Mumbai Court August 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.
Nathuram Weljibhai Vyas Vs. Laxmibai Lunkaranji Chandak
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-1979
Reported in: [1983]139ITR948(Bom)
Joshi J.1. The respondent claiming to be the owner of the house occupied by the petitioner and claiming that the petitioner was occupying the said house as a tenant filed an application before the Rent Controller, Wardha, for permission to terminate the tenancy of the petitioner under clause 13(3)(ii) and clause 13 (3)(vi) of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (hereinafter referred as 'the Rent Control Order'). In that proceedings, the petitioner denied that the respondent was the owner of the house, as also that the petitioner was occupying the same as a tenant; on the contrary the petitioner contended that he was occupying the house as an owner, he and his father having prescribed title to the suit house by their adverse possession. The existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties were thus alleged by the respondent, but was denied by the petitioner, and, naturally, its became an issue in the proceedings. The respondent filed...
Controller of Estate Duty, Bombay City-iii Vs. Bai Suntokbai Damodar G ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-1979
Reported in: (1980)15CTR(Bom)116; [1981]132ITR223(Bom); [1980]3TAXMAN42(Bom)
Madon, J.1. In this reference under s. 64(!) of the E.D.Act, 1953, the two question set out below have been referred to us for out determination by the Tribunal the first at the instance of the Controller of Estate Duty and the second at the instance of the accountable persons. These two questions are : '(1) whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a true construction of the provisions of the will of Govindji Madhavji dated October 19,1913, the Tribunal erred in law in holding that only one half of the property left by Govindji Madhavji as it existed at the death of the deceased, Jamnabai, passed on her death and became liable for estate duty (2) Whether whilst determining the valuation of shares of limited companies, the goodwill of such companies is to be computed with reference to the maintainable profits before deductions of income (tax) and other taxes or after deduction of such taxes ?' 2. Jamnabai, whose death has ultimately resulted in this case being ...
Bombay Union Dyeing and Bleaching Mills Vs. Narayan Tukaram More and a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-1979
Reported in: (1980)IILLJ424Bom; 1980MhLJ171
Chandurkar, J.1. Both these petitions which raise a question as to the construction of the definition of 'continuous service' in S. 2(c) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' have been heard together and will stand disposed of by this judgment. 2. Special Civil Application No. 609 of 1975 is filed by the employer Messrs. Bombay Union Dyeing and Bleaching Mills, Bombay. It arises out of an order made by the Appellate Authority under the Act in an appeal arising out of the order of the controlling authority under the Act on an application making a claim for gratuity by the employee. The employee claimed gratuity on the basis that he was in employment from March, 1961 till he resigned on 1st June, 1973 and thus a sum of Rs. 1,243 was due form the employer by way of gratuity. The employer admitted that the period of employment of the employee was from 21st January, 1963 to 1st June, 1973 but took the stand that out of ten years of service the employee r...
Rajendralal Shadilal and Co. Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. the State of Mahar ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Bom261
Deshpande, J.1. This petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order of requisition dated 20th May, 1976 passed under Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), The petitioner is a limited concern registered under the Companies Act. Constructing building and selling the flats therein is its business. For this purpose, the Company purchase plots, raise construction thereon consisting of several flats, and then sell the same to the needy purchasers for profit and then get a society of such purchasers formed under the Cooperative Societies Act of 1960 as required under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer)Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Ownership Flats Act), in whose favour the Company executes the conveyance. The petitioner purchased a plot No. B/359 at Mount Pleasant Road and constructed a building thereon known as Rajat Apartments cons...
Ganpat and ors. Vs. Nanaji and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-1979
Reported in: AIR1981Bom335
ORDER1. Field Survey No. 407/4 measuring 9 acres and 23 gunthas of Malkapur, Tahsil Malkapur, District Buldana, is the bone of contention in the present petition. A registered document dated 20-6-1958 Described ad lease deed te executed by the second, respondent, the father of the first respondent on his behalf as he was then a minor, in favour of the petitioner. About the execution and so also about the terms contained in the document, there is no dispute, as the common case has been that the document correctly represents the terms as agreed upon between the parties. However, the dispute is about what flows from the same and so also from surrounding circumstances which throw light on the relationship between the parties. The petitioners who claimed to be the tenants, contend that from the description as well as receipts (recitals?) of the document itself, it is nothing but a lease; whereas the respondents' case is that it is anything but a lease. The reason for the latter contention i...
Priyavari Mehta Vs. Priyanath Mehta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Bom337; 1980MhLJ269
ORDER1. A question of some importance involved for consideration in this Miscellaneous Civil Application is whether the powers exercisable by the High Court under Section 23(3) of the Civil P. C. (hereinafter called the Code) can be invoked for transfer of a petition under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter called the Act) to any Court subordinate to a different High Court.2. The present petitioner (wife) was married to the non-applicant (husband) on 7th December, 1977 at Mussoorie. The father of the non-applicant is one Bholanath Maharaj, a religious priest having his devotees at several places. After the marriage the spouse along with Bholanath Maharaj went to Delhi and after staying there for a couple of weeks came to Nagpur and were residing here, The applicant resided at Nagpur with her husband and her in-laws only till 19th January, 1979 whereafter she went back to Mussoorie and has been living there with her parents and with her sister.3. The applicant filed a matrimonial...
Kalidas Vs. Wamanrao
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-1979
Reported in: AIR1981Bom28
ORDER1. The petitioner is the landholder owning field Survey No. 56/2, area 5 acres 24 gunthas, in village Taroda in Pusad Tahsil of Yeotmal District. The respondent was originally a tenant cultivating this land. The respondent surrendered his tenancy right on 30-9-1961 by a surrender deed executed in favour of the petitioner. The surrender was verified by the Naib Tahsildar, Pusad on 11-10-1961. By his order the Naib Tahsildar, Pusad, after having recorded the statement of the Respondent in the absence of the landlord found that the respondent had executed the surrender deed willingly and voluntarily. The Naib Tahsildar, Pusad, also came to the conclusion that the total acreage of land including the surrendered land with the petitioner was less than three family holdings and, therefore, he was entitled to resume the land in question under Section 21 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act). The Naib Tahsildar...
Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-1979
Reported in: 1989(25)LC150(Bombay)
Pendse, J.1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging the legality and validity of the order, dated May 15, 1972 passed by the Government of India in Revision. The claim of the petitioners of refund of duty paid between December 15, 1964 and July 1968 has been turned down on the ground that the claim for refund was not filed within the statutory time limit.2. Only few facts are required to be stated. Mr. Dalal appearing for the respondents stated that the respondents have no objection for setting, aside the order passed in revision and the respondents shall reconsider the claim of the petitioners afresh. The petitioners are manufacturers of diesel agricultural tractors and the components of these tractors are imported, by the petitioners, including hydraulic lifts and 3 point linkages. Agricultural tractors are declared to be essential commodities and the selling prices were fixed by the Government of India. By a notificatio...
British Burmah Petroleum Co. Ltd. Vs. Kohinoor Mills Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-1979
Reported in: [1980]50CompCas544(Bom)
Aggarwal, J.1. The British Burmah Petroleum Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioners') claim to be creditors of Kohinoor Mills Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the company') to the extent of Rs. 11,05,243.05 including interest on Rs. 9,00,000 at the rate of 10 per cent. per annum for 14th June, 1976, to 2nd August, 1978. 2. The foundation of the above debt, as pointed out by Mr. Chagla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, is on the basis of averments in para. 7 of the petition. It is averred therein that in respect of certain shares sold by the petitioners through M/s. Sumatilal Jamnalal, Share and Stock Brokers, they had to receive an amount of Rs. 9,09,112.50 from the said M/s. Sumatilal Jamnalal. However, at the request of the company, a sum of Rs. 9,00,000 receivable by the petitioners from M/s. Sumatilal Jamnalal was treated as credited to the account of the petitioners with the company as and by way of an advance. This arrangement, aver the petitioner...
Manohar Narayan Joshi and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-1979
Reported in: (1980)ILLJ230Bom
Pratap, J.1. In this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners challenge the validity of a Notification dated 15th November, 1974 (Exhibit J to the petition) issued by the State Government by virtue of its powers under S. 5(2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, hereinafter referred to as the said Act. The circumstances leading to the filing of the present petition are as follows : The petitioners herein carry on trade and business in the field of engineering industry. Under S. 27 of the said Act, the State Government is empowered to apply by a notification the provisions of the said Act to employees of any such scheduled employment as may be specified by it. The State is also entitled under the provisions of S. 3 of the said Act to fix minimum rates of wages payable to employees employed in an employment specified in Part I or Part II of the Schedule to the Act. The State is also entitled to add to either part of the said Schedule, by virtue of the powers under S. 27 of...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »