Mumbai Court August 1981 Judgments
Sarana Tukaram Dendo Vs. Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-1981
Reported in: 1982(1)BomCR28; [1981(43)FLR223]
S.C. Pratap, J.1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, questions the legality and validity of the order dated 30th October, 1980 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Sholapur, in Applications I.D.A. (ICS.) Nos. 1327 to 1530 of 1977 and Nos. 1561 to 1652 of 1977, being applications under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.2. The applicants in the aforesaid applications were all industrial workers employed under respondent No. 1, Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., a co-operative society at Killari, taluka Ausa, district Usmanabad. It is a society engaged inter alia, in the manufacture and sale of sugar. The Government of India appointed a Wage Board in order to examine the conditions of employment in the Sugar Industry all over the Country and to make recommendations in respect thereof. The said Board was referred to as the Second Central Wage Board for Sugar Industry. This Board made its report recommending improved wage rates and dearn...
Tag this Judgment!Patel Bhogilal Hargovindas Vs. Third Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-1981
Reported in: (1982)1ITD869(Mum.)
1. These two appeals filed by the same assessee are heard together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.2. The assessee is a charitable trust. In course of the assessment proceedings for the year 1973-74 (previous year ended 31-12-1972), the ITO found that the assessee had invested funds in a firm, styled Das & Co., without any security, and that the said firm came within the list of persons enumerated in Section 13(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and so the assessee was hit by Section 13(2). He also found that the assessee had invested in the shares of a company, styled Laxmi Starcy Ltd., to an extent which exceeded 5 per cent of the capital of the said company and that the said company was one to which Section 13(2)(h) read with Explanation 3 applied. Hence, he held that the assessee was also hit by Section 13(2)(h) and not saved even by Section 13(4).Hence, he denied the exemption under Section 11 and subjected the entire income of the assessee to ta...
Tag this Judgment!Nalinikant D. Dalal Vs. Twelfth Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-1981
Reported in: (1982)1ITD861(Mum.)
1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 2-8-1980 of the Commissioner (Appeals) relating to the assessment year 1977-78. The assessee before us has been assessed in the status of an individual. In the assessment made by the ITO, he included a sum of Rs. 51,822 in the total income of the assessee. This sum of Rs. 51,882 represented remuneration received by the assessee as managing director from Khatau Junker Limited. The case of the assessee before the ITO was that the remuneration received by the assessee as managing director did not accrue to him in his individual capacity but it represented the income of the HUF of which he was the karta. The ITO did not agree with the contention of the assessee and held that the remuneration received by the assessee as managing director actually represented the income of the assessee in his individual capacity. He completed the assessment accordingly. The ITO gave five reasons enumerated in his order in support of his c...
Tag this Judgment!P. Vs. P. and R.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Bom498
1. The appellant (original petitioner) is the husband of the 1st respondent (original respondent) she is alleged to have committed adultery with the 2nd respondent (original co-respondent). The petition was dismissed, hence, this appeal.2. The petitioner and the 1st respondent were married on 14-2-1943 according to Hindu Vedic rites, both being Hindus. They have four issues: three sons and one daughter. The First son is 27 years old, the daughter is 25 years old and the other two sons are respectively 17 and 15 years old, The allegations in the petition, which are not only vague but confusing, are, inter alia, that since about few years prior to the petition, the respondent had been cold and indifferent towards the petitioner; that her conduct aroused suspicion of the petitioner about the fidelity of the respondent. On or about 1969 the petitioner arranged un-obstructive watch on the movements of the respondent through investigative agencies. It is alleged that the respondent was seen ...
Tag this Judgment!Patesinghrao Anandrao Naik Vs. R.V. Deshmukh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-1981
Reported in: (1981)83BOMLR539; 1981MhLJ936
Dharmadhikari, J.1. This writ petition is filed by the elected members of the board of directors of the Vishwas Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Yeshwant Nagar, Chikmali Taluka Shirala, District Sanigli, challenging the orders passed by the Joint Director (Sugar) and Joint Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, Maharashtra State, under Section 78 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), removing the board of directors and consequential appointment of one Shri Desai as an administrator.2. The petitioners were elected as members of the board of directors in December 1978 and their tenure of office is for 5 years. According to the petitioners they belong to a group that owed its allegiance to congress (U). Their group has been in control of the karkhana since 1973. In the year 1978 when they were re-elected P.D.F. Government was in power in the State of Maharahtra. In January 1980 fresh elections were held to the State Legislature and congress (I)...
Tag this Judgment!Radhabai Bapurao Shelar and ors. Vs. Trimbak Madhavrao Shirole and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-1981
Reported in: AIR1983Bom303; (1981)83BOMLR612
Pendse, J.1. This petition field under Article 227 of the Constitution of India raises an interesting question as to whether successor-in-title of lessor can institute proceedings under Section 13(1)(a) and (b), of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against lessee for the breaches committed prior to the date of accrual of interest. The petition has been referred to the Division Bench by Shri Justice Desai by reasoned order dt. July 22, 1980 as it was felt that the decision of the single Judge in the case of Shantinath S. Ghongade v. Rajmal Uttamchand Gugale reported in : AIR1979Bom269 requires reconsideration. It was felt that the propositions enunciated in that case were framed in language much wider than was necessary by the facts of the case.2-3. To appreciate the question involved in the petition, it is necessary to set out the relevant facts. The property in dispute consists of five rooms in addition to a bath-r...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›