry trade expenses' while determining its business Income-tax ?' This question is at the instance of the assessee. Question No. 3 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, th...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Shantabai and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Bom36; (1980)82BOMLR29; 1979MhLJ673
Mehta, J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal filed by the Appellant the State of Maharashtra, impugning the Judgment and Order passed by this Court in First Appeal No. 185 of 1965, D/- 19-9-1973.2. The Respondents herein were the owners of an immovable property, being plot No. 8539, and one-third owners of plot No. 8540. Both plots Nos. 8539 and 8540 were acquired by the Government for the purpose of the construction of Railway Police Quarters at Miraj. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 20th October 1960. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer published his Award dated 30th June 1961 whereunder an amount of Rs. 3,680/-was awarded as compensation to the Respondents herein as owners of plot No. 8539 and part owners of plot No. 8540. The Respondents thereafter called upon the Collector to make a Reference to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Respondents also claimed compensation at Rs. 9,000/- as proper and a...
Manjula D. Boral Vs. Dilip Jyoti Prakash Boral
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Bom235; 1979MhLJ523
ORDER1. The petitioner is the mother of two minor children a son Bhriguraj boni on 5th Dec. 1975 and another son Nandraj born on 7th Apr. 1977. She has filed this petition under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 to obtain custody of these two minor sons who are at present in the custody of their father viz. the Respondent.2. The petition was argued at length by Mr. Trivedi who appeared for the petitioner and by Mr. Parekh who appeared for the Respondent yesterday. In the course of the hearing, on two or three occasions Mr. Parekh, who appeared for the Respondent, made an offer of settlement to the petitioner. After considering these offers the petitioner rejected them. Ultimately after the arguments were over while I was about to dictate my judgment Mr. Trivedi for the petitioner stated that his client desired to accept the offer which had been made earlier by Mr. Parekh. The parties thereafter took some time and reduced the consent terms to writing inCourt. Both the petitioner and the...
Smt. Bhanu Athaiya Vs. Commander K.D. Kaushal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-1979
Reported in: (1980)82BOMLR12
Naik, J.1. This petition raises an interesting question as to who is the landlord who is intended to be given the benefit of the provisions of Section 13-A1(a) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The question arises under the following circumstances:2. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2, who are husband and wife, are the owners of Flat No. 38 in the building of the Shankar Mahal Co-operative Housing Society Limited at Bombay. Respondent No. 1 Mr. Kaushal, who was in the Navy, retired from service in February, 1968. On July 17, 1972, respondent No. 2, wife of respondent No. 1, both for herself and respondent No. 1, gave the said flat on leave and licence basis to the petitioner. After coming into force of Section 15A by the Maharashtra Act No. 17 of 1973, the petitioner become statutory tenant of the flat in question, as he was in possession of the premises on February 1, 1973. On November 19, 1975, respondent No. 1 secured ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›