Mumbai Court January 1982 Judgments
Ananda Maruti Jadhav and ors. Vs. Hansabai Bandu Ghunake
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-1982
Reported in: 1983(1)BomCR21
R.A. Jahagirdar, J.1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution arises out of proceedings instituted by the respondent under section 33-B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, hereinafter referred to as the 'Bombay Tenancy Act.' The respondent had earlier applied for a certificate under section 88-C of the Bombay Tenancy Act and the certificate was directed to be issued on 31st of July, 1965. Thereafter she filed an application under section 33-B of the Bombay Tenancy Act on 10th of March, 1966. That application was treated as Tenancy Case No. 30 of 1966. Before the proceedings pursuant to this application could be commenced, the tenants who were four in number of the suit land challenged the order granting the certificate under section 88-C of the Bombay Tenancy Act. That challenge failed sometime in the year 1976 whereafter proceedings under section 33-B in Tenancy Case No. 30 of 1966 were taken up. Before this happened, one of the four tenants, Maruti Govinda h...
Tag this Judgment!Bansilal Shankar Gosavi Vs. Popatlal Dhondiram Katare
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-1982
Reported in: 1982(1)BomCR741
R.A. Jahagirdar, J.1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution arises out of proceedings instituted by the respondent-plaintiff for possession of the premises tenanted by the petitioner on several grounds. The premises which are in the possession of the petitioner as a tenant consists of one room and a verandah and will hereinafter be referred to as 'the suit premises'. They form part of the house bearing Municipal No. 652 at Kamala in Kamala Taluka of Solapur District. They were leased out to the petitioner on 17th August, 1964 on a monthly rent of Rs. 7.88. Subsequently, that is on or about 1st September, 1967, electric connection was provided to the suit premises. It has been found by the two courts below that it was agreed between the parties that the petitioner would pay Rs. 2 per month for the provision of this electric connection. It was the defendant's case that the petitioner was also liable to pay Rs. 3 per month as water charges.2. The respondent served a notice u...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwani Enterprises Vs. Tarachand Tharoomal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-1982
Reported in: 1983(1)BomCR345
S.J. Deshpande, J.1. This revision arise out an order passed by the learned Judge of the Small Causes Court at Bombay in Summary Suit No. 2115/2510 of 1978 pending in his Court on September 14, 1981 by which he dismissed the application of the original defendant to refer the issue to the officer under the Maharashtra Debt Relief Act. The facts giving rise to this revisions, are, the plaintiff respondent filed a summary suit on the basis of a Hundi executed by the defendant. This suit was filed under Order 37 of the Civil Procedure Code. The defendant filed his written statement to which I will refer later. The suit procedure for trial and it appears that a conditional leave was granted to the defendant to defend the suit and an amount of Rs. 2,000/- was also deposited accordingly. During the pendency of the suit on July 14, 1981 the suit was proceeded ex parte and the plaintiff's evidence was recorded. It appears that on July 15, 1981 the defendant filed an application in this suit pra...
Tag this Judgment!ScIndia Employees Union and Others Vs. ScIndia Steam Navigation Co. Lt ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-1982
Reported in: [1982(45)FLR420]; (1983)ILLJ347Bom
1. Respondents 1 and 2 this petition are The Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. v. The Scindia Workshop Ltd., the latter being a 100 per cent subsidiary of the former. The first Petitioner is a trade union. A large majority of the employees of the First Respondent Company working in Bombay are members of the said Union. Similarly, the petitioners claim that a large majority of the monthly rated workmen of the Second Respondent are also the members of the First Petitioner Union. Petitioner No. 2, 3 and 4 are employees of the First Respondent. At the time when the petition was filed Petitioners 2 and 3 were employed in the Head Office of the First Respondent Company while Petitioner No. 4 was employed as an Assistant with the Second Respondent. At the time when the petition was filed Petitioner No. 2 drew salary of more than Rs. 1,600 per month while Petitioners No. 3 and 4 drew less than the said amount. Today the position is that all the three are drawing salary (including allowances) i...
Tag this Judgment!Chimanram Motilal Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax Bombay City ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-1982
Reported in: (1982)31CTR(Bom)318; [1983]140ITR809(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. The question which has been referred at the instance of the assessee under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, reads as follows:'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the orders of penalty were liable to be quashed on account of the period between the dates of the assessment orders and the dates of the orders imposing penalty ?'2. The assessment year 1949-50 was the first assessment year of the assessee-company which was incorporated in July, 1947, with the object of carrying on speculation business, the assessments for the assessment years 1949-50, 1950-51 and 1951-52, were completed on November 30, 1951. In appeals preferred by the assessee the concealment of certain income was admitted and the AAC reduced the total income but the total income as determined by him was far higher than that returned by the company. The appeal for the assessment year 1949-50 was decided on January 13, 1959, and the appeals for the two remaining years were decided on N...
Tag this Judgment!Goodlas Nerolac Prints Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Cit ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-1982
Reported in: (1982)28CTR(Bom)186; [1982]137ITR58(Bom); [1982]10TAXMAN25(Bom)
Kania, J.1. The question referred to us for determining in this reference under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') runs as under :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee for the deduction of Rs. 1,07,113. Rs. 1,19,624, Rs. 1,10,019, Rs. 1,15,979, Rs. 1,23,957 and Rs. 1,41,227 for the assessment years 1963-64 to 1968-69, respectively ?'2. The assessee is a company carrying on the business of manufacturing and selling paints, varnishes, pigments and so on. The assessment years to which this reference relates are 1963-64, 1964-65, 1965-66, 1966-67 1967-68 and 1968-69. In the previous years relevant to the said assessment years, the assessee claimed deductions out of their income in respect of the aforesaid sum s as selling expenses. These selling expenses were claimed on the footing that they were commissions paid to the employees of certain purchasers in order t...
Tag this Judgment!Fatechand Murlidhar and Etc. Vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Board, ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-1982
Reported in: AIR1985Bom71; ILR1985Bom1222
ORDER1. Both these revision applications are disposed of by this common judgments as the facts and the points involved in both these revision applications are identical.2. The applicants in both these revision applications are the owners of their respective buildings and they have filed these revision applications against the decree passed against them by the Court of Small Causes at Nagpur for consumption of electricity by their tenants.3. The non-applicant Maharashtra State Electricity Board filed suits in the Court of Small Causes at Nagpur against the above named applicants and their tenants for recovery of arrears of charges for electrical energy supplied to the tenants. The claim, which is the subjects matter of Civil Revision Application No. 178 of 1977 is for Rs.88.08 for the electrical energy consumed by the second respondent between the period 4-12-1973 and 3-12-1975 inclusive of interest of Rs.18/- and notice charges Rs.10/-. The claim, which is the subject matter of Civil R...
Tag this Judgment!Peroja Dadabhoy Sett and Anrs. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Bom49
ORDER1. This is a petitioner for quashing and setting aside the order of 2nd Respondent i. e. Deputy Collector and Competent Authority (ULC) dated 30-6-1980 refusing the petitioner application to sanction transfer of immovable property and directing the 3rd Respondent the Sub-Registrar of Assurances. Bombay, to register the Deed to Transfer dated 31st December 1979 and to issue the certificate of registration under s. 60 of the Registration Act.2. A few relevant facts for the disposal of the petitioner are as under: One Dadabhoy Sett left a will dated 18th January 1975 bequeathing an immovable property being Plot No. 24 Worli Estate jointly to the petitioner, The petitioner were also executors of the will. The said Dadabhoy Sett died on 5-4-75. On 12th December 1975, the Petitioner as Trustees and Executors of the estate of the said deceased Dadabhoy obtained probate to the said Will. As a result of the probate amounts the other properties of the deceased the land which were the subjec...
Tag this Judgment!Star Chemicals Vs. Bhisham Kumar Suri
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-1982
Reported in: 1983(2)BomCR543
C.S. Dharmadhikari, J.1. This appeal is filed by the appellant-defendant Company against the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Thane dated 22nd June, 1975, in Special Civil Suit No. 14 of 1974, as well as the order passed by the said Court dated 6th August, 1979, dismissing the application filed by the defendant Company for setting aside the ex parte decree.2. The respondent plaintiff Suri filed a suit for recovery of certain amount towards pay for notice period and for other emoluments. It is an admitted position that the plaintiff was appointed by the defendant Company vide the order dated 25th November, 1969, as a Resident Manager at a Phosphorous Plant of the company situated at Thane on the following conditions :'(1) You will be paid a consolidated salary of Rs. 2,750/- per month.(2) You will be given reasonably furnished free accommodation on site.(3) You will be provided with Company's transport.(4) Provident Fund, Medical facilities etc. will be a...
Tag this Judgment!Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i Vs. Putco Pvt. Lt ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-1982
Reported in: (1982)84BOMLR59; (1982)28CTR(Bom)256; [1983]140ITR740(Bom)
Kania, J.1. This is a reference under s. 256(1) of the I. T. Act, 1961 (referred to hereinafter '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 ship, S. S. Sheela Margaret, which the assessee-company acquired from Gill Amin Steamship Co.Pvt. Ltd. towards satisfaction of the amount of Rs. 4,00,000 out of its loan of Rs. 4,06,492 outstanding against Gill Amin Steamship Co. Pvt. Ltd., was stock-in-trade of the assessee-company ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the expenditure of Rs. 11,618, Rs. 10,847, Rs. 49,073, Rs. 42,209, Rs. 23,837 and Rs. 17,411 incurred on the maintenance of the ship S. S.Sheela Margaret during the accounting years relevant to the assessment years were admissible deductions in computing the income of the assessee-company for the respective assessments ?'2. The facts giving rise to this reference are set out in a st...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »