Mumbai Court September 1981 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Shreeniwas Cotton Mills Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-1981
Reported in: 1983LC133D(Bombay); 1981(8)ELT867(Bom)
S.C. Pratap, J.1. Facts and circumstances in these two petitions as also the dispute between the parties in these two petitions are in effect and substance virtually the same as the facts and circumstances in and the dispute which arose in Writ Petition No. 455 of 1980 decided by Kurdukar J. on July 14, 1981. I have already followed the said judgment - indeed, it binds me, there being no good reason to take a different view of the matter - while deciding at group of six other similar writ petitions, viz., (1) Writ Petition No. 434 of 1980, (2) Writ Petition No. 37 of 1979, (3) Writ Petition No. 281 of 1979, (4) Writ Petition No. 416 of 1979, (5) Writ Petition No. 678 of 1979 and (6) Writ Petition No. 108 of 1980.2. However, in the present two petitions, one additional point is raised on behalf of the respondents and on the basis thereof, contention is that the decision of Kurdukar J. will not govern these two cases. Submission is, whereas before Kurdukar J. as also in the aforesaid gro...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Jagannath Dattatraya Mahajan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-1981
Reported in: 1982(2)BomCR98
S.P. Kurdukar, J.1. This criminal appeal is filed by the State of Maharashtra against the order of acquittal dated August 30, 1977, in Special Case No. 1 of 1977 passed by the Special Judge, Beed. The learned trial Judge found the respondent-accused (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') not guilty of any of the offences punishable under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 5(1)(d) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corruption Act').2. Shri Sitaram Tangde, a well-to-do person from Beed, owns substantial properties including a house wherein the complainant Kanhu (P.W. No. 1) and one Pandurang Sirsale reside as tenants in separate blocks. Petty quarrels between the two tenants gave rise to the present prosecution against the accused. Pandurang Sirsale on August 26, 1976 lodged a complaint (Exh. No. 26) at the City Police Station, Beed, complaining about the misconduct on the part of the complainant Kanhu...
Hislop Education Society Vs. Nagpur University
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-1981
Reported in: (1982)84BOMLR67
Bhonsale, J.1. The petitioners who are respectively an education society, local managing committee and the college run by petitioner No. 1 Society, have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the resolutions passed by the respondent No. 2 i.e. the Executive Council, Nagpur University, Nagpur dated May 23, 1977 and March 11, 1978 recommending setting aside of order of dismissal of respondent No. 4 and asking petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 to reinstate respondent No. 4 in the service of the petitioners and also refusing to withdraw the above mentioned recommendation at the instance of petitioner No. 3 i.e. Hislop College, Nagpur.2. Petitioner No. 1 - Hislop Education Society Nagpur, runs Hislop College in Nagpur - an educational institution of some repute. Petitioner No. 2 is the local managing committee of the Hislop College. Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are the Nagpur University, its executive council and the grievance...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-ii Vs. Jayantilal Ramanlal and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-01-1981
Reported in: (1982)31CTR(Bom)326; [1982]137ITR257(Bom)
S.K. Desai, J.1. In this reference the following question of law has been referred to us for our opinion by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Bombay Bench 'D') :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it has been rightly held that a registered firm will not be liable to pay tax on capital gains under section 114 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. After arguments were concluded, Mr. Khatri on behalf of the assesse firm submitted a question to be added or substituted for the present question. After hearing arguments on Mr. Khatri's submission, we are not inclined to allow the question to be reframed. For the purpose of the record, however, we hereby indicate that Mr. Khatri submitted the following as what he called the reframed question :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, a registered firm and its partners will be liable to pay tax on capital gains under section 114 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, separately and not cumulatively ?'3. It is made ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-iii Vs. Phoenix Chemical Works ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-01-1981
Reported in: [1982]138ITR321(Bom); [1982]10TAXMAN191(Bom)
Rege, J.1. In this reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay Bench D, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-III, under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the following two questions haves been referred to us for our opinion :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in holding that payments made by the assessee-company to its directors by way of commission were made only for services rendered by them to the assessee-company ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax, Officer was justified in disallowing payment of commission to the directors of the assessee-company under section 40(c)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. We are concerned in this case with the assessment years 1962-63, 1963-64 and 1964-65, with the relevant accounting years ending on 31st December, 1961, 31st December, 1962, and 31st December, 1963, respectively. The dispute is as regards allowance of expen...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bombay Tyres International Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-01-1981
Reported in: [1983]141ITR710(Bom)
1. The following five question are referred to the High Court for the opinion under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Bombay Bench-D), at the instance of the assessee, Bombay Tyres International Ltd. :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the profit and loss account surplus of Rs. 2,08,42,527 constitutes a reserve the purpose of computation of capital in terms of rule 1 of the Second Schedule to the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963 ? (2) Whether, on the facts in the circumstances of the case, the provision for taxation of Rs. 1,45,90,317 constitutes a reserve for the purpose of computation of capital in terms of rule 1 of the Second Schedule to the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963 ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the provision for gratuity of Rs. 20,51,526 constitutes a reserve for the purpose of computation of capital in terms of rule 1 of the Second Schedule to the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963 ? (4)...
i.B.M. World Trade Corporation Vs. N.D. Bhatt, Inspecting Assistant Co ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-01-1981
Reported in: (1982)27CTR(Bom)228; [1982]138ITR742(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the laws of the United States of America and carries on in India the business of dealing in and manufacturing data processing machines. The petitioner has its headquarters at New York and is a subsidiary of International Business Machines Corporation which carries on business wholly outside the United States. Apart from its global headquarters in New York, the petitioner has established a number of area headquarters, each of which exercises control over those branches which are situated within the geographical jurisdiction. The normal chain of reporting is from branch to area headquarters and then to New York headquarters. The expenses incurred by the New York headquarters include the expenditure incurred by way of interest on monies borrowed for the benefit of its various branches. In the case of any branch, the total of the headquarters expenses incurred by the New York headquarters and the administrative expenses incurred b...
Bhausaheb Tavnappa Mahajan and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-01-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Bom284; (1981)83BOMLR586; 1982MhLJ229
1. The appellants are members of an unregistered association known as the Kolhapur Grain merchants Association, and had filed the suit, out of which this second Appeal arises in a representative capacity under R.8 of O.1 of the civil P.C. 1908. The said suit was tried by the joint civil judge, senior Division, Kolhapur. In the suit the Appellants challenged certain notifications issued under the maharashtra Agricultural produce marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963. (Maharashtra Act No XX of 1964). The Appellants' challenge succeeded, and the trial court declared the said notifications to be null and void, and restrained the Respondents from enforcing the said notifications. The trial court also directed the parties to bear their own costs of the suit. Though he Appellants' challenge on certain grounds succeeded, their challenge on the ground that these notifications infringed the provisions of Arts. 14 and 19(1)(1)(g) of the constitution of India was negatived. Against the said judgment an...
Shamrao Abaji Jadhav Vs. Chaturbai Sidheshwar Javeri
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-01-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Bom132; 1982(1)BomCR60; (1982)84BOMLR9; 1982MhLJ347
ORDER1. This petition arises out of original proceedings instituted by the respondent plaintiff, inter alia, for possession of the suit premises under the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act.2. The instant suit for possession was filed to Sept., 1973 on three grounds viz., (a) default in payment of rent, (b) bonafide and reasonable requirements of the suit premises for personal use and occupation and (c) nuisance and annoyance. The trial Court held against the plaintiff on all the said three grounds and dismissed the suit. In plaintiff's appeal against the said dismissal, the appellate court confirmed the finding trial court on the plaintiff's claim for possession on the ground of bonafide and reasonable requirement as also on the ground of nuisance and annoyance. On the ground of default in the payment of rent, the appellate court reversed the finding of the trial court and came to the conclusion that the defendant was liable to be evicted from the suit premises under the provisions of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›