Mumbai Court July 1981 Judgments
Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. Asian Paints India Ltd. and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1981
Reported in: (1981)83BOMLR479; (1982)IILLJ416Bom; 1982MhLJ315
1. This is an appeal filed by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation challenging the judgment and findings recorded by the single Judge of this Court in Misc. Petition No. 822 of 1976. It is not necessary to make a detailed reference to the facts of the case because in memorandum of appeal various contentions were raised, during the course of arguments the appellant the Employees' State Insurance Corporation has raised following two contentions only, namely - (1) determination of the liability under S. 45A of the Employees; State Insurance Act (herein after referred to as the Act) does not contemplate any hearing and, therefore, the finding recorded by the learned single Judge in that behalf is vitiated; and (2) the finding recorded by the learned single Judge that the claim made by the Corporation which relates to the period from the year 1962 to 1971 is barred by limitation, is also vitiated because the statute has not laid down any limitation, for recovery of the amount determin...
Tag this Judgment!A.K. Velu Vs. K.S. Ramkrishnan and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1981
Reported in: 1983(1)BomCR338
S.K. Desai, J.1. This is a Criminal Application No. 165/S of 1979 filed by the accused in the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 31st Court, Vikhroli. The compliant in the said case is K.S. Ramkrishnan, the 1st respondent before me. The complaint is under section 12 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963. The said complaint refers to a building known a Shankar Kunj situate at Plot No. 19-B, Asalpe, Bombay 400 084. The complaint claims to be joint owner, builder and promoter of the said property. The complaint refers to an agreement dated 9th March, 1978 executed between the compliant and his wife on the one hand and the two accused on the other and proceeds that accused has committed a breach of Clause 17 read with Clause 21 and 44 of the said agreement. The breach is in failure to pay monthly outgoings at the rate of Rs. 122/- per month. The other alleged failure is to co-operate with the builder in the formation of the common organisation.2. Prima facie, the case is ...
Tag this Judgment!Shaukatali Isimdar Vs. Smt. Nargesh Dhanjishaw Jassoomani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1981
Reported in: (1982)84BOMLR238; 1982MhLJ305
S.K. Desai, J.1. This revision application is preferred against the order of the learned Judge of the City Civil Court passed on the plaintiffs' notice of motion in Suit No. 4411 of 1964, As an interesting point arises for decision, a few facts necessary for properly appreciating the same may be indicated.2. One Dhanjishaw as the sole plaintiff filed Suit No. 4411 of 1964 in the Bombay City Civil Court at Bombay and sought orders in respect of land as per plan Ex. A to the plaint. A decree was sought against the two defendants to the suit Shaukatali Isimdar and Mohomad Ishaque and the plaintiff wanted them to hand over possession of the said land after removing certain structures standing thereon. Mesne profits and interlocutory orders were also sought. The first defendant thereafter filed his written statement in February 1965 inter alia putting the plaintiff to the strict proof of his ownership. It was further contended that the second defendant to the suit claimed ownership of the s...
Tag this Judgment!Motilal Vs. Abdul Mazid
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Bom157
ORDER1. The petitioner-landlord filed an application before the Rent Controller, under S. 15 of the Hyderabad Houses (rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for possession of the suit premises on three grounds viz. (1) that the tenant is in wilful default of the payment of rent. (2) that the landlord requires the premises in possession of the tenant as additional accommodation for the purposes of his business s and, (3) that the landlord requires the premises for reconstruction of the building. The Deputy Collector and the Rent Controller, Amberjogai, in Beed district vide his order dt. 30th August, 1975 came to the conclusion that the tenant is a wilful defaulter in payment of rent and, therefore, ordered eviction of the respondenttenant. On other two counts he recorded a finding against the landlord.2. Being aggrieved by this order the respondent-tenant filed an appeal before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Bhir. The learned District...
Tag this Judgment!Motilal S/O Chandulal Darak Vs. Abdul Mazid S/O Taz Mahammad Kacchi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1981
Reported in: 1981MhLJ843
C.S. Dharmadhikari, J.1. The petitioner landlord filed an application before the Rent Controller under section 15 of the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for possession of the suit premises on three grounds viz. (1) that the tenant is in wilful default of the payment of rent : (2) that the landlord requires the premises in possession of the tenant as additional accommodation for the purposes of his business and (3) that the landlord requires the premises for reconstruction of the building. The Deputy Collector and the Rent Controller, Ambajogai, in Bhir District vide his order dated 30th August, 1975 came to the conclusion that the tenant is a wilful defaulter in payment of rent and, therefore ordered eviction of the respondent tenant. On other two counts he recorded a finding against the landlord.2. Being aggrieved by this order the respondent-tenant filed an appeal before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Bhir....
Tag this Judgment!C.J. Ghadiali and ors. Vs. Z.B. Wadiwalla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1981
Reported in: 1981MhLJ876
A.N. Mody, J.1. The original defendants to the suit which was filed in the City Civil Court at Bombay are the appellants and the original plaintiff is the respondent. For the sake of convenience the appellants will be referred to as 'the defendants' and the respondent will be referred to as the plaintiff.'2. One Soonabai was a tenant of two flats, being Blocks Nos. C and D in Nicholson Building, Wadia Street, Tardeo, Bombay. She had daughter, Dhanbai. Dhanbai had three daughters. Putlibai, Khoshed and Banubai. Putlibai was married to the 1st defendant who is now dead, having died after the suit was decided. The plaintiff and the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are respectively the two daughters and the son of Putlibai and the 1st defendant.3. Both Dhanbai and Putlibai predeceased Soonabai. Both of them died prior to 1942. In the year 1942. Soonabai transferred the tenancy of block D in favour of the 1st defendant. On 18th July, 1948, both the plaintiff and the defendant No. 3 got married. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Sudhakar Dinkar Malekar Vs. Hemu Prabhudas Thakur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1981
Reported in: (1981)83BOMLR496
Rele, J.1. This is an application by original accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 for setting aside the order dated November 26, 1980 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, directing that the case to proceed on secondary evidence. During the course of arguments an amendment was sought which was granted and by the amendment a prayer has been made that the proceedings in Sessions Case No-. 73 of 1977 should be quashed.2. This rule involves a question as to whether noncompliance with the provisions of Section 173(5)(a) and (b) and Section 207 of the Criminal Procedure Code affects the legality of the proceedings.3. The applicants are original accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4. Accused Nos. 1, 5 and 6 have been joined in this application as respondents. The fourth respondent is the State of Maharashtra. The applicants and respondents 1, 2 and 3 were charge sheeted before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 21st Court, Bandra, for having committed offences under Sections 147, 148, 324, 395, 367 and 302 read with S...
Tag this Judgment!Second Income-tax Officer Vs. Ramji Dayawalla and Sons
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-1981
Reported in: (1982)2ITD121(Mum.)
1. The revenue in these appeals has disputed the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) directing the ITO to allow weighted deduction under Section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') in respect of the payment of salary and travelling expenses which were paid by the assessee on behalf of the principals to the employees.2. During the years under consideration, the assessee was under a contract for the supply of labour to the Japanese company by name of Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. at Tokyo, Japan (IHJH), for the erection of units of ING tanks on Das Island, in Abu Dhabi. The contract was dated 24-12-1973, according to which, whereas IHH, undertook to erect and deliver the two units of ING tanks on Das Island. In accordance with the contract executed between Eastern Bachtel Corporation and IHH and whereas IHH desired to let the contractor, that is the assessee, to supply labours for the erection site under the terms and conditions as set out in the aforesaid contr...
Tag this Judgment!R.C. Trivedi and Another Vs. A.H. Paranjape and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-1981
Reported in: 1982MhLJ82
ORDER1. Both these matters involve a common question of law with hardly any difference in the facts and, therefore, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Respondent No. 1, A. H. Paranjape in his capacity as Asstt. Electrical Inspector, I. & E.L. Department, filed a complaint against the two petitioners alleging breach of R. 44-A of the Indian Electricity Rules punishable under R. 141 of the said rules in Criminal Case No. 219/S of 1978 which forms the subject-matter of Criminal Application No. 229/81 and alleging breach of Rr. 64(2)(a), (e) and (f) of the Indian Electricity Rules punishable under R. 141 of the said rules in Criminal Case No. 218/S/78, which is the subject-matter of Criminal Application No. 228/81. In Criminal Case No. 219/S of 1978 it was alleged that a non-fatal accident occurred to one Mr. Manhar B. Desai on the installation belonging to M/s Calico Chemicals Plastics and Fibres Division of Anik-Chembur, Bombay-74 at about ...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. J.N. Mokashi Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-1981
Reported in: (1983)3ITD774(Mum.)
1. The scope and ambit of Section 64(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act ('the Act') has furnished a happy hunting ground for litigation as a result of which there were conflicting opinions expressed by the Benches of the Appellate Tribunal leading to the hearing of the above appeal by a Special Bench constituted for the purpose. Some interveners also participated in the aforesaid battle between the two sides, though we would like to confine ourselves only to the facts of the above appeal while laying down what we consider to be the parameter of Section 64(1)(ii), along with the proviso, which is reproduced below : 64. Income of individual to include income of spouse, minor child, etc.-(1) in computing the total income of any individual, there shall be included all such income as arises directly or indirectly- (i) to the spouse of such individual from the membership of the spouse in a firm carrying on a business in which such individual is a partner ; (ii) to the spouse of such individual by...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »