Mumbai Court August 1981 Judgments
Controller of Estate Duty, Bombay City-i Vs. Fakirchand Fatehchand Sac ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-1981
Reported in: (1981)25CTR(Bom)376; [1982]134ITR268(Bom)
Madon, J.1. The above three cases have been stated by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under s. 64 of the E.D. Act, 1953, at the instance of the Controller of Estate Duty. Estate Duty, References Nos. 2 of 1973 and 2 of 1974 being under sub-s. (1) of that section and Estate Duty Reference No. 9 of 1979 being under sub-s. (3) of that section. In Estate Duty Reference Nos. 2 of 1973 and 9 of 1979 one question each has been submitted to this court for its determination, while in Estate Duty Reference No. 2 of 1974 four questions have been submitted. The questions referred to this court in Estate Duty References Nos. 2 of 1973 and 9 of 1979 and the first question in Estate Duty Reference No. 2 of 1974 involve the determination by the court of the same point in its different facets. Accordingly, we have heard these three references together and are disposing of them by a common judgment.2. It will be convenient to set out, first, the facts which have given rise to each of these three refer...
Tag this Judgment!Controller of Estate Duty, Bombay City-ii Vs. Mrs. Jayalaxmi Chimanlal ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-1981
Reported in: (1982)26CTR(Bom)89; [1982]134ITR314(Bom)
Madon, J.1. The facts which have given rise to this reference under s. 64(1) of the E.D. Act, 1953, made at the instance of the Controller of Estate Duty are that the deceased Chimanlal Kapurchand Dalal was a partner in the in the firm of M/s. Chunilal & Co. At the date of death of the deceased, there were five partners in the said firm including the deceased, the deceased's share being 33-1/3rd per cent.2. The question which has been referred to us is as follows:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, one-third value of the goodwill of the firm of M/s. P. Chunilal & Co., is chargeable to duty in the hands of the accountable person under the Estate Duty Act, 1953 ?'3. It is not clear from the record, what the department has done with respect to the valuation of the deceased's share in the said firm for the purpose of including it in its dutiable estate. In Estate Duty Reference No. 2 of 1973, along with estate Duty Reference Nos. 2 of 1974 and 9 of 1979 - CED v. Fak...
Tag this Judgment!State of Maharashtra Vs. Anil Baloba Donbe and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-1981
Reported in: 1983CriLJ1308
Dharmadhikari, J.1. We are really surprised by these repeated applications being filed by the Police Officer for cancellation of bail granted to the accused. On earlier two occasions applications for cancellation of bail were filed by the State and the said applications were rejected by the orders dated 23rd June, 1980 as well as 5th Jan., 1981. In the present application it is contended that this Court rejected the said applications for cancellation of bail without passing speaking order. It is really surprising that such a complaint should have been made by the State Government. After hearing both the parties as this Court did not find any substance in the allegations made for cancellation of bail the said applications came to be rejected. The last of such applications came to be rejected on 5th Jan., 1981 and therefore, apparently this Court had considered all the allegations made and existing till that date. In the present application no allegation is made about the involvement of ...
Tag this Judgment!Spun Pipe and Construction Company of India Limited Vs. Sewaram Popatm ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-1981
Reported in: 1982(2)BomCR291
R.S. Bhonsale, J.1. The petitioner by this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the impugned order passed by Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 allowing the appeal filed by the respondent employee Sewaram Popatmal Asanani and substituting an amount of Rs. 1776/- in place of an amount of Rs. 226/- as amount of gratuity due and payable to the respondent employee. The facts of this petition which lie in a narrow compass can be stated briefly as follows :--2. The respondent employee has been employed with the petitioner company in the capacity of a Mistry and had joined the services on 19th May, 1954. After the completion of 20 years of continuous service, he willingly resigned on January 8, 1974. It is not disputed before us that the last drawn wages of the respondent employee were Rs. 310.18 per month. Respondent employee made an application to the petitioner company on 17-1-1974 for payment of gratuity amount only for the period of ...
Tag this Judgment!Century Enka Limited and Others Vs. Union of India and Two Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-1981
Reported in: 1982(10)ELT64(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging the legality of the show cause notice dated March 15, 1979 issued by the Superintendent, Central Excise, Range Kirkee, calling upon the petitioners to show cause as to why an amount of Rs. 40,66,158.29 should not be recovered from them as countervailing duty.2. The facts which led to the issuance of this show cause notice, a copy of which is annexed as Ex. 'I' to the petition, are as follows : The Petitioner No. 1 is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act and has its registered office at Calcutta, while the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are the President and Secretary respectively of the Company. The Company manufactures at its factory at Bhosari, Pune, nylon/6 Yarn and Polyester yarn. For the purpose of manufacture of nylon yarn, the petitioners imported between May 23, 1978 and September 1978 polyamide chips of spinning grade. The dispute involved in this petition is...
Tag this Judgment!Evans Fraser and Co. Ltd. (In Liquidation) Vs. Commissioner of Income- ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-1981
Reported in: (1981)25CTR(Bom)128; [1982]137ITR493(Bom); [1982]8TAXMAN22(Bom)
Madon, J.1. These two cases have been stated under s. 66(1) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the assessees, Evans Fraser and Co. Ltd. (in liquidation), at different stages of the proceedings relating to the assessment of the assessees' income for the assessment year 1948-49 in respect of the accounting period June 1, 1946, to May 31, 1947. We have heard both these references together and have thought it convenient to dispose of them by a common judgment. In Income-tax Reference No. 146 of 1970 only one question has referred to this court of his determination, while in Income-tax Reference No. 66 of 1979 two questions have been so referred. The question referred to this court in Income-tax Reference No. 146 of 1970 is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the transfer of the business along with it assets and liabilities by the assessee company to Evans Fraser and Company (India) Ltd. had resulted in any capital...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Kantappa Shetty Vs. M.S. Kasbekar and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1981
Reported in: 1982CriLJ1303
Rege, J.1. This is a petition for Habeas Corpus under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner detained under a detention order dt. 5th July 1981 made under an Ordinance called the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers and Drug Offenders Ordinance, 1981 (Mah. Ord. III of 1981) (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as the said Ordinance) challenging the said detention order on various grounds.2. The order of detention in English language was served on the detenu on 6th July 1981. The affidavit in reply shows that the same was explained to the detenu in Hindi. The grounds of detention dt. 6th July 1981 along with the material on which they were based together with the copies of the translations thereof in Kannada were served on the petitioner on 10th July 1981 at the Nasik Central Prison where he was detained.3. Although in this petition, challenge to the order of detention was on several grounds, only one of such grounds was s...
Tag this Judgment!P. Vs. P. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1981
Reported in: AIR1983Bom8; 1982(1)BomCR236
1. This appeal arises out of the matrimonial petition filed by the appellant (original petitioner) in the Bombay City Civil Court at Bombay against his wife, the 1st respondent (original respondent) for divorce on the ground of adultery alleged to have been committed by her with the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 (original co-respondents Nos. 1 and 2) and in the alternative on the ground of cruelty. The appellant husband had also earlier filed an infructuous petition for divorce. The 1st respondent wife however, did not emerge unscathed though she succeeded in the earlier petition.2. The petitioner had filed the earlier petition being M. J. Petition No. 1973 of 1972 on the same grounds as the present petition. The co-respondent therein was one R. and not the present respondents Nos. 2 and 3. He lost the said petition in the trial Court. He filed an appeal to this Court being First Appeal No. 599 of 1979, which was dismissed by me on 5/6th Aug., 1981 : (reported in : AIR1982Bom498 ). He lost ...
Tag this Judgment!Rahimtulla Abdul Rahiman Nakib Vs. Chandrakant Anant Moog and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Bom282
ORDER1. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, a question of law has been raised, but I am relieved of entering into a detailed discussion of the same because that has been already. Decided by authorities which are binding upon me. The petitioner is the tenant of a room forming part of a building bearing C. T. S. No. 2167 situate at Kolhapur and the respondents father was the original owner of the said house. It is an admitted position that the respondents' father has died and the respondents are some _____________________________________________DZ/DZ/B633/82/HR/RSK of the legal representatives of the original owner. If has been brought on record that apart from the five respondents, their father left behind him this widow and three daughters. The foundation of the arguments advanced in the two Courts below and repeated before me is this fact that it is not the five respondents alone who are the owners of the suit premises, but their mother and the three states are als...
Tag this Judgment!A Vs. B
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-1981
Reported in: 1982(1)BomCR236a
A.N. Mody, J.1.This appeal arises out of the matrimonial petition filed by the appellant (original petitioner) in the Bombay City Civil Court at Bombay against his wife, the 1st respondent (original respondent) for divorce on the grounds of adultery alleged to have been committed by her with the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 (original co-respondents Nos. 1 and 2) and in the alternative on the ground of cruelty. The appellant husband had also earlier filed an infructuous petition for divorce. The 1st respondent wife however did not emerge unscathed though she succeeded in the earlier petition.2. The petitioner had filed the earlier petition being M. J. Petition No. 1973 of 1972 on the same grounds as the present petition. The co-respondent therein was one Ram Ahuja and not the present respondents Nos. 2 and 3. He lost the said petition in the trial Court. He filed an appeal to this Court being First Appeal No. 599 of 1979, which was dismissed by me on 5/6th August, 1981. He lost the said app...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »