Mumbai Court January 1981 Judgments
Baby Vs. Jayant Mahadeo Jagtap and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Bom283; 1981(83)ARBLR312(Bom); 1982(1)BomCR80
1. This is an appeal filed by the original complainant, the first wife, challenging the order of acquittal dated May 28, 1979 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Baramati, acquitting both the respondents for having committed offences punishable under Section 494 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code in Criminal Case No. 834 of 1976.2. The appeal raises a question of considerable importance affecting a large section of the Indian Society, that is, members of the Scheduled Castes who have chosen to convert themselves into the Buddhist faith. It involves a question of recognition in law of the customary form of marriage different from the form of marriage generally recognised under the Hindu Law.2-A. Since this appeal involves recognition of a different form of marriage widely followed and recognised amongst the members of the Buddhist community (converted from Scheduled Castes), it is necessary to refer to the averments in the complaint of the complainant as ...
Tag this Judgment!Taj Mohammad and ors. Vs. Agricultural Produce Market Committee Nagpur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Bom558; 1981MhLJ453
ORDER1. This judgment shall dispose of Civil Revision Applications Nos.818 and 819 of 1980 and Civil Revision Applications Nos.2 to 12 of 1981.2. The non-applicant (original plaintiff), namely Agricultural produce market committee, Nagpur, is common in all these revision applications. This non-applicant had filed separate suits against each of these applicants for perpetual injunction and had applied for a writ of temporary injunction. The trial court rejected these applications, but the first appellate court allowed them and hence these revisions by the original defendants. As common question of law and fact was involved in all these matters, the trial court as well as the first appellate court also disposed of these applications for temporary injunction by common judgment.3. The Non-applicant Agricultural produce market committee (hereinafter called the committee) was duly established under section 11 of the maharashtra Agricultural produce marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 (hereafter...
Tag this Judgment!Air India CabIn Crew Association and Others Vs. Air India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-1981
Reported in: (1981)IILLJ306Bom
1. This petition questions the legality and validity of the action taken by the respondent-Air India reducing with effect from Flight A1-115 of 4th January, 1981 the cabin crew complement on its B-747 flights from its pre-existing total of nineteen members to eighteen members, vide circular dated 3rd January, 1981 (exhibit D to the petition).2. Hearing in extenso the rival submissions of the respective counsel and going through the petition, reply and rejoinders as also the reported and unreported judgments cited before me, I am of the view that this is not a case warranting interference under Art. 226 of the Constitution. Indeed, grant of any relief herein is be set with many difficulties.3. At the outset and as rightly urged on behalf of the respondent-Air India, the question of deployment and or reduction of cabin crew complement as also the matter of standard force and or pattern of crew scheduling are matters essentially and basically partaking the character of management function...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Dattatraya Narayan Samant and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-1981
Reported in: 1982(1)BomCR1; (1981)83BOMLR553; 1982CriLJ1025
ORDER1. The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as also under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order of framing charges against the petitioners dated October 13, 1980 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay. In this Criminal Application the question that falls for determination is whether the impugned order of framing of charges complies with the requirements prescribed by Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, i.e., whether there were sufficient grounds for proceeding to frame charges by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The charges which are framed against the petitioners and original accused No. 5 one Shankar Vithal Savardekar are on five counts in all the present petitioners are charged for having agreed between August 1978 and illegal acts, i.e., offences of causing physical harm to one Shri Naval Godrej, Kersi Godrej and others and those acts of causing harm to the a...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Barium Chemicals Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-1981
Reported in: [1981]48STC121(Bom)
Madon, J.1. Four questions have been referred to this Court by the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal under section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), read with section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. We will advert to these questions later, but at the present it is sufficient to say that the real controversy between the parties is whether the same transactions of inter-State sales which have been assessed to tax and the tax thereon collected by the Central Government through the agency of one State can subsequently be assessed through the agency of another State.2. The facts which have given rise to this controversy are that the respondents are a public limited company. Their main place of business is situate in district Khammam in the State of Andhra Pradesh. It has not been found that they had at any material time a place of business in Bombay or at any other place in the State of Maharashtra. The respondents were registered as a de...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. R. J. Pande and Sons
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-1981
Reported in: [1981]47STC417(Bom)
Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. This is a reference under section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. The respondents, who are the assessees, have an establishment at Nasik where, inter alia, sweetmeats are sold for consumption on the premises. It also seems that the respondents sell, inter alia, sweetmeats across the counter for being consumed outside the premises or being taken away. For the assessment period 1st April, 1966, to 31st March, 1967, the respondents were assessed to sales tax and the Sales Tax Officer held that the establishment conducted by the respondents was a shop conducted primarily for the sale of sweetmeats. He therefore refused to allow any deduction to the respondents for any sales which may be covered under entry 14 of Schedule A to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. It may be mentioned here that for the earlier assessment years the respondents had been given deductions under entry 14 of Schedule A on the ground that the respondents conducted predominantly an eating ...
Tag this Judgment!Makhanlal Ganeshdas Kaul Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-1981
Reported in: (1981)83BOMLR223
V.S. Deshpande, C.J.1. The petitioner was working as a supervisor (vigilence) In the City Establishment of the Conservancy Branch of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, Bombay. The work of removing and transport of refuse in the suburbs for the period from June 1, 1968 to October 31, 1968 was entrusted to the contractors Messers Ismail N. Halai. The contractors appointed Messrs. Western Bombay Traders, as their sub-contractors for this work. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's son Yoginder Kaul was the proprietor of this firm. It appears that the Corporation discovered that Yoginder was only a college going boy aged 20, and the entire contract was carried out by the petitioner himself. It was also found that the petitioner had manoeuvred to obtain sub-contract in the name of his son though he himself conducted the said business. It was also discovered that the petitioner had influenced some officers of the Corporation in different parts connected with removal of this re...
Tag this Judgment!Narinder Singh Saran Singh Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-1981
Reported in: 1981CriLJ772; 1981MhLJ547
Bharucha, J.1. This is a habeas corpus petition.2. The petitioner alleges that he is a citizen of Afghanistan and lives in Kabul. He alleges that he does not know English and that his knowledge of Hindi is limited; his mother tongue is a variety of Punjabi spoken in Kabul.3. On 24th November, 1979 the petitioner arrived at the airport at Bombay by a flight from Bangkok. His baggage was searched by the Customs Authorities and 65 electronic watched and one calculator were discovered concealed therein. These articles were confiscated and a panchanama of the seizure was made. After the seizure the Customs Officer on duty recorded the petitioner's statement under section 108 of the Sea Customs Act. On the same day he was produced before a Magistrate and was remanded. On 27th November, 1979 he applied for bail, the application was granted and the petitioner was released on bail on 28th November, 1979. The complaint filed against the petitioner by the Customs Authorities is pending. After rel...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Nagpur Vs. Rupchand Prabhudas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-1981
Reported in: (1982)26CTR(Bom)265; [1982]134ITR632(Bom); [1981]7TAXMAN76(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. The assessee, Rupchand, is a partner in a partnership firm, M/s. Prabhudas Parasram, and he earns share income from the said firm by virtue of his being a partner. The capital invested in the firm by Rupchand belonged to the HUF of Rupchand and the other members of his family, out of whom, three were his sons, one was his wife and one was his daughter. There was a partition in the HUF of Rupchand, at which the shares of the other members of the family, i.e., his two minor sons and his wife were separated and an amount of Rs. 5,000 was provided by way of provision for marriage and maintenance of the minor daughter. Though the amounts which were received by the family members of Rupchand were retained in the firm, M/s. Prabhudas Parasram, separate entries in respect of their respective amounts came to be made in the account books of the partnership firm. One of the terms of the partition deed, which is annex 'B', is as follows:'As per the scheme and the terms of partitio...
Tag this Judgment!Controller of Estate Duty, Nagpur Vs. Imranali Hassanali
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-1981
Reported in: [1984]150ITR557(Bom); [1985]22TAXMAN473(Bom)
Mohta, J.'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the provisions of section 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, were applicable to (a) the sum of Rs. 88,789 gifted to the son and grandsons, (b) the house properties valued at Rs. 35,000 and gifted to the son and grandson, and (c) 11/16th share of the goodwill in the firm ?'1. The aforesaid question referred under s. 64(1) of the E.D. Act 1953 (for short 'the Act') at the instance of the Revenue arises in the following factual backdrop.2. One Shri Hassanali Mohammadali dies on December 21, 1960. Estate duty assessment arises consequent on his death. Deceased carried on business along with his son, Shri Imranali, in the name and style of M/s. Hassanali Mohammadali up to the year 1951. Up to and including the assessment year 1952-53, this business was assessed in the status of an AOP. On October 30, 1951, a partnership deed was executed to which the deceased his son, Imranali, and two of his grandsons, Shri Abdullabhai and...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »