Mumbai Court August 1981 Judgments
Gurucharansingh Mohansingh Jamadar Vs. Nanded Sikh Gurudwara Sachkhand ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-1981
Reported in: 1982(2)BomCR5
S.P. Kurdurkar, J.1. This civil revision application under section 26 of the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Hyderabad Rent Act') is filed by the petitioner-tenant challenging the concurrent orders of eviction passed by the courts below.2. The respondent is the Nanded Sikh Gurudwara Sachkhand Shri Hazur Saheb Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Gurudwara') represented through its Special Officer-cum-Superintendent. The respondent is the landlord. It is no more in dispute that two rooms bearing No. 13 Municipal House No. 3-1-356 situated at Gurudwara is the subject-matter of the present litigation. There is also no dispute about the relationship between the parties. There is also no dispute that the monthly contractual rent in respect of the suit premises is Rs. 13.75 p. The tenant remained in arrears of rent from August 1968 to September 1975 roughly for 86 months. The total amount of rent in arrears was Rs. 1182.50 p. ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i Vs. National Rayon Corporati ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-1981
Reported in: [1983]140ITR143(Bom); [1982]8TAXMAN11(Bom)
Desai, J.1. In this reference under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay Bench 'C', has referred the following two question for our consideration:'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to the allowance in respect of the research expenses incurred by the assessee in the sum of Rs. 2,55,837 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of e case, the sum of Rs. 10,000 out of Rs. 19,093, being foreign travelling expenses, has been rightly treated as capital expenditure not allowable as a deduction in the computation of the assessee total income ?'2. As para. 6 of the statement of the case indicates, question No. (1) was referred as arising out of the application by the Commissioner. Question No. (2), according to the statement of the case, arose out of the reply filed by there assessee to the Commissioner application. It would appear that the view of the Supreme Court as disclosed in CIT v. V....
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i Vs. I.B.M. World Trade Corpo ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-1981
Reported in: (1982)27CTR(Bom)235; [1982]136ITR193(Bom); [1982]8TAXMAN98(Bom)
Rege, J.1. In this reference, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay Bench 'B', at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax Bombay City-I, under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the following two question have been referred to us for our opinion, namely :'(1) Whether the provision of section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, applied to the items of machinery referred to in para. 1 of the statement of the case ?(2) Whether clause (i) of Explanation 1 to section 10(2) (vib) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, prohibits the sale of machinery in respect of which development rebate is allowed even when the machinery was installed prior to January 1, 1956 ?'2. The assessee-company had, in its return for the assessment year 1958-59, claimed development rebate in respect of certain machinery as under :Machinery Cost of Development Year in whichinstalled machinery rebate the machineryin the installed allowed was soldmonth ofRs. Rs.March, 1957 40,152 10,034 1957April, 1957 1,595 39...
Tag this Judgment!Prabhakar Vasudav Gadgil and ors. Etc. Vs. P.Y. Deshpande Special Land ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-1981
Reported in: AIR1983Bom342; 1982MhLJ76
Jahagirdar, J.1. These three revision applications have been referred to this Division Bench by the learned chief Justice on a recommendation made by Shah J. in a judgment of 5th Jan. 1981. shah J. thought it necessary to refer these petitions to a Division Bench because he disagreed with the view taken by another single Judge of this Court in Ramesh shankar Wankhede v. State of Maharashtra, : AIR1975Bom297 . the question involved is one relating to the interpretation of sub-section 93) of S. 18 Land Acquisition Act. This sub-section had been introduced by the Maharashtra legislature by Act 38 of 1964. More particularly the question is whether the Collector exercising his function under S. 18 Land Acquisition Act and passing an order on an application made under S. 18 us a Court to which the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, apply.2. Before we consider the relevant provisions and the authorities cited for throwing light on the question, a few facts must be mentioned. In the land ...
Tag this Judgment!Dattu Murlidhar Jagtap Vs. Babi Bai Dattu Jagtap and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-1981
Reported in: 1982(2)BomCR26
S.P. Kurdukar, J.1. Learned Advocates appearing for the parties to this petition have informed me that they have no objection to this petition being heard at Aurangabad. In view of this consent given by the parties through their Advocates, I proceed with the case.2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner-husband (hereinafter referred to as 'the husband') challenging the concurrent orders passed by the courts below in the proceedings arose under section of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It is alleged by the respondent-wife (hereinafter referred to as 'the wife') that on November 4, 1977, she filed an application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure claiming maintenance from the husband. It is common ground that the marriage between the parties took place in the year 1972. It is alleged by the wife that the husband started ill-treating her as she did not bear a child. It is further stated that the relations between th...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-iii Vs. Public Utilities Inves ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-1981
Reported in: (1982)26CTR(Bom)135; [1983]143ITR257(Bom)
Desai, J.1. The following four questions stand referred to us under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to the deduction of interest on 3% Sterling Promissory Note for the assessment years 1951-52 and 1955-56 to 1967-68 ? (2) Whether, on on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to the deduction of interest on 3% Indian Rupee Promissory Note for the assessment years 1951-52, 1955-56 and 1957-58 ? (3) Whether the interest on 3% Indian Rupee Promissory Note was rightly held to be not deductible for the assessment years 1956-57 and 1958-59 to 1967-68 ? (4) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to deduction of fees paid in connection with representation of the assessee's case before the Income-tax Officer in income-tax proceedings for the assessment years 1958-59, 1960-61, 1961-62, 19...
Tag this Judgment!T.C.G. Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-1981
Reported in: 1989(25)LC414(Bombay); 1983(12)ELT319(Bom)
1. The petitioners are a Company carrying on business of manufacturing and selling of the wire ropes at its manufacturing unit at Lekhraj Davral Industrial Estate, Saki-Vihar Road, Bombay. The petitioners have their registered office at Bibijan Street, Bombay, while their godown is situate at Narayan Dhuru street, Bombay which is about a kilometer away from the Head Office.2. The wire ropes manufactured by the petitioners are liable to payment of excise duty from March 1, 1973 onwards. On December 12, 1974, the Officers of the Central Excise, intercepted a tempo at Sion Junction and on search 16 bundles of wire ropes valued at Rs. 12,000/- were found. The Central Excise Officers suspecting that the goods were removed without payment of excise duty, seized the same. The Officers recorded the statement of the driver of the tempo as well as its owner. Thereafter the petitioners were served with a show cause notice dated May 17, 1975 to show cause why the seized goods should not be confisc...
Tag this Judgment!Kondiba Maruti Khandagale Vs. Shivajirao Vishwanath Ajbe and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-1981
Reported in: 1982(2)BomCR120
V.S. Deshpande, J.1. This is a revision application filed by the original complainant. In this complaint, the petitioner claimed to be a Mahar and as such a member of the Schedule Caste. According to him, he was passing by the road said of Maruti Temple. Accused called him and referred to him as Dhedgya and asked him whether he could be able to become Upa-Sarpancha of the Gram Panchayat. It is alleged that the accused further abused him and gave him kick and first blows and felled him down. The incident is claimed to have taken place at about 8.30 p.m. in village Shiral in Taluka Ashti and the complainant is alleged to have been lodged at the Police Station of Ashti at 11 p.m. The complainant also claimed that before he went to the Police Station, he had contacted the Police Patil of the village and informed him about the incident. The accused was, therefore, chargesheeted for offences under sections 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 7(1)(d) of the Protection ...
Tag this Judgment!S.K. Mahboob S/O Abdul Kadar and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-1981
Reported in: 1982(2)BomCR23
M.P. Kanade, J.1. This revision is directed against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Parbhani, dated April 3, 1980, convicting the petitioners under section 188 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 36(4) of the Legal Practitioners Act, 1879. By an order dated March 20, 1978, passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Parbhani, ten persons including the petitioners were restrained from entering the precincts of the District Court and other subordinate Courts at Parbhani, excepting for the work directly concerning themselves.2. Six Advocates practising at District Court, Parbhani, filed a complaint against five accused persons on June 28, 1979, under section 188 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 36(4) of the Legal Practitioners Act, 1879. It is stated in the complaint that all the five accused persons were practising tourism and causing great nuisance in the legal profession by cheating the clients and litigant villagers...
Tag this Judgment!Dhirajlal Amritlal Mehta Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-1981
Reported in: 1982(10)ELT273(Bom)
1. The petitioner is doing business of selling and buying rough diamonds and polished diamonds on commission basis since the year 1961. The petitioner used to reside in Gandhi Building, 2nd floor, Vile Parle, Bombay, in the year 1966. On June 15, 1966, the Officers of the Enforcement Directorate raided the premises of the petitioner on certain information that the petitioner was dealing in smuggled diamonds. At the time of the raid, the Officers noticed a cupboard under lock and key and that cupboard was duly sealed. The petitioner came back to his residence early next morning and in the presence of the petitioner the seal was opened and a packet containing diamonds was found in the cupboard. The statement of the petitioner was recorded by the Customs Authorities in presence of panchas and the petitioner disclosed that on June 13, 1966 he had purchased diamonds from Arunkumar & Co., merchants dealing in rough diamonds. The petitioner also produced the bill issued by Arunkumar & Co. for...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »