Mumbai Court September 1980 Judgments
Controller of Estate Duty, Bombay City-iii Vs. Bhagwandas Velji Joshi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-1980
Reported in: [1983]139ITR316(Bom); [1981]6TAXMAN202(Bom)
Madon, J.1. This case has been stated under s. 64(1) of the E.D. Act, 1953, by the I.T. Appellate Tribunal, at the instance of the Controller of Estate Duty, and the following question submitted to us for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the value of the several trust properties settled on trust by the deceased. Shri N. L. Joshi, was includible in the dutiable estate under section 12 of the Estate Duty Act ?'2. In view of the argument advanced at the Bar, it is necessary to set out the fact in some detail. The deceased, Narandas Lakhmidas Joshi, created several trusts during his lifetime. The first of these was a deed of trust dated June 24, 1931 (hereinafter referred to as 'the first deed of trust'), that was a trust deed executed by the said Narandas, who is described therein as 'the settlor which expression shall be deemed to include his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns unless there is something repugnant to the subject or context...
Tag this Judgment!Alisaheb Abdul Latif Mulla Vs. Abdul Karim Abdul Rahman Mulla and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-26-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Bom253; 1981MhLJ734
ORDER1. This petition raises as is not uncommon, one of the vexed questions arising under the Bombay Rent Act, as to whether a particular work carried out by a tenant is a permanent structure within the meaning of Clause (b) of Section 13, Sub-section (1) which entitles a landlord to recover possession of premises where a tenant erects on the premises any permanent structure without the landlord's consent given in writing. In the present case, it is nobody's case that the landlord had given his consent in writing to the work which was carried out, The only question is, whether the work which was done by the defendant-tenant, was an erection of a permanent structure or as he calls it, a repair and something amounting to an improvement or in the nature of an improvement, if at all.2. The suit was filed by the landlord to recover possession from the petitioner-tenant on a number of grounds including that the landlord required the premises for his bona fide personal occupation. The only gr...
Tag this Judgment!Pandurang S/O Ramji Khade Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-1980
Reported in: 1982(2)BomCR416
S.W. Puranik, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction passed against the present appellant under sections 409 and 477A of Indian Penal Code and section 5(1)(c) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, whereby he was convicted for R.I. for one year for each of the offences and the said sentences were to run concurrently. The appellant was also fined Rs. 1,000/- under section 409 Indian Penal Code; Rs. 1,000/- under section 477-A Indian Penal Code and Rs. 3000/- under section 5(1)(c) read with section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. The prosecution case in brief is as under :---2. That the appellant accused was working as a clerk in the Sub-Divisional Officer Phones, Nagpur. He was directly posted under the Sub-Divisional Officer Shri Nemade who is examined in the instant case as P.W. 12. The prosecution alleges that it was one of the duties of the appellant-accused that he was required to maintain accounts, draw cheques and documents, sen...
Tag this Judgment!Subhash Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Bom382
ORDER1. By this petition, one of the principal contentions which are raised, is in regard to the description of certain portions of land appearing in the revenue record as 'Pot-kharab'.2. The petitioner filed a return before the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal, Gangakhed, showing the total land of 91 acres standing in his name. He raised several contentions and sought exclusion in regard to several pieces of lands on various grounds and claimed that S. No. 50 of Pimpri (Zola) should be excluded, as that was in the possession of his mother to whom it was given for her maintenance. S. No. 436, it was claimed, should have been excluded and he also claimed that S. No. 591 was agreed to be sold by him and possession was given to the prospective purchaser, while the land was subsequently sold on 21-1-1972. He also claimed exclusion on the ground that the portion of the land was pot-kharab coming to about 18 acres and 38 gunthas from various survey numbers.3. The Surplus Land Determinatio...
Tag this Judgment!Kallappa Balicha Chaugule and anr. Vs. the Collector, Kolhapur and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Bom281
Sawant, J.1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, is directed against the order dated the 9th February 1977, passed by the Government, i.e., the Honourable Minister of State (Food and Civil Supplies).2. There is a chequered history of this matter and although the facts are unessential to determine the filial outcome, they will have to be stated to follow the course of events. The controversy relates to a licence to run a fair-price foodgrains shop situate in village Umalawd of Taluka Shirol, District Kolhapur. The said shop was run by the 4th respondent co-operative society by virtue of a licence granted by the Government under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. By his order dated the 5th February, 1974, the Tahsildar proposed to withdraw the licence granted to the society to run the said shop and allowed the petitioners herein who are freedom fighters to conduct the same temporarily for a period of two months. By his report dated the 27th March, 1974, he recomm...
Tag this Judgment!Hasmukh J. Jhaveri Vs. Shella Dadlani and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1980
Reported in: (1981)83BOMLR196; 1981CriLJ958; 1981MhLJ304
Kotwal, J.(Paras 1 to 20 are omitted.)21. I would have pulled down the curtain on the proceeding with this conclusion at this point as it is not necessary to consider whether the impugned order of the learned Magistrate is interlocutory or not. It is obviously because the matter is now seized of this Court and there may not be those limitations which are sought to be placed on the revisional powers of the Sessions Court vis-a-vis an interlocutory order and in a fit case this Court is empowered under the inherent powers to upset the impugned order. It is from that point to view. I am of the opinion that when the impugned order is manifestly unjust and untenable in law, this Court will be justified in exercising its discretion under the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code and cannot assume the role of a salient and passive spectator. Once this premise is accepted, then the question as to whether the learned Sessions Judge should have interfered in the revisional jurisdiction mu...
Tag this Judgment!Abdur Rahim Jiwani Vs. Vithaldas Ramdas and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Bom58
ORDER1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for redemption of two properties, one at Chira Bazar and the other at Sleater Road, which are more particularly described in Exts. A and B to the plaint. The property at Chira Bazar consists of ground and two floors and it is fully tenanted. There are four residential premises and six shops in this property. The property at Sleater Road consists of ground and four floors. There arc six residential premises in this property.2. On or about 17th Nov. 1954, the plaintiff executed a mortgage in respect of his property at Chira Buzar in favour of Fatmabai Hasanbhai for a sum of Rupee 25,000/- repayable with interest. On the same date, he created a mortgage of his property at Sleater Road in favour of Pratapchand Kasturchand and others for a sum of Rupees 22,000/- repayable with interest. In or about 1956, Pratapchand Kasturchand and others filed a suit for the sale of the mortgaged property. In order to prevent such a sale, it stems that the plai...
Tag this Judgment!Govind S/O Bhagaji (Deceased) by His Heirs Vs. Sk. Rasheed S/O Sk. Has ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-1980
Reported in: 1982(1)BomCR648
D.M. Rege, J.1. This is a second appeal by the original defendants against the order and judgment of the Extra Assistant Judge, Aurangabad dated 15-10-1979, dismissing the defendants appeal being Regular Civil Appeal No. 67 of 1977 against the judgment and order of the learned Civil Judge, J.D., Sillod dated 20-2-1977 whereby he had decreed the plaintiff's suit for redemption and possession of Survey No. 70/1 admeasuring 14 acres 5 gunthas of Modha Kd.2. The land concerned in this suit is Survey No. 70/1 admeasuring 14 acres and 5 gunthas of village Modha Kd.3. The said land is half of original Survey No. 70 admeasuring 28 acres and 10 gunthas. According to the plaintiffs initially the said land S.N. 70/1 being half of the original Survey No. 70 belonged to the husband of plaintiff No. 4 and father of the plaintiff Nos. 1 to 3 one Shaikh Hassan who had died in police action in the year 1948. On his death the said land came in possession of plaintiff No. 4. Under a usufruct registered d...
Tag this Judgment!Sopan T. Mhetre and anr. Vs. Shankar Balwant Jagtap
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-1980
Reported in: (1981)83BOMLR255
R.D. Tulpule, J.1. An interesting question of law arises in this petition which was filed by the landlords of land bearing Survey No. 303/2 of village Saswad, Taluka Purandar, District Puna.2. The litigation which has reached this Court on the second occasion, has a long history. This land belonging to the landlords it appears, was leased to Hari Malhari Inamke some time prior to the year 1949. Hari Malhari died and was survived by his widow Manjulbai continued to cultivate this land and was cultivating this land. She died, thereafter, but the date of her death, is not on record and is not known. She was survived by her daughter Bhikabai. This Bhikabai died in the year 1959 and her husband Shankar Balwant Jagtap respondent is now contesting the present litigation.3. It appears that in the year 1951, tenancy case No. 131 of 1951 was started. That was filed by the landlords on the ground that, Manjulabai had surrendered her tenancy in their favour. It may be mentioned that, at the time w...
Tag this Judgment!Kisan Shamrao Jadhav Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-1980
Reported in: 1982(1)BomCR675
R.D. Tulpule, J.1. The only question which survives in this petition is in regard to delimitation of the lands held by the petitioner as surplus over the ceiling area.2. The total holding of the petitioner is held to be 116 acres 20 gunthas comprising of various survey numbers mentioned in the order of the Surplus Lands Determination Tribunal situated at villages Salimba and Laxmipur in Manjlegaon Tahsil, District Bhir.3. The contention raised before the Surplus Lands Determination Tribunal seeking exclusion of two pieces of land from the total holding of the petitioner is that those lands were Survey Nos. 35 and 52 both of village Salimba. The ground on which the petitioner sought exclusion of these lands was in regard to Survey No. 35, that the said land had been taken over and has been in possession of a third person Trimbak Laxmanrao Desmukh, the former Inamdar and in whose favour the occupancy rights have been granted. He pointed out that possession of that land was taken over on ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »