Mumbai Court April 1981 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i Vs. W.T. Suren and Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-30-1981
Reported in: (1982)31CTR(Bom)128; [1982]138ITR91(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. The assessee-company is a private limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, and the relevant assessment year is 1960-61 for which the previous year ended on 30th April, 1959. The assessee was a wholly owned subsidiary of Rallis India Ltd. with effect from 21st November, 1958. The principal business of the assessed-company was the distribution of the products of Traddington Chemical Factory Private Ltd., which was also another wholly owned subsidiary of Rallis India Ltd. The said principal business of the assessee-company was taken over by Rallis India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'transferee-company'), with effect from 1st May, 1959.2. A Scheme for gratuity in respect of the members of the assessee-company was in force since August, 1953. The qualifying period of service for earning gratuity was five years and the gratuity payable to the employees, who had put in service of 10 years and above, was at the rate of one month's basic salary...
Tag this Judgment!Savitribai and anr. Vs. Vithal Hari Petakar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-30-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Bom430; (1981)83BOMLR434
Shah, J.1. This revisional application raises a question of jurisdiction of Court under Section 28 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The petitioners filed Regular Civil Suit No. 504 of 1971 against the respondent for recovery of possession of their premises bearing City Survey No. 2258 (B) situate at Kolhapur under Section 12 of the Act. This suit was filed in the court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kolhapur. The Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kolhapur transferred the suit to the Second Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kolhapur. Thereafter, the District Judge passed an order under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure withdrawing the suit from that Court and transferred it to the court of Second Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division) for disposal. Again, by another order dated January 3, 1976, the District Judge withdrew the suit from the file of the Second Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division) and transferred it to the Civil Judge (Senior...
Tag this Judgment!Mehta Construction Company Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-29-1981
Reported in: (1981)83BOMLR625; 1981MhLJ835; [1981]48STC398(Bom)
Madon, J.1. The question which falls for determination in this petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is : 'Whether the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as 'the Tribunal') constituted under section 21 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as 'the said Act'), has any power to condone the delay in filing an application for reference under section 61(1) of the said Act ?'2. The petitioners are a partnership firm and carry on business as engineers and building contractors. The petitioners applied for and obtained registration as a dealer under the said Act. During the period 1st June, 1965, to 31st May, 1966, the petitioners in the course of their business as building contractors purchased inter alia building materials such as sand, lime, cement, metal, iron and steel. By his assessment order dated 11th March, 1967, the Sales Tax Officer held that during the said period the...
Tag this Judgment!Minoti Vs. Sushil Mohan Singh Malik and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-29-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Bom68; 1981MhLJ659
1. The plaintiff who is a minor filed the suit through her next friend, maternal grant-mother for a declaration that the money lying in the special savings Bank Account No.14/1168 with the State Bank of Hyderabad, juhu Branch, Bombay exclusively belongs to her deceased mother as her self-acquired and self-earned separate properly and in view of the provisions of S. 25 of the Hindu succession Act, 1956 daughter alone is entiled to get the said amount.2. It appears to be an admitted position that defendant No.1 sushilkumar was prosecuted for an offence punishable under section 302 of the penal code in sessions case no.196 of 1980 decided on 29th of oct., record the sessions court came to the conclusion that accused sushilkumar used a sharp-edged Revathi. While inflicting the injuries he chose vital part of the body and used considerable force. The sessions court further found that in view of the number of injuries and their location considered together with other factors clearly indicate...
Tag this Judgment!Sk. Jameel Ahmad S/O Sk. Farid Vs. Naseem Gulab Sk. (Smt.) W/O Sayed S ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-29-1981
Reported in: 1981MhLJ847
A.N. Mody, J.1. This civil revision application raises an interesting and rather complicated questions as to the interpretation of provision of Transfer of Property Act, Registration Act and the Hyderabad (House Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act').2. The petitioner is the landlord and the original plaintiff before the III Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Aurangabad in Small Causes Civil Court Suit No. 204 of 1978 and defendant therein. The amount involved in the suit is only Rs. 144/-. But the consequences of the suit having been decided one way or the other are grave enough to warrant the parties fighting each other and incurring cost, inasmuch as the possible consequence of the decree being one way or the other will give the landlord or not give the landlord a right to evict the defendant tenant. Hence, this matter was argue don both sides at great length.3. A written rent note dated 4-1-1975 was executed by the respondent on a s...
Tag this Judgment!V. Venkatesh Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-28-1981
Reported in: [1981(43)FLR65]; (1982)ILLJ162Bom
1. The short question is which arises for determination in this petition is whether is whether the petitioner working in the Head Office of respondent No. 3 is entitled to claim advantages of the provisions of the Employees Provident Funds and Family Pension Fund Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') after the establishment covered by S. 1(3)(a) of the Act was closed.2. The facts of the case are not in dispute and before adverting to the question urged at the Bar, it would be desirable to set out the relevant facts. The petitioner joined the service of respondent No. 3 on March 3, 1965, as a stenographer. The respondent No. 3, M/s. Bose Investments (Pvt.) Limited, had only an office where about 10 employees were working and had no other business. On October 4, 1967, respondent No. 3 secured a factory from Alfa Rubber Company under an agreement of leave and licence. Rubber products were manufactured in the said company and 24 persons were employed in the said factory. On Dece...
Tag this Judgment!Rajeshbai and ors. Vs. Shantabai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-28-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Bom231; (1981)83BOMLR327; 1981MhLJ820
1. This appeal heard at some length raises , as is apparent, some intricate questions of law intermixed with problems of justice and fairness , of legality and of humanity , technical and of substance. The controversy centres around the human relations that became recognised by ties of marriage. Its legal fallibility and consequential possibilities of avoidance of rights personal and of property. These problems arise this way.2. Respondent Shantabai filed the present suit seeking reliefs of injunction against the defendants, the present appellants, restraining them from disturbing her present possession and enjoyment of the properties and , alternatively, also seeking relief of possession of the properties which may not be found to be in her possession . She also prayed for the partition of C. S. No. 372 and possession of one-third share therein .3. These reliefs were so claimed on the basis that the plaintiff, Shantabai , was the lawfully married wife of deceased Sadashiv and , upon h...
Tag this Judgment!P. Ram Narayan Vs. L.P. Pichan and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-27-1981
Reported in: 1982(2)BomCR559
Sharad Manohar, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate, 33rd Court, Ballard Estate, Bombay, dated 31-8-1976 in Criminal Case No. 144/S of 1974. The case was initiated at the instance of the complainant who is the appellant before me. The charge was that respondent No. 1 (who will be referred to hereafter as accused No. 1) and three others had defamed the complainant and as such had committed an offence punishable under section 500 I.P.C. I may state here at the outset that though all the four accused have been acquitted by the learned Magistrate, the present appeal is filed against accused No. 1 only. The order of acquittal in favour of the remaining three accused has, therefore, become final.2. At the outset, I may very briefly state the substance of the grievance of the complainant against the accused. All the accused are quite respectable persons, employees and officer of the State Bank of India. They have formed a co-operative housing...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-24-1981
Reported in: (1984)7ITD267(Mum.)
1. to 13. [These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.] 14. The only other ground to be considered in this appeal states that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding that the initial contribution of Rs. 57,29,637 payable to the gratuity fund of the assessee was allowable as deduction under Section 36(1)(iV) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). The facts relating to this dispute are stated by the Commissioner (Appeals) in paragraph 6 of his order.The assessee-company constituted a gratuity fund for the first time with effect from 1-12-1975. This fund was given approval by the Commissioner with effect from 1-12-1975. The initial contribution payable to the fund ^representing the accrued gratuity liability up to 1-12-1975 amounted to Rs. 71,29,547. The assessee has been allowed to pay the aforesaid amount to the approved gratuity fand in not more than five annual instalments. The assessee actually paid the entire amount in five annual instalments beginning w...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i Vs. Fiberglass Pilkington Lt ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-24-1981
Reported in: (1982)26CTR(Bom)140; [1982]133ITR506(Bom)
Sawant, J.1. The assessee is an Indian company and the assessment year is 1965-66, the accounting year having ended on 31st March, 1965. In the assessment for the said year the ITO allowed super-tax rebate at 30% on the footing that the assessee was a company in which the public were substantially interested within the meaning of s. 2(18) of the I. T. Act, 1961. The Commissioner set aside the said order of the ITO on the footing that the company was not one in which the public were substantially interested within the meaning of the said section. The Tribunal reversed the finding of the AAC and restored that of the ITO. Thereafter, the Tribunal made the present reference under s. 256(1) of the I. T. Act and the question referred to us is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, for the assessment year 1965-66, the assessee is a company whose business consists wholly in the manufacture or processing of goods within the meaning of Explanation 2 to section 2...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »