Mumbai Court March 1981 Judgments
Devidas and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-1981
Reported in: 1982CriLJ2189
1. This is an appeal by the original accused Nos. 1 to 5 who have been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Parbhani of the offence under S. 395 of the Penal Code. Since I am allowing the appeal, it is not necessary to state the sentences imposed on each of the accused.2. The prosecution case was as follows :-Baburao Ganpatrao Gaikwad, P.W. 1, is the resident of the village Walur where weekly bazar is held. He claims to be quite affluent person. He has a joint Hindu family and lives with his brother. Both the brothers are married. Paternal aunt of the said P.W. 1 is also residing with him.On the night of 17th December 1976, at about 1.00 a.m. about 15 to 16 unknown persons committed dacoity in the house of P.W. 1. They broke open the house and smashed the electric bulbs. Upon the noise P.W. 1 and his brother rushed out from he upper floor where he was sleeping. He was mercilessly beaten by the dacoits and, likewise, other members in the family were also beaten. The dacoits looted t...
Tag this Judgment!Asian Cables Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-1981
Reported in: (1981)24CTR(Bom)158; [1981]132ITR34(Bom); [1981]6TAXMAN244(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. The ITO having found that for the assessment year 1967-68, he had by his earlier order carried forward deficiencies under s. 80J beyond the assessment year 1973-74, took action under s. 154 of the I.T. Act for rectification and found that the deficiency could not be carried forward beyond the seventh assessment year as reckoned from the end of the initial assessment year under prov. (i) to s. 80J(3). In those proceedings, it was contended on behalf of the assessee that deficiencies under s. 80J should have been set off first before setting off unabsorbed depreciation. This contention was rejected by the ITO on two grounds, namely, (1) that such an issue was never raised with at the time of the assessment or at the appellate stage and (2) that on merits also, the depreciation has to be set off in priority to s. 80J deductions, having regard to the definition of gross total income under s. 80B(5). He also relied on the decision in Ashok Motors Ltd. v. CIT : [1961]41ITR39...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Maharashtra Vs. Govindrao Narayanrao Ghorpade
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Bom439
1. By this appeal, the State of Maharashtra makes a grievance with regard to the order made by the Land Acquisition Court (i.e. Civil Judge, Senior Division. Kolhapur), holding that for the acquired land, the State was liable to pay all the compensation as was determined by the Land Acquisition Officer and directing the Government to refund the amount of Rs. 18,312.33 p.2. Brief facts are that the respondent is the owner of Revision Survey Nos. 607 and 608 of Ichalkaranji, Taluka Hatkanangale, District Kolhapur. For the purpose of construction of tenements for the benefit of industrial workers, proceedings to acquire the lands were initiated with regard to 2 gunthas from Survey No. 607 and 7 acres and 15 gunthas from Survey No. 608. The Section 4 Notification was issued on October 31, 1961 followed by the proceedings by the Land Acquisition Officer to make an award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Upon the evidence, he found that the lands were inam lands and, theref...
Tag this Judgment!Mevaldas Takhatmal Lekhawani Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-1981
Reported in: (1981)83BOMLR517; 1982CriLJ46
1. This is an appeal filed by the original complainant whose complaint against the respondent accused in respect of an offence under section 406 of the I.P.C. has been turned down by the Lower Appellate Court. The appeal, however is restricted to the question of return of the property which is the subject matter of this criminal case.2. The facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal may be very briefly stated as follows :-For the sake of convenience the parties will be referred to as complainant and accused. The father of the accused was owner of land bearing S. No. 51/1, in which there is a well. On 20th March, 1973, an agreement was arrived at between the complainant on the one hand and father of the accused on the other, by virtue of which the complainant got possession of the land for the purpose of raising banana crop on the same for a period of two years, for certain fixed considerations. The complainant, it was understood would install electric motor on the well for the purpo...
Tag this Judgment!Kausar HuseIn Mohamed HushIn Vs. Mohamed Umer Bhota and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Bom91
Rege, J.1. This is a Letter Patent Appeal by the original first defendant against the order of Joshi, J. Summarity demission his appeal against the order and judgment of the learned Judge of the City Civil Court dated 14th Oct. 1976 decreeing the plaintiff's suit and declaring the plaintiff's to be the tenants in respect of the suit premises and to be gentrified to continue in possessionn thereof and granting perennial injunction against the first defendant restarting his from interfering with the possessionn of the plaintiffs and, in a parlicular, for executing the order/decree of possessionn passed by the Court of Small Causes at Bombay in an ejectment application by the first defendant against the plaintiff and one other person being No. R. A. 201/E/62.2. The main question that arises is, whether on the facts of this case the landlords respondents Nos. 2 to 7 could jaw fully created a tenancy in favour of the plaintiff when the first defendant was under S. 14 of the Bombay Rent Act,...
Tag this Judgment!Cadbury Fry (India) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-1981
Reported in: [1982]2ITD435(Mum)
ORDERPer Shri K. T. Thakore, Accountant Member - 1 to 5. [These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.]6. The next contention raised in these appeals relates disallowance of interest on bank overdraft as indicated below :Assessment year 1973-74Rs. 2,93,277Assessment year 1974-75Rs. 2,82,638Assessment year 1975-76Rs. 2,13,379For the assessment year 1973-74, the ITO disallowed a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs out of claim for deduction of interest of Rs. 3,32,612 by way of overdraft interest on bank loans. For the assessment year 1974-75, the ITO disallowed a sum of Rs. 2,74,215 while in the assessment year 1975-76 he disallowed a sum of Rs. 1,52,543 out of interest paid on bank loans. The ITO found that the assessee had advanced a sum of Rs. 24 lakhs to one Induri Farms Ltd., a subsidiary of the assessee, free of interest. He also found certain advances made to staff members free of interest. We are not concerned with the second advances made by the assessee in the present appe...
Tag this Judgment!Anant Mahadeo Godbole Vs. Achut Ganesh Godbole and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Bom357; 1981MhLJ640
1. The narrow question in the present appeal is whether the trial Court rightly applied the amended provisions of Order XXIII, Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure, which has enacted the bar to the effect that no suit shall lie to set aside a decree on the ground that the compromise on which the decree is based was not lawful.2. A few undisputed facts are that the present appellant-plaintiff filed the present suit, being Special Civil Suit No. 13 of 1977 for getting declarations to set aside and cancel the compromise decree recorded in the earlier suit, being Special Civil Suit No, 17 of 1973. Inter alia the plaintiff prayed that the decree in that suit at Ex, 105 be cancelled and the compromise in that suit at Ex. 104 be declared illegal. Similarly, he prayed that the Vakalatnama given to the advocate in that suit, who is joined as defendant No. 13 in this suit, be declared illegal.3. The plaint alleged that the earlier suit was for partition and taking accounts and that the present...
Tag this Judgment!Laherchand Dhanji Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1981
Reported in: (1981)25CTR(Bom)159; [1982]135ITR689(Bom)
Kanade, J.1. By this applications under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners challenge the legality and correctness of the order dated March 23, 1978, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Pune-II, Pune.2. The petitioners is a partnership firm. The petitioners carry on business as cotton and grain merchants and commission agents at Shirpur in Dhulia District. The firm is assessed under the provisions of the I.T. Act, 1961. For the assessment year 1969-70, the petitioner's assessment was completed on March 18, 1970, by the third respondent, namely, the ITO, A Ward, Dhulia, by assessing the income at Rs. 12,140. Subsequently, a notice was issued by the ITO under s. 148 of the I.T. Act. In response to that notice the petitioners filed a return for a total income of Rs. 52,140. The additional income of Rs. 40,000 was to cover certain cash credits appearing in the books of account of the petitioners. The said amount of Rs. 40,000 was included in the said return afte...
Tag this Judgment!Dawn Mills Co. Limited Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1981
Reported in: 1990(47)ELT256(Bom)
1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging the legality of the order dated October 5, 1979, annexed as Exh. F to the petition, and passed by the Senior Enforcement Officer of the Department of Industrial Development, Office of the Textile Commissioner, and the Order dated December 12, 1979, annexed as Exh. I to the Petition, passed by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of India in its Appellate Jurisdiction.2. Only few facts are required to be stated to appreciate the grievance of the Petitioners. The Government of India published a Notification dated June 29, 1979 in exercise of powers conferred by Clause 20 and sub-clause (5) of Clause 21 of the Cotton Textiles (Central) Order, 1948. The Notification provided that every producer of yarn shall pack yarn, for civil consumption, in hank form, in each quarter commencing from July/September 1979 quarter and in every subsequent quarter is proportion not less than 50% of the...
Tag this Judgment!Federation of Western India Cine Employees Vs. Filmalaya Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1981
Reported in: (1981)83BOMLR423; (1981)IILLJ393Bom
1. This is an appeal filed by the original defendants against the order passed by the City Civil Court, Bombay granting injunction in terms of prayer cl. (a) of the Notice of Motion taken out by the plaintiffs-respondents.2. The plaintiffs, the Filmalaya Pvt. Ltd. which is a private limited company, filed a suit against the defendants mainly for an injunction restraining defendants, their agents and members from acting upon the directions issued by the defendants, No. 1 the Federation and incorporated in the letter dated May 3, 1980. According to the plaintiffs the first defendants, which is a Federation and the second defendant which is a trade union are registered under the Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926. In the course of the plaintiffs' business the Filmalaya studio was hired to various producers of the films and the plaintiffs used to give facilities such as sound recording, cameras, setting and lighting and for that purpose the plaintiffs had employed several workmen. By a letter d...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »