Mumbai Court January 1982 Judgments
Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Bombay City-ii Vs. Master Jehangir H.C. Je ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1982
Reported in: (1982)28CTR(Bom)195; [1982]137ITR48(Bom); [1982]10TAXMAN105(Bom)
Kania, J.1.This is reference under s. 27(1) of the W.T. Act, 1957 (referred to hereinafter as 'the said Act'). The question referred to us for our determination in this reference are as follows :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the interest which the assessee had under the trust deed dated the 29th March, 1957, was merely a contingent interest ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the inclusion of the entire value of the corpus of the trust fund in the net wealth of the assessee was justified ?'2. It is common ground that question No. 1 does not correctly being out the controversy between the parties. With the consent of the counsel appearing on both the sides, the said question is, therefore, reformed as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the interest which the assessee had in the corpus of the trust fund und...
Tag this Judgment!Abdur Rahim Undre Vs. Padma Adbur Rahim Undre
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Bom341; 2(1982)DMC204
Dharmadhikari, J.1. The appellant-plaintiff Dr. Abdur Rahim under married Smt. Padma, respondent-defendant in the United Kingdom on 5th May 1966. At the time of marriage plaintiff Abdur Rahim was a Mohainmedan where as respondent Padma was a Hindu. Both of them were Indian citizens. Their domicile was India. Both of then held Indian passports. On 6th of May 1965 the plaintiff and the defendant went to the office of Registrar of Marriages at Weymouth. Before that a necessary notice of intention to marry was already given. There after on 6th May 1966 the parties went through the marriage ceremony before the Registrar and the said marriage was duly registered. The marriage certificate relating to this marriage duly authenticated and certified copy is also on record. From this certificate it appears that the marriage Act, 1949. After this marriage birth of Shabnam took place on 18th of May 1957. Of Shama on 19-11-68. Thereafter on 4th Apr., 1969 the plaintiff and the defendant with their c...
Tag this Judgment!Gajanan Vasant Vijjayankar and anr. Vs. Valubai Bapu Govindhi and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Bom325; 1982MhLJ933
Mandon, J. 1. This petition under Article 227 of the constitution of India challenges an order made by the maharashtra Revenue Tribunal by which the tribunal held that the application filed by the petitioners and Respondents numbers 2 and 3 under section (84?) (Bombay Act No. LXVII of 1948) (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as 'the said Act'), was not maintainable.2. The petitioners and Respondents Nos.2 and 3 are owners of half portion of a plot of land bearing Revision survey Nos. 91 and 92 situate in Kagal Taluka in the District of Kolhapur. It will be convenient to refer hereinafter to the petitioners and Respondents numbers 2 and 3 as 'the landlords' In 1953 the landlord leased the said plot of land to one shankar Krishna Bondre whose heirs and legal representatives are Respondents Nos.5 (a), 5 (c) and 5 (d) . It is not disputed that the said lease was for the purpose of cultivation of sugar cane. By a writing dated october 24, 1969, the said Bondre created a sub-le...
Tag this Judgment!Abdula Samad Makhadum Baksh Sheikh and Etc. Vs. Sudha Anant Parakhe
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Bom585; 1982MhLJ647
ORDER1. The four petitions raise common question of law and fact. The respondent is the landlord and owner of Houses Nos. 136 and 137 situated in the Railway Line area at solapur. The petitioners are tenants of the said premises alon with others. The two houses which adjoin have in all amongst them seven tenants and seven tenements each occupied by a tenant.2. The respondent purchased HousesNo.136 in a court sale on 23rd April 1969. Later House No.137 was purchased under a deed in Feb., 1971. After thus purchasing the two houses, the respondent served upon the petitioners a notice to quite. That was on 3rd sept., 1971. That notice claimed possession on several grounds. It appears that in the meantime on 6th sept., 1976 the municipal corporation at solapur has served a notice under section 264 of the corporations Act requiring the landlord-respondent to demolish the southern wall as it had become dangerous and was liable to fall. The respondent claimed possession on the ground that she ...
Tag this Judgment!Bengal Water Proof Works (1940) Ltd. Vs. Ardeshir Jehangir Works
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1982
Reported in: 1983(2)BomCR136
C.S. Dhrmadhikari, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the original defendants against the judgement and decree passed by the Bombay City Civil Court in S.C. Suit No. 3910 of 1965 dated 5-6th of December, 1980.2. The present suit was filed by the original plaintiff for a declaration that the leave and licence agreement dated 1st of December, 1960 and further extended by mutual consent upto 31st August, 1963 between the parties stands validly terminated by the plaintiff, and therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the premises, viz. a portion of the suit premises admeasuring 600 sq. feet on the ground floor of Kamadia House, 142 Mody Street, Fort, Bombay. According to the plaintiff he was sub-tenant of one Mrs. Dhunbai in the year 1960 i.e. on the date when the leave and licence agreement was executed between the plaintiff and the defendants. The said licence was granted for storing goods only and it was specifically agreed between the parties that no tenancy right was created...
Tag this Judgment!N.M. Shah Vs. Second Wealth-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-1982
Reported in: (1982)1ITD244(Mum.)
1. The appeal of the assesses and interveuers involves question of far-reaching importance vitally affecting particularly individual assessees engaged in profession who maintain their accounts on what is called "the cash system". The question has been referred to the Special Bench in view of conflict of views by different Benches of the Tribunal and also its considerable general importance to persons engaged in profession, either individually or in partnership with others. We have, therefore, had the benefit of hearing not only the counsel appearing for the particular assessee, but also hearing the counsels for interveners, representatives including professional bodies and associations like the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India and the Bombay Chartered Accountants' Society, who sought permission, and were allowed to intervene. Counsel for another assessee, Y. P. Trivedi in WT Appeal No. 197 (Bom.) of 1980, on somewhat different facts, was also heard as involving some identic...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Kumar Tuli Vs. Eighth Wealth-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-1982
Reported in: (1982)1ITD213(Mum.)
1. The main dispute arising in the appeal of the assessee also arises in the case of the interveners in their separate appeals on more or less identical facts and circumstances. The separate appeals of the inferveners will be disposed of by regular Benches in conformity with the decision of the Special Bench on this point. As the facts are identical, we shall take up the facts in the assessee's case for the relevant year.2. The assessee is a professional film artiste and remuneration was due to him from several film producers and, under almost identical contracts with them, the remuneration was stipulated to be payable in several annual instalments to start from specified years. The amounts involved in this appeal, in respect of which the inclusion is made in the assessment, fell all along after the valuation date, which is 31-3-1975, material for the year 1975-76. In respect of the remuneration stipulated to be paid under the agreements, the producers concerned undertook to give the ...
Tag this Judgment!Shrikant Hari Joshi Vs. Kesharmal Narayandas Bhandari and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-1982
Reported in: 1982(2)BomCR547
M.L. Pendse, J.1. This application has been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the Criminal Case No. 95 of 1980 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dindori and the process issued by the trial Magistrate under sections 167 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The facts would unfurl how respondent No. 1 is abusing the process of the Court by institution of criminal proceedings against the petitioner. The petitioner is a Food Inspector working in the office of the Assistant Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration, Nasik. The petitioner was appointed under section 9 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and the duties includes inspecting the shops, hotels and to draw samples when it is suspected that the food articles are adulterated.3. On July 20, 1979 at about 12.30 in the afternoon, the petitioner visited the shop of respondent No. 1 situated at Dindori in Nasik District w...
Tag this Judgment!Vrindavan (Borivali) Co-operative Housing Society Limited Vs. Karmarka ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-1982
Reported in: 1983(2)BomCR267; 1982MhLJ607
Deshpande, J.1. This is an appeal against an order returning the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court on the ground that the suit is valued beyond the jurisdiction of the Court. The order returning the plaint was passed on March 16, 1978.2. The plaintiff-appellant has filed this appeal against the aforesaid order. This appeal was heard by my learned brother but hearing could not be completed and during the hearing my learned brother orally expressed that the amendment of plaint would be necessary to decide the controversy in the suit and thereafter a draft plaint was allowed to be submitted which draft plaint in record. It is on the basis of this amendment plaint that I propose to decide this appeal.3. The appellant is a registered co-operative society by name Vrindavan (Borivali) Co-operative Housing Society Limited, which was formed on March 4, 1978. Defendant No. 1 are M/s. Karmarkar Brothers, a firm carrying on business at Odhavaji Wadi, Kasturba 1st Cross R...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. N.M. Bhandari
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-1982
Reported in: (1982)1ITD280(Mum.)
1. This appeal has been filed by the department against the order dated 16-10-1980 of the Commissioner (Appeals).2. The assessee is an individual deriving income from salaries. The assessment year involved in this appeal is 1978-79. The assessee was deriving salary income from his employer, West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. The previous year adopted by the assessee in respect of that salary income was the financial year up to and including the assessment year 1977-78. On 31-8-1977, the assessee left his former employer and joined the services of Tungabhadra Industries with effect from 1-9-1977. The case of the assessee was that he had the option to choose a separate previous year for each source of his income and that the salary from the West Coast Papers Mills Ltd. represented a different source from the salary derived by him from the Tungabhadra Industries. He returned the income from his former employer received for the period from 1-4-1977 to 31-8-1977 as the income earned during the pr...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »