Mumbai Court April 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.
Taru Jethmal Lalvani Vs. D.M. Torgal and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Bom147
ORDER1. The petitioner is one of the executors of the Will of late Dr. Mangharam Rochiram Lalvani and a probate has been granted to the petitioner on 15-9-1976 by this Court id Petition No. 262 of 1974. On 23-10-1954 the 4th respondent was registered as a society under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The principal object of the 4th respondent as appearing from its constitution is as follows :'To disseminate knowledge and education about, and to promote the adoption of, the practice of family planning for the advancement of basic human rights, family and community welfare, the achievement of a balance between the population and its resources and productivity, and the attainment of a higher standard and quality of life.'This association had been in existence for about 15 years when the order of requisition dated 25-10-1976, mentioned hereinafter was passed.2. The said deceased died on 11-10-1973 and till his death was residing in flat No. 34, 5th floor 'Sagar Dars...
M/S Mohanlal Devdanbhai Chokshi and Others Vs. J.S. Wagh and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-1980
Reported in: 1981CriLJ454
Gadgil, J.1. This matter is placed before us as the following question has been referred by Mr. Justice Pratap for decision by Division Bench :Is an order framing a charge an 'interlocutory order' within the meaning of Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Criminal Case No. 381/CW/77 is pending in the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court, Esplanade, Bombay. That case is against the three accused who are the petitioners before us. The allegation against the accused is that they have committed certain offences under the Customs Act. Evidence was led before the Magistrate before framing charge. Thereafter, the Magistrate considered the question as to whether there exist sufficient grounds for framing charge. The Magistrate passed an order dated 27th April 1979 that a prima facie case has been made out against the accused. Consequently, a formal charge for having committed offences under Sections 135(a) and 135(a)(ii) was framed. It is this orde...
Road Transport Corporation and ors. Vs. Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Bom299; (1981)83BOMLR173; 1981MhLJ855
Bhonsale, J.1. This appeal is preferred by original defendants challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge. Senior Division, Sangli, decreeing the plaintiff's suit for recovery of the amount of Rs. 16,252.06/- together with, interest at 6% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of realisation and also awarding the costs of the suit from the defendants.2. The facts leading to the filing of the suit by the plaintiffs in the trial court are as under:Plaintiff No. 1 is a well known manufacturer of farm machinery and pumps in India and plaintiff No. 2 is an Insurance Company registered under the Indian Companies Act. The defendants inter alia carry on business of transporting for hire, goods in their vehicles from one place to another all over the country and are common carriers within the meaning of Carriers Act III of 1865.One National Pipes and Tubes Co. Ltd., at Calcutta was instructed by Plaintiff No. 1 to supply high tensile brass rods of various d...
Radhakrishna RamnaraIn Limited Vs. R. Parthasarthi and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-1980
Reported in: 1980CENCUS278D
Modi, J.1. The Petitioners arc the manufacturers of P.V.C. Leather Clothes also known as artificial Leather Clothes of Rexins. Uptil 29th February 1968, the said item was assessed to excise duty under tariff item No. 19 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944, the rate being 25 paise per square metre. Pursuant to Finance Bill of 1968, a new item 22B was introduced in the schedule which item covered the item manufactured by the Petitioner and the rate was 25 per cent ad valorem. A declaration was made under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1931. Accordingly the new rate prescribed in respect of the said item cams into effect from mid-night between 29th February 1968 and 1st March 1968. As required the petitioners declared to the Excise Officer concerned the stock of manufactured goods lying in the factory at that time which consisted of 5510 rolls of the material measuring 1,32,989 linear metres and cut-pieces weighing 4,519.75 kgs.2. The Inspector of Centr...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-vi Vs. Sadabhakti Prakashan Pr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-08-1980
Reported in: [1980]125ITR326(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. In J. K. Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT : [1966]62ITR34(Bom) , while considering the provisions of s. 10(2A) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, the corresponding provision of which is s. 41(1) of I.T. Act, 1961, the Division Bench of the court has clearly taken the view that the benefit contemplated by s. 10(2A) must be by way of 'remission or cessation of liability' and no other benefit is contemplated. The Division Bench has also taken the view in that case that the transfer of an entry is an unilateral act and does not bring about the cessation of the liability of the debtor. In view of this clear pronouncement of law by the Division Bench which is equally attracted in a case governed by s. 41(1), the Tribunal was clearly right when it held that appropriation of an amount of Rs. 34,004 by reversal of the entry in the profit and loss account for the year ending March 31, 1975, for which amount earlier a deduction was made in the assessment year 1973-74 as provision for gratuity, c...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay-ii Vs. Killick Industries Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-08-1980
Reported in: (1980)18CTR(Bom)341; [1980]126ITR147(Bom); [1980]4TAXMAN442(Bom)
Sawant, J.1. This is a reference under s. 66(2) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and the question that falls for our consideration is whether the action initiated by the ITO under s. 34(1)(b) of the Act for reassessment of the income was competent.2. The assessee is a company and the assessment year is 1957-58. The assessee purchased a building by name 'Recluse'. A part of the said building was used by the assessee for its business purposes and was occupied by its mining department, and the rest of the building was in the occupation of tenants ever since its purchase. The rental income from the said building amounting to Rs. 10,271 was credited by the assessee to the profit and loss account of its business. Having treated the said income as its business income, the assessee claimed deductions of certain expenses in the computation of the said income, which deductions were disallowed and added back by the ITO for reasons given in his original assessme...
Commmissoner of Wealth-tax, Bombay-ii Vs. Hirji Cowasji Jehangir
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-1980
Reported in: (1980)17CTR(Bom)336; [1981]129ITR642(Bom); [1980]4TAXMAN555(Bom)
Chandurkar1. The question which has been referred to this court under s. 27(1) of the W.T.Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') at the instance of the revenue is as follow :'Whether the terms and conditions of the grant dated 23rd October, 1867, precluded the commutation of the right to annuity of Rs. 50,000 or any portion thereof into a lump sum gran ?'2. In order to properly appreciate the question required to be answered in this reference ,it is necessary to refer to certain events which preceded the assignment of the annuity in favour of the present assessee by the registered document dated 25th February,1954.3. The Secretary of State in Council for India by an indenture dated 23rd October, 1867, agreed to grant forthwith to one Ramchunder Luxmonjee,his heirs (whether by inheritance or adoption), executors, administrators and assigns annuity of Rs. 50,000 from 23rd October, 1877, in perpetuity. By a registered deed dated 20th October, 1877, the heirs of Ramchunder Luxmonjee, t...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Rasesh N. Mafatlal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-1980
Reported in: (1980)18CTR(Bom)334; [1980]126ITR173(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. The assessee had on December 26, 1958, gifted ornaments and jewellery worth Rs. 83,000 to his wife and in the next year on December 26, 1959, jewellery and ornaments worth Rs. 10,779 were gifted by him to his daughter. The ornaments left with the assesse were worth Rs. 1,10,000. In the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66 the value of all these ornaments were included in the net wealth of the assessee by the WTO. It appears that the value of the ornaments gifted to the wife and the daughter were included in the net wealth in view of the provisions of s. 4(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The AAC, while upholding the inclusion of ornaments of the value of Rs. 1,10,000 in the net wealth of the assessee, held that the ornaments gifted to the wife and the daughter were exempt under s. 5(1)(viii) of the Act as it then stood. The view which was taken by him was that these ornaments and jewellery would have been exempted for the pur...
Genu Ganapati Shivale Vs. Bhalchand Jivraj Raisoni and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Bom170; (1981)83CALLT1; 1980MhLJ879
Sujata Manohar, J.1. The original defendant No. 1, Shri Narayanrao Raghunathrao Tulshibagwale, is the Managing Trustee of Shri Ramji Sansthan, Tulshibag, Pune. The above trust has a right to take sand from the bed of the river Bhima in the limits of village Wadav Khurd which belongs to the Trust. On or about 25th August, 1962, the trustees of the above trust passed a resolution, which is at Ext. 106, under which they decided to give to defendant No. 2, Shivale, a contract from year to year for the removal of sand from the bed of the Bhima river at a minimum contract price of Rs. 3,501/-. The first defendant, who was the Managing Trustee, was authorised to enter into contracts with defendant No. 2 pursuant to this resolution. It is the case of defendant No. 1 that for the period 1st August, 1965 to 31st July, 1966, defendant No. 2, Shivale, agreed to pay Rs. 12,000/- as a consideration for the right to remove sand from the bed of the Bhima river. In the month of April, 1965, defendant N...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Bombay City-ii Vs. N.A. Narielwalla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-1980
Reported in: (1980)17CTR(Bom)6; [1980]126ITR344(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. The assessee in this case is the executor to the estate of late Shri A. A. Narielwalla. Though the exact date of death of late Shri A. A. Narielwalla is not known, it is not in dispute that he died sometime before 1950. We are concerned in this reference with the assessment year 1961-62 for the purpose of assessment of wealth-tax. The WTO assessed the executor to wealth-tax in respect of the estate of the deceased. The liability to assessment was upheld by the AAC. The details of the assessment are not relevant in view of the question referred to us. When the executor appealed against the order of the AAC, at the hearing the assessee sought permission to raise a new ground challenging the very liability to assessment. The ground was as follows :'The learned Wealth-tax Officer has erred in assessing the executors in respect of the assets left by the deceased.'2. The assessee made no secret of the fact that this ground was raised on the authority of the decision of this ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›