Mumbai Court October 1980 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.
Pitambardas Kalyanji Bakotiya Vs. Dattatraya Krishnaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Bom388; 1981MhLJ290
ORDER1. By this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-tenant is challenging the legality of the judgment dated June 29, 1976 passed by the Joint Judge. Poona, confirming the decree of eviction dated Jan. 30, 1974 passed by the Additional Judge of the Small Causes Court at Poona.2. The respondent is the owner of House No. 768, Budhwar Peth. Poona. and the residential premises on the second floor of this house ars let out to the petitioner. The landlord is in occupation of the first floor, just below the premises occupied by the netitioner. The landlord instituted suit for recovery of possession on Nov. 13, 1972 in the Court of Small Causes at Poona under Section 13(1)(a) and (b) of the Bombay Rents. Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The gravamen of the allegation made by the landlord is that the petitioner has constructed a kitchen platform in the premises let out to him without prior permissio...
Amrutlal Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-1980
Reported in: 1981CriLJ1728
Jahagirdar, J.1. This petition is directed against an order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Nanded on 26th September, 1980 in Criminal Miscellaneous Applications No. 129 of 1980, which was directed against an order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, in Chapter Case No. 420/80 for the detention of the petitioner under sub-section (3) of Section 151 of the Cr.P.C. as amended by Maharashtra Ordinance No. 7 of 1980. From this it is clear that the order is passed by the Magistrate in pursuance of the powers vested in him under the Cri.P.C. Sub-section (3) of Section 151 as it stands today provides for a representation to be made by the person detained against the order of the Magistrate to the Court of Session. On this representation the Court of Session passes an order. The latter order also therefore is passed, under the Cr.P.C.2. We are informed by Mr. Paranjpe, who appears for the petitioner, and Mr. Kotwal who appears for the State, that this mat...
Gopaldas Kishanchand Taireja Vs. Viyaysingh Bhimsingh Patil and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-1980
Reported in: AIR1982Bom305
ORDER1. This petition is directed against the judgment and Decree passed by the Learned Extra Assistant Judge Jalgaon, in regular civil Appeal No.70 of 1974 arising out of the decision in Regular Civil Suit No.81 of 1972 given by the Learned Joined civil Judge, junior Division , Jalgaon, dismissing the suit.2. The Respondent landlord was the owner of two plots of land admeasuring 27ft. X 11 ft. And 18 ft. X 14 ft. Bearing city survey No.2122/A and municipal No. 340 and situated within the Jalgaon municipal limits. The two plots were known as plot No.1 and plot No.2 and were adjacent to each other.3. It appears, sometime prior to 1957, Plot No.1 was released as an open plot of land of one Lalji waghji, This Lalji Waghji had constructed a structure thereon and was running a hotel business. On the 29th June, 1957, the petitioner tenant purchased this hotel as a running business together with the shed thereon constructed by Lalji Waghji with the consent of the Respondent-landlord. The peti...
A.C.P. Wadia and ors. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer (2) and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Bom278
ORDER1. This is another of the several matters which have recently came before this Court involving complete and shocking disregard on the part of the Government and its officials, of the rights of not only the citizens but also of Public Charitable Trusts, whose interest they are bound to protect. I have only today a little earlier disposed of another matter showing a similar behaviour of the State Officials, Not only does this matter disclose such a shocking behaviour on the part of the State but what is more pernicious is the attempt to oppose the highly just claims on hyper technical grounds which are dealt with later in this judgment.2. The land of the petitioners consisting of Survey No. 292 Hissa No. 1, which is same as S. No. 292A of village Kurla was proposed to be acquired as per notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 published in the Bombay Government Gazette dated 18-6-1953. Almost simultaneously the physical possession of the land was taken b...
Shankarrao Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-02-1980
Reported in: (1980)82BOMLR622; 1980MhLJ888
B.N. Deshmukh, C.J. 1. The Maharashtra Agricultural Lands(Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ceiling Act of 1961') received the assent of the President of India on June 16, 1961. It came into force on January 26, 1962. This Act was amended by the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Lowering of Ceiling on Holdings) and (Amendment) Act, 1972, which came into force on September 19, 1975 as Maharashtra Act No. XXI of 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act No. 21 of 1975'). This Act introduced two very important changes, like the definition of 'family unit' and requiring a landholder in this State to declare the agricultural land-holding in any other State or States in India for the purpose of clubbing together in order to determine the ceiling on holdings. The Ceiling Act of 1961 was further amended by the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Lowering of Ceiling on Holdings) and (Amendment) Act, 1975, which came into force on September 20, 1975 as Maharashtra Act No. XL...
Metropolitan Springs Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, (Centra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1980
Reported in: (1981)22CTR(Bom)260; [1981]132ITR893(Bom); [1981]7TAXMAN92(Bom)
Kania, J.1. This is a reference under s. 66(1) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), made at the instance of the applicant-assessee.2. The assessee is a private limited company, and it claimed relief under s. 15C of the said Act in respect of the assessment year 1957-58. The accounting year followed by the assessee was the calendar year, with the result that the relevant previous year for the assessment year 1957-58 would be from January 1, 1956, to December 31, 1956. The assessee manufactures spring and spring leaves of various sizes and dimensions for use in commercial and passenger motor vehicles and also manufactures certain accessories. The records of the ITO showed that the assessee started production in the year 1951 which was the relevant previous year to the assessment year 1952-53. The ITO declined to give to the assessee the benefit of the exemption under s. 15C of the said Act on the ground that under sub-s. (6) thereof the said relief wa...
Ramchandra Vishwanath Ghaisas and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Bom164
1. This second appeal had been preferred by the heirs of the original defendant against the decree arid judgment dated 31st March, 1971, passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, whereunder the defendant was directed to pay to the plaintiff, the State of Maharashtra, an amount of Rs. 1,397.50 P. and costs of the suit.2. This decree was confirmed and the defendant's appeal was dismissed by Extra Assistant Judge, Pune.3. The original defendant Shri Ramchandra Vishwanath Ghaisas, against whom the suit was originally filed and who died during the pendency of the said suit was serving as Sub-Registrar at Baramati. On 14th June, 1952, one Govindram Ganeshram Marwadi, executed a gift deed of his properties situated in Baramati bearing City S. Nos. 23, 122, 756, 757 and 758 in favour of his wife. In the gift deed the market value of the above properties was shown at Rs. 5,000/- and on that basis the stamp duty and registration fee were assessed and recovered by Shri Ghaisas. Govindram's so...
Sahney Kirkwood Private Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1980
Reported in: 1991(34)LC406(Bombay)
R.L. Aggarwal, J.1. The petitioners in this writ petition are seeking a writ of mandamus, directing the Union of India and the Collector of Customs, Bombay, to forbear from levying and collecting any cess in the form of customs duty under the Mica Mines Labour Welfare Fund Act, 1946 read with the Customs Act, 1962 and secondly for a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to refund to the petitioners Rs. 89,801.33, which have been illegally collected as cess in the form of duty from the petitioners in respect of the export of mica-nite products.2. The petitioners are a manufacturing company and are licensed, amongst others, to manufacture micanite products under an Industrial Licence dated 4th March, 1972 issued by the Ministry of Industrial Development, Government of India.3. From August, 1975, the petitioners commenced manufacturing of micanite products which, according to the petitioners, are highly capital intensive and technologically oriented products and are engineered produ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›