Mumbai Court September 1981 Judgments
Vilas Vasantrao Mahajan Vs. the Central Bank of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1981
Reported in: (1982)84BOMLR171; 1982MhLJ139
V.S. Deshpande, C.J.1. This group of appeal raises a short question whether appeals against decree or orders passed after January 1, 1978 lie to the High Court or District Court. The valuation of the claim in the suit giving rise to the appeals exceeds Rs, 10,000 but is less than Rs. 25,000. The Maharashtra Civil Courts (Enhancement of Pecuniary Jurisdictions and Amendment) Act, 1977 (No. XLVI of 1977), hereinafter referred to as the Amendment Act, amending the Bombay Civil Courts Act, 1869 (No. XIV of 1869) hereinafter referred to as the Act, was enforced on January, 1, 1978. But for this amendment, appeals against decrees involving such valuation in excess of Rs. 10,000 could have been entertained by the High Court alone. The amended Section 26 of the Act dealing with appeals to the High Court substituted the figure of Rs. 25,000 in place of Rs. 10,000. Resultantly decrees or orders arising out of suits in which amounts or valuation of the subject matter exceed Rs. 25,000 alone could...
Tag this Judgment!Associated Cement Companies Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bomba ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1981
Reported in: (1982)27CTR(Bom)210; [1983]141ITR318(Bom)
Rege, J.1. This is a reference under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay Bench 'D', Bombay, referring to us for our opinion the following questions :'(1) Whether the ITO in India was competent to compute the assessee's income liable to tax in Pakistan and to restrict the rebate in respect of such income only ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee-company was entitled to interest on Rs. 23,08,215 u/s. 214(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the period April 1, 1964, to October 17, 1967, and to interest thereon u/s. 214(2) for the period October 18, 1967, to December 15, 1967 ?'2. The first question has been referred to us at the instance of the assessee while the second question was at the instance of the Revenue.3. We are concerned in this case with the assessment years 1963-64 and 1964-65. The assessee, which is a cement manufacturing company, had, during the relevant assessment years, two of its 16 ceme...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-iii Vs. Swadeshi Match Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1981
Reported in: (1982)26CTR(Bom)240; [1983]139ITR833(Bom); [1982]8TAXMAN202(Bom)
Desai, J.1. The question referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Bombay Bench 'C') is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, 330 equity shares of Western India Match Co. Ltd. registered in the names of the nominees of the assessee-company could be said to have been 'held' by the assessee-company within the meaning of that expression occurring in Explanation II, of Para. D of Part II of the First Schedule to the Finance (No. 2) Act 196 2 ?'2. The assessee is a non-resident company. We are concerned in this reference with the assessment year 1963-64. In that year, the assessee had a total income of Rs. 35,46,510, which income included a sum of Rs. 26,06,484 which the assessee had received as dividend from two Indian companies, namely, the Western India Match Co. Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'WIMCO') and the Assam Match Co. Ltd. It was claimed that these two companies were subsidiaries of the assessee-company. The dividend received from ...
Tag this Judgment!Tata Sons Limited Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1981
Reported in: 1982(10)ELT53(Bom)
1. The petitioners are a Company registered under the Companies Act and run a Division known as Tata Consultancy Services which acts as Management and Computer Science Consultants. The petitioners were granted an Import Licence dated July 16, 1974 by the Controller of Imports and Exports for the import of one B. 1728 Computer System and spares thereof of the approximate C.I.F. value of Rs. 30,34,000/-. The goods described were shown in the said licence as falling under Item No. 65 of Part V of the Import Trade Control Schedule which provided for 'Article of machinery not otherwise specified'.2. In terms of the said Import Licence, the petitioners imported one new fourth generations Burroughs Computer Machine complete with its allied spares and accessories. The Computer Machine is also known as Data Processing Machine. As the computer system machine consisted of a variable number of separately housed units, the same was imported by Air and came by four consignments. The petitioners file...
Tag this Judgment!ismail Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1981
Reported in: (1982)84BOMLR20; 1982CriLJ582; 1982MhLJ359
Dharmadhikari, J.1. The detenu Mohomed Umar alias Umar Pathan s/o. Jalaluddin alias Matiuzamkhan Pathan is detained vide order dated 3rd July, 1981 issued by the Commissioner of Police under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords Bootleggers and Drug-offenders Ordinance (Maharashtra Ordinance No. III of 1981) (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance). With the order of detention the grounds of detention were also supplied. The said order of detention is challenged, in this Criminal Application.2. It is contended by the petitioner that prior to the issuance of the present order under the Ordinance, on 22nd February, 1981, the detenu was detained by the same authority i.e., the Commissioner of police Greater Bombay under a detention order issued under S. 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (Act 65 of 1980) hereinafter referred to as an Act practically on identical grounds. Against the said order issued under the Act, the petitioner had filed habeas corpus pe...
Tag this Judgment!Manohar P. Kharkhar and Another Vs. Raghuraj and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1981
Reported in: (1981)IILLJ459Bom
Deshpande, C.J.1. This petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, by the two petitioners, seeks to get the order of termination of their services dated 29th April, 1981 under Regulation 48 of Air India Employees' Service Regulations (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Regulations') quashed. Petitioner No. 1 was the Director of Engineering and the head of the Engineering Department while petitioner No. 2 was Deputy Director of Engineering (Maintenance) and the head of the Maintenance Division in the service of respondent No. 2, Air India Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') on the date of the impugned orders. Petitioner No. 1 was promoted to the said post on 5th February, 1980 and was confirmed therein on 1st March, 1981. On the date of the impugned orders, petitioner No. 1 was aged 55 years while petitioner No. 2 57 years, their dates of birth being 7th November, 1925 and 24th April, 1924 respectively.2. The petitioners were responsible for the mainte...
Tag this Judgment!Premier Automobiles Ltd. Vs. Engineering Mazdoor Sabha and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1981
Reported in: (1982)IILLJ73Bom
1. This petition is directed at an order passed by the Industrial Court at Bombay on two complaints made under S. 28(1) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the decision of this petition turns on the construction of an agreement dated 31st December, 1966 entered into between a trade union by name Engineering Mazdoor Sabha and the petitioner, the Premier Automobiles Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the employer').2. The agreement of 31st December, 1966 provides for a revision of incentive benefits payable to workmen in the employment of the employer. One of the various departments in the factory of the employer is known as Motor Production Department. In 1964, there was a settlement which resulted in a production incentive scheme and to that settlement, the employer and the Engineering Mazdoor Sabha were parties. It was this settlement which was varied by the settlement of 31st Dece...
Tag this Judgment!Kasabai Wd/O Kashinathappa Lingayatwani and ors. Vs. Metilal Ramratan ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1981
Reported in: 1982(2)BomCR195
V.A. Mohta, J.1. In this appeal by original defendants against whom a money decree for Rs. 8000/- has been passed, an interesting question as to the construction of section 10(2) (as it stood before Maharashtra Act No. 76 of 1975) of the Bombay Money-Lenders Act, 1946 ('The Act of 1946' for short) has been raised on behalf of the appellants by their learned Counsel Shri Golwalkar.2. Before dealing with the point it will by necessary to state few undisputed positions against backdrop of which the point arises. The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants for specific performance of contract in respect of field property or in the alternative for recovery of Rs. 14,000/-. The defendants raised many points, inter alia, contending that no real agreement of sale had taken place and that the so called agreement of sale, as a matter of fact, was an outcome of money-leading transaction under which the plaintiffs advanced to the defendant a sum of Rs. 4,000/- with agreement to receive back...
Tag this Judgment!Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-ii Vs. Lalit Bros
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-1981
Reported in: [1983]141ITR392(Bom); [1982]8TAXMAN72(Bom)
Rege, J.1. In this reference under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay Bench 'D', both at the instance of the Revenue and the assessee, the following question has been referred to us for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the penalty leviable on the assessee for the assessment year 1962-63 under clause (i) of section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was properly levied and that the same should be on the net amount of tax payable by the assessee after deducting from the gross advance tax as well as provisional assessment tax, if any, paid by the assessee in relation to the said assessment year ?'2. The Revenue in its reference application had asked the Tribunal to refer to this court for its opinion two questions of which the Tribunal while refusing to refer the first question had agreed to refer the second question for this court's question. The assesse...
Tag this Judgment!Controller of Estate Duty, Karnataka Vs. Xec Cadar Xec Usman
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-1981
Reported in: (1982)26CTR(Bom)84; [1983]140ITR42(Bom)
Desai, J.1. In this reference the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Poona Bench, Poona, has referred the following question for our consideration:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in involving section 47 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, and applying it to the facts of the present case ?'2. The reference is at the instance of the Controller of Estate Duty, Karnataka, Bangalore.3. In order to appreciate the points involved in the question refer to us a few facts may be set out. We are concerned with the estate of one Marzook J.Boodai. He was the son of one Jassein, and the son, Marzook, were citizens, of Kuwait, Jassein was carrying on a small business in Kuwait. Marzook came to the erstwhile Portuguese territory of Goa in 1945 when he was hardly 18 or 19 year of age. At that time he had no capital of his own. The regulation of the erstwhile Portuguese territory of required a foreigner to take a Goan as a partner or associate a Goan with his...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »