Mumbai Court October 1982 Judgments
Crompton Greaves Limited Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-1982
Reported in: 1986(24)ELT14(Bom)
1. I propose to pass a brief order.2. This petition was called out about half-an hour back. No counsel, no instructing advocate, no clerk, not even a peon on behalf of the respondents has appeared in the court room. There is also no affidavit in reply.3. The orders that are impugned relate to the claim made by the petitioners for refund of excise duty, in appeal therefrom, and in revision therefrom. The claim is in respect of post-manufacturing expenses and post-manufacturing profits upon which excise duty was levied. The petitioners relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the Voltas case - : 1973ECR60(SC) before all the three authorities. All three authorities have found ways of getting over the decision which I have found unintelligible. There is no one before me on behalf of the respondents who can make them intelligible. It must follow, then that the petitioners application for refund of excise duty in excess of the manufacturing cost and the manufacturing profit should ha...
Tag this Judgment!Chindu Khema Patil Vs. Sarala (Sou.) Chindu Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-1982
Reported in: 1983(1)BomCR340
S.C. Pratap, J.1. This appeal is directed against the other order dated June 28, 1982 passed by the learned District Judge, Jalgaon, in the Civil Appeal No. 109 of 1981.2. The appeal arises out of matrimonial proceedings. The appellant-husband had filed against his wife-respondent herein Hindu Marriage Petition No. 246 of 1980 in the Court of the Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Jalgaon, for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce. This petition was filed in August 1980. The wife was served with the writ of summons thereof. However, as she was absent, she was marked ex-parte. This was on November 11, 1980. On December 6, 1980 evidence on affidavit was taken in the husband's matrimonial petition in the absence of the respondent-wife. The matter was then posted for judgment on December 8, 1980. On the morning of that day December 8, 1980 the wife appeared in Court along with her Counsel. She filed an application (Exhibit 18) for setting aside the ex-parte order. In support, she also ...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. K.P. Goenka and Sons Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-1982
Reported in: (1983)3ITD343(Mum.)
1. This appeal has been filed by the department against the order dated 13-11-1980 of the Commissioner (Appeals), relating to the assessment year 1975-76, the previous year of which ended on 31-3-1975.2. The only ground taken in this appeal states that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in allowing the deduction under Section 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), on a donation made in kind.3. The assessee is a limited company. During the previous year under consideration, it made a donation of the premises situated at No. 53, Sir Hariram Goenka Street, Calcutta. The value of the premises was admittedly Rs. 44,124. The ITO refused to allow the deduction under Section 80G on the ground that the donation was in kind. According to him, unless the donation was in cash, it is not eligible for relief under Section 80G. Hence, he declined to give any deduction under Section 80G on the aforesaid donation.4. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals) and contended that the action ...
Tag this Judgment!Western Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-1982
Reported in: 1983LC509D(Bombay); 1989(43)ELT221(Bom)
1. In a matter substantially on par with this one, Madon, J., as he then was, has commented very unfavorably about respondents' failure to refund moneys collected from the petitioners without authority of law and upon their persistence in arguing technical contentions and wasting public time to no purpose whatever. I am happy to say that in this matter, though a technical objection has been raised, the respondents have not wasted the Court's time.2. The petitioners carry on business in re-rolling iron and steel products. These are excisable under Item 26-AA(1a) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. A Notification dated 30th November, 1963 as amended by Notification 14th August, 1965, exempted from excise duty re-rolled steel products manufactured out of duty paid steel ingots.3. During the period relevant to this Petition, the Petitioners paid excise duty on the said products in the sum of Rs. 1,92,944/01 p. On 3rd February, 1973, the petitioners addressed a ...
Tag this Judgment!Atlas Trading Co. Vs. Official Assignee of Bombay and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Bom122; 1983MhLJ740
Chandurkar, J.1. The appellant company is a sole proprietary concern of one Ashok Vadilal Shah who clams to be a tenant to room No. 23B, Lalsing Mansing Building at Lohar Chawl, Bombay (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit premises'). Vadilal Shah and his another son Ajitlal Shah were adjudicated insolvents by an order dated 21st January, 1975. An appeal was filed against the order of adjudication by both the insolvents. During the pendency of the appeal, Vadilal Shah died on 8th July, 1975. On 9th March 1978, Ajitlal Vadilal Shah withdrew the appeal and the appeal was dismissed for want for prosecution. The present proceeding arose Assignee for direction seeking an order for sale of the insolvent business known as Messrs. Vadilal R. Shah as Official Assignee going concern with furniture, fixtures, etc., together with goodwill and tenancy rights of the business premises, which are the said premises, as well as another room No. 24 with which we are not concerned in this appeal. An order...
Tag this Judgment!Hanmatrao S/O Vithalrao Vs. Bhimrao S/O Govindrao and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-1982
Reported in: 1983(1)BomCR30; 1983MhLJ434
S.J. Deshpande, J.1. This special civil application raises a curious and interesting question and I am told at the Bar by the learned Counsel appearing for both sides that such a question has not so far arisen for decision and it arises in the following manner.2. The petitioner in the case is the landlord of the disputed land Survey No. 3 admeasuring 10 acres and 7 gunthas situated at village Akhargoan in Mukhed Tahsil of Nanded District. The present respondent are heirs and legal representatives of one Govinda. It appears that Govinda Piraji was declared to be protected tenant of this land in proceedings under section 38-E. Declaration of ownership was made in favour of Govinda Piraji. We find from the record of the Deputy collector that there is a Pherpar register wherein there is any entry that the land is declared in the name of Govinda Piraji under the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agriculture Land Act (hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act) section 38-E and a request was made to the...
Tag this Judgment!Gulam Kadar Gulam Rasul and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-1982
Reported in: 1982(1)BomCR928
B.J. Rele, J.1. This application is directed against the committal order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Taloda, committing the petitioners-accused to stand their trial for the offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 341, 330 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code and confirmed by the Sessions Judge, Dhule.2. The brief facts of the case are that the deceased Gona Padvi was working as a watchman in a field. On 30th August, 1981, at about 7.00 p.m., Gona Padvi was returning with his wife, Banabai from the field to village Khapar, Taluka Akkalkuka, District Dhule. When they came near a Government godown, seven to eight persons, including the present petitioners accosted them and questioned them as to who committed the theft of banana plantation. When Gona Padvi feigned ignorance, he was assaulted by all the seven-eight persons. On hearing the shouts raised by Banabai, some relatives came there and thereafter Gona was taken to the house of Imalibai. On 7th September,...
Tag this Judgment!Ramachandra Bastiram Saraswat Vs. Ramniwas Bansilal Lakhotiya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Bom417
ORDER1. This is a dispute between the landlord and the tenant, who has lost in both the Courts below and has come to this Court under the following circumstances.2. The respondent, who is a landlord had filed an application before the Rent Controller at Jalna for evicting the petitioner-tenant on the ground that the petitioner was a wilful defaulter in as much as he had committed defaults in paying the rent amount of Rs. 1201/- from 23-12-1970 to 26-6-1973.3. The petitioner-tenant appeared before the Rent Controller and resisted the petition. He contended that he had spent Rs. 202/- for expenses. This amount is not pressed before maintenance. He contended further that he had sent money orders which the landlord refused to accept an so he was not a wilful defaulter. It appears that he challenged the validity of the notice also before the Rent Controller. 4. After considering the evidence, the learned Rent Controller held that the notice was valid and that the defendant tenant was a wilf...
Tag this Judgment!Josts Engineering Limited, Bombay Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-1982
Reported in: (1983)85BOMLR12; (1983)IILLJ436Bom; 1983MhLJ454
1. This writ petition impugns the order of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Maharashtra (the second respondent) levying damages against the petitioner under the provisions of S. 14B of the Employees Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952.2. It is an admitted position that the petitioners were guilty of delays in making payments of contributions to the provident fund, the family pension fund and for administrative charges under Act. On 22nd January, 1975 an Inspector from the office of the second respondent visited the petitioner and recorded the delays. On 12th February, 1975 the petitioners wrote to the second respondent claiming that they had been in financial and administrative difficulties and that was why the contributions had been delayed. On 4th February, 1978 the second respondent served the petitioners with a show cause notice dated 28th January, 1978. The show cause notice stated that the second respondent proposed to levy damages against the petitioners...
Tag this Judgment!Lilavati H. Hiranandani Vs. Smt. Usha Tandon
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-1982
Reported in: (1983)85BOMLR18
Masodkar, J.1. The dispute that is brought before this Court by the present petition concerns approximately about 2/3rd area of a flat which is a part of the property of Mazgaon Terrace Co-operative Housing Society. Respondent Usha Tandon sought relief of possession under the summary procedure as was provided by Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), as it stood prior to its amendment by Mah. XIX of 1976. She filed the present application dated November 29, 1966 asserting that the petitioner herein was a mere licensee and his licence had been put an end to by giving a notice of August 3, 1966. In reply to the summons, the petitioner raised the defence, including the protection as a tenant. It appears and it is not in dispute that under Section 42-A of the Act defence of tenancy was tried and by an order dated August 17, 1973 the same was negatived. An appeal taken under Section 42-A of the Act failed, as is evident from the order of Oc...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »