Mumbai Court September 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.
Panjabrao Harbaji Kolhe Vs. Gaianan Balaji Mane and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Bom396
1. This appeal is filed by the original defendant against the decree for possession passed against him in the first appeal by the learned Extra Assistant Judge, Nagpur.2. The respondents (plaintiffs) had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 318 of 1965 for possession against the present appellant, alleging that he was let into possession as their licensee in the year 1963. It was agreed that the appellant should pay them Rs. 4/- per month and also give entire manure of the cattle. The subject matter of litigation was a small portion of a house in the field of the respondents situated at Takli within the limits of Nagpur Municipal Corporation. The respondents had served a notice dated 29-12-1964 Ex. 22 calling upon the appellant to vacate the premises which was followed by the suit.3. The defence of the appellant was that he and one Ramchandra Gaurkar were the joint tenants of the respondents in respect of the suit premises on the monthly rent of Rs. 4/-. The subject matter was governed by the ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-ii Vs. Tata Engineering and Lo ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-1979
Reported in: [1981]131ITR19(Bom)
Kania, J.1. This is an application under s. 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), for directing the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to state a case and refer to this court the following question : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee-company was entitled to a weighted deduction in respect of the commission paid by it to Tata Exports Ltd. in terms of sub-clauses (i), (ii), (iv), (v), (vii) and (viii) of section 35B(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. In respect of the assessment year 1970-71, the ITO concerned allowed a weighted deduction of Rs. 1,08,000, being one-third of the amount of Rs. 3,24,000 representing the commission paid by the respondent-assessee to Tata Exports Ltd. This commission was paid in India in connection with the export of the assessee's products outside India. After issuing a show-cause notice the Commissioner exercised his powers under s. 263 ...
Alok Exports Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-1979
Reported in: 1990(26)LC468(Bombay); 1980CENCUS32D
M.L. Pendse, J.1. This petition is companion to Miscellaneous Petition No. 1114 of 1979 and in view of my judgment in that petition, the petitioners are entitled to succeed in this petition. The declaration that the Exports (Control) Amendment Order has no application to the export of Argenti Nitras has already been given in the earlier petition and no fresh declaration in this petition is required to be given. The petitioners are entitled to the relief claimed in prayer (b)(i) of paragraph 30 of the petition. There is one more relief claimed by the petitioners because of certain developments subsequent to the filing of the petition.2. The petition was filed on July 4, 1979 and the petitioners received a show cause notice dated June 29, 1979 from the office of the Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay. By this show cause notice, the Petitioners were informed that the value of the goods declared while presenting the shipping bills and the declaration as to the truth of its contents wa...
Kamleshkumar Rajanikant Mehta Vs. Presiding Officer, Central Governmen ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-1979
Reported in: [1979(39)FLR329]; (1980)ILLJ336Bom; 1979MhLJ874
Lentin, J.1. By this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges the impugned award dated 12th October, 1978 passed by the 1st respondent, namely, the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, in so far as it does not order the re-employment of the petitioner in the service of the 2nd respondent-Bank, and seeks a direction that the petitioner be reinstated in the service of the Bank with effect from 19th December, 1974 with continuity of service with back wages and all other consequential reliefs. 2. The petitioner was initially appointed by the Bank on 1st February, 1972 as a temporary godown keeper at its Savli Branch by an appointment order dated 1st February, 1972. The petitioner's service was terminated with effect from 25th April, 1972. The Bank thereafter again employed the petitioner from 14th December, 1972 and terminated his service with effect from 31st July, 1973. Thereafter, with effect from 25th October, 1973, the Bank onc...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›