Mumbai Court December 1980 Judgments
V.M. Salgaocar and Brother Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. K.C. Lahiri, Assis ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-30-1980
Reported in: 1982(10)ELT322(Bom)
1. These are seven writ petitions challenging the letters, decision and Orders of the Customs Authority requiring the petitioners to file the bills of entry for the purpose of levy of customs duty in respect of three transhippers and spares for two of them. The three transhippers are 'Sanjeevani', 'Gosalia Prospect' and 'Priyadarshini'. Petitions Nos. 2 and 9/1972 are in respect of Sanjeevani and Gosalia Prospect. Petitions Nos. 102/73, 16 and 17/1975 and 72/1976 are filed in respect of spares for these two transhippers and Petition No. 71/1972 is in respect of Priyadarshini.2. The case of the Petitioners is as follows :-The petitioners are the owners of the Transhippers. Sanjeevani and Gosalia Prospect were second hand sea going vessels at the time they were purchased by the petitioners. They were thereafter fitted up with equipment for transhipping mining ore from barges or from its holes to bigger iron ore carriers. Priyadarshini is a sea going vessel also used from the inception fo...
Tag this Judgment!The Union of India (Uoi) Vs. the Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Bom414; 1981MhLJ752
1. This appeal is filed from the decision of the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Bombay, given on the Defendants' Notice of Motion No. 2759 of 1980 in Long Cause Suit No. 4847 of 1970.2. The respondents to this appeal are the two plaintiffs who filed the said suit. The defendants to the suit who are the appellants before me are the Union of India who are sued as owners of the Northern Railway and the Central Railway and acting through their respective General Managers at New Delhi and V. T. Bombay-1.3. The plaintiffs to the suit are the Indian Hume Pipe Company Ltd., a public limited company, having its registered office at Bombay, and the New Great Insurance Company of India Limited, also originally a public limited company having its principal place of business at Churchgate Reclamation, Bombay. It may be mentioned that the suit is of 1970 and during the decade, the second plaintiffs have been nationalised and thereafter must have been merged with one of the four Government Co...
Tag this Judgment!State of Maharashtra Vs. Manohar Kashinath Ghodake
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-1980
Reported in: (1982)84BOMLR29
Sawant, J.1. His Lordship after dealing with the merits of the case proceeded]. That takes us to the question of proper sentence to' be imposed on the accused. The sentences for the offences under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code cannot in the circumstances be said to be either severe or improper. Nor did Shri Mistry make a grievance about them. Hence it is not necessary to reconsider them. However, since almost all the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel were directed against the ultimate penalty imposed on the accused for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for causing the death of Bhiwa, we gave our anxious consideration to the same. The learned Judge in support of the ultimate penalty has given his reasons. According to him, the accused along with Baban who were charged for the offence of murder of Gajendra and for mutilating Shiva, were absconding, a...
Tag this Judgment!The Union of India Vs. Bhasawal Municipal Council
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-1980
Reported in: AIR1982Bom512; (1981)83BOMLR452
Chandurkar, J,1. The short question, which arises in this appeal filed by the Union of India is whether goods imported within the limits of municipality by the Railway Administration are liable to Octroi Duty which the respondent Bhusawal Municipal Council is seeking to recover under a Notification issued under Section 135 of the Railways Act, 1890, on 29th November, 1907.2. Facts in this case are not in dispute. The Catering Department of the Railway Administration admittedly brought within the limits of the Bhusawal Municipal Council certain articles required by them for catering administration at the Bhusawal Railway Station during the period from 2nd November 1963 to 1st November 1966. The Railway Administration not having paid the necessary Octroi Duty which, according to the Municipal Council, the Railway Administration was liable to pay for those articles brought within the municipal limits, a suit came to be filed for the recovery of the amount of Octroi Duty to the tune of Rs....
Tag this Judgment!Kagal Education Society Ltd. Vs. Shrimant Ajitsinhrao Yeshwantrao Ghat ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-1980
Reported in: AIR1982Bom206; 1981MhLJ665
ORDER1. A short question involved in this Special Civil Application filed by the petitioner underArt, Art, 227 of the Constitution of India is as to whether the provisions of Sec 43 r/w Sec 34C of Sec. 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 thereinafter referred to as the 'Bombay Tenancy Act') would apply to the facts of the present case.2. Undisputed facts of this case are that the land R. S. No 95/1 admeasuring 13 acres 33 grnthas situated at village Kagal. District Kothapur was owned by respondents Nos. 1 to 4 and the same was in possession of one Gopal Krishna Jadhav as a tenant in the proceeding started u/s/. 32G of the B. T. A. L. Act, Gopal Krishna Jadhav was declared as deemed purchaser and the price of the land was fixed at Rs. 2000/- It was directed that the said amount should be deposited by the tenant in 26 instalments. It appears that the tenant paid only five instalments and ceased to make any further deposits thereafter.3. The said tenant Gopal krishna...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-iii Vs. Smt. T.P. Sidhwa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-1980
Reported in: (1981)22CTR(Bom)146; [1982]133ITR840(Bom); [1981]6TAXMAN91(Bom)
P.S. Shah, J.1. This is a case stated by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay Bench, and the question referred to us is as under :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee's income from property of which she was not the owner could be charged to tax in her hands as income under the head `Income from other sources' under section 12 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, or under section 56 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. One, M. N. E. Dinshaw, was the owner of one-fourth share in the house property, which has been referred to in the proceedings as the 'Colaba property'. While the said M. N. E. Dinshaw was in Europe, his son, Eddie M. Dinshaw wrote a letter dated 23rd February, 1959, to one Mr. P. H. Sidhwa, the husband of the assessee, the respondent. Smt. Sidhwa, saying that his father was willing to sell the one-fourth share in the Colaba property for a sum of Rs. 45,000, provided he is relieved of all liabilities arising after 31st March, 1959, whet...
Tag this Judgment!Hanmantro Yeshwantrao Patil and ors. Vs. Chinatamani K. Gulvani and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-09-1980
Reported in: AIR1982Bom377
Kotwal, J.1. This petition raises a short question as to whether acts or omissions disqualifying a person from becoming or acting as a Councillor of a Municipal Council under S. 16 read with S. 44 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965 (shortly stated as 'the said Act') also so disqualify the 'President' who is elected as such directly by the voters of the Council & who becomes a 'deemed Councillor' ex-officio on account thereof, though not elected as a Councillor.2. The petitioners Nos. 2 to 4 and respondents Nos. 1 to 7 were elected as Councillors to the Vita Municipal council in the election held on 7-11-1974. Petitioner No. 1 was elected as President at the said election directly by all the voters of the Council under the amended Act.3. A contract was entered into on behalf of the Municipal Council by the Chief Officer on Oct., 1, 1975, with the Vita Co-operative Electric Supply Society Ltd., (shortly stated ad 'the said Society) for the supply of electricity for street lights...
Tag this Judgment!Godrej Soaps Private Limited Vs. A.K. Bandyopadhyay and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-1980
Reported in: 1981(8)ELT555(Bom)
1. The Petitioners' case is that they manufacture and sell animal compound feed. That under a contract dated 14th June, 1971 entered into between them and Messrs. Rolimpex of Poland, the Petitioners had to supply 600 metric tonnes of this animal compound feed to the said firm. That they accordingly manufactured animal compound feed which was made up of the following ingredients :-(a) Groundnut extraction meal 25%(b) White Sesame extraction meal 25%(c) Toasted cotton seed extraction meal 25%(d) Linseed extraction meal 10%(e) Kardi seed extraction meal 5%(f) Wheat bran 10%.2. That on this animal compound feed being ready, the Petitioners, (as per the terms of the contract) submitted the samples thereof to the General Superintendence Company (I) Private Ltd. who inter alia, certified that the said feed was made up of the aforesaid ingredients.3. That the Petitioners then made arrangements to ship the said goods to Poland, when the question of paying duty on the same cropped up. The Petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Association of Commerce House Block Owners Ltd. Vs. Vishandas Samaldas ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-1980
Reported in: (1981)83BOMLR339
M.N. Chandurkar, J.1. This Letters Patent appeal filed by defendant No. 1 arises out of a suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 31st October, 1964 in respect of certain property, the identity of which is in dispute, entered into by original defendant No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff who is respondent No. 1 in this appeal. The suit was decreed by the City Civil Court and that decree has been confirmed by a learned Single Judge of this Court while dismissing an appeal filed by the present appellant who was defendant No. 2 in the suit.2. Most of the material facts relating to the building in question are not now in dispute. The present appellant, which is a limited company under the Indian Companies Act, described itself as the Association of the Commerce House Block Owner Ltd. 'Commerce House' is the building in question, which has godowns, basement, shops on the ground floor and office premises on the first to the sixth floor. The Commerce House was constructed by defendan...
Tag this Judgment!Dharmavat Provision Stores Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-1980
Reported in: (1981)22CTR(Bom)277; [1980]139ITR700(Bom)
Kania, J.1. This reference arises on a case stated by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under s. 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (referred to hereinafter as 'the said Act'), at the instance of the assessee. The following question has been referred to us in this reference :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was rightly invoked ?'2. The facts giving rise to this reference are as follows :The assessment year in question is the assessment year 1962-63 for which the assessee's relevant accounting year was S.Y. 2017 (October 20, 1960, to November 8, 1961). The assessee, an individual, was doing grocery and money-lending business in the name and style of M/s.Dhramavat Provision Stores. In the course of the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1962-63, the assessee filed a balance-sheet as at the end of S.Y. 2016, which was the previous year for the assessment year 1961-62, and a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »