Mumbai Court November 1982 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.
Dnyaneshwar and ors. Vs. Pandharinath Damodar Khadke
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Bom217
Gadgil, J.1. This writ petitioner has also been referred to by Justice Masodkar along with other Special Civil Application No. 2439 of the 1978, which we have decided just now. A few facts about this writ petitioner are as follows:--The defendants-tenant is in possession of a room in a house which was original owned by on Jagannath Punekar on a monthly rent of Rs. 4. This Punekar sold the house to the plaintiff on 30th May, 1958. There was some previous litigation viz., Regular Civil Suit No. 224 of 1968, wherein the plaintiff purchaser claimed possession of the suit premises on the ground that the defendants Dnyaneshwar alias Saba Tukaram Karande (who died pending District Court Civil Appeal No. 335 of 1976 and whose legal representatives have been brought on record), was in possession as the licensee. The suit was withdrawn and thereafter the plaintiff gave a notice dated 22nd February, 1972, calling upon the defendants to pay the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 8 per month from 3...
Chhaganlal Mulchand JaIn Vs. Narayan Jagannath Bangh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Bom212; (1982)84BOMLR537; 1983MhLJ254
Gadgil, J.1. This petition was referred to the Division Bench by Masodkar, J., by his order dated September 21, 1982.2. The matter pertains to the eviction proceedings taken out by the landlord (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendants') under the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 Rent Act'). The premises in question consist of two rooms and an adjoining tin-shed in a house bearing C. T. S. No. 1276/B in Lane No. 3, at Dhulia. The house is owned by the plaintiff and on August 6, 1967, the defendants took the premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 35/-. The defendants fell in arrears from December 1, 1969, and hence the plaintiff gave a notice dated April 15, 1972, calling upon the defendants to deliver possession and asking him to pay all the arrears. The defendants did not give any reply. However, the sent Rs. 525/- by money order to the plaintiff. The plaintiff then filed Regular Civil Suit No. 237 of 1972 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Se...
Food Corporation of India Vs. K.K. Uppal, Chairman Bombay Port Trust
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-1982
Reported in: (1983)85BOMLR9
Kania, J.1. This is a Chamber Summons by way of a revision from the judgment and order of the Taxing Master dated September 20, 1982 ordering the plaintiffs to pay Court-fee in the sum of Rs, 15,000 under art 7 of Schedule I of the Bombay Court-fees Act, 1959.2. It is necessary to state only a few facts for the disposal of this Chamber Summons. I am taking these facts merely as they are set out in the plaint. The plaintiffs are the Food Corporation of India. Defendant No. 1 is the Chairman of the Bombay Port Trust. Defendant No. 2 is the Master of the vessel 'm.v. Capitan Lukis.' Defendants No. 3 are the local agents of the Steamship Company, which owns the said vessel and the 4th defendants are the surveyors appointed by the buyers. By a contract dated May 25, 1981 the plaintiffs agreed to deliver to the buyers, who executed the contract on behalf of the U.S.S.R. Government a large quantity of rice. Under the contract it was provided that the risk would pass from the sellers or suppli...
Union of India Vs. Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd., Nagpur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-1982
Reported in: 1983(1)BomCR590; 1983LC72D(Bombay); 1983(12)ELT254(Bom)
ORDERPendse J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the original plaintiffs to challenge the legality of the judgment dated October 1, 1976 delivered by Mr. Justice Lentin dismissing the plaintiffs' suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,18,830/- comprising of Rs. 2,36,265/- and Rs. 82,565/- being the duty allegedly payable in respect of certain goods covered by Shipping Bills, Nos. 1311 and 1312 both dated August 4, 1954. The learned trial Judge dismissed the suit on the preliminary issue that the plaintiffs had no cause of action.2. The facts which gave rise to the institution of the suit are as follows : On August 11, 1954, the defendants' Agents M/s. James Finlay and Company presented to the Customs House at Bombay two Shipping Bills bearing Nos. 1311 and 1312 pertaining to two consignments of Indian Manganese Ore to be exported to Baltimore, U.S.A. on board the vessel s.s. Atlantic Wave. On the date of presentation of the shipping Bills, the export of manganese ore was liable to the paym...
Venkat Dharmaji Gontalwar Vs. Vishwanath and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Bom413; 1983(1)BomCR374; 1983MhLJ284
1. Plaintiff -Appellant is the prospective purchaser of the Suit-land Gut No. 63. It is alleged that the portion of this suit-land to the extent of 8 Acres 10 Gunthas was purchased, by plaintiff under a agreement of sale executed by the Respondent No. 1 --- original Defendant No. 1. Consideration for the agreement was Rs. 31, 590/-. Out of which, it is alleged, Rs. 20,000/- have been paid before the agreement to the Respondent No. 1. The agreement recites that on the date of execution of agreement Plaintiff has obtained possession. This agreement is on a stamp-paper and written in Marathi language. This agreement has been signed by both the parties. Defendant refused to execute the sale deed and therefore, the Plaintiff has filed the present suit to obtain specific performance of the aforesaid agreement.2. During the pendency of the suit, plaintiff made an application for temporary injunction under Os. 39, Rr. 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Civil P. C. for an interim relief to pr...
Shanlal Shantilal and Bros. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-16-1982
Reported in: [1981]132ITR631(Bom)
1. By this Petition, the Petitioners have challenged the levy of additional duty and also three Notifications all dated 16th November 1982.2. The challenge to the additional duty no longer survives in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Khandelwal Metal and Engineering Works v. Union of India, reported in : 1985(20)ELT222(SC) .3. The three Notifications which are under challenge are (a) Notification No. 256 dated 16th November 1982. By this Notification the earlier Notifications bearing Nos. 97 and 156 are withdrawn. (b) Notification No.252 dated 16th November 1982. By this Notification the duty leviable on copper waste and scrap was stated to be at the rate of 25 per cent ad valorem. (c) Notification No.254 dated 16th November 1982. By this Notification the exemption granted by an earlier Notification (i.e. No.136 dated 11th May 1982) from payment of auxiliary duty was withdrawn.4. The challenge is to the withdrawal of exemption from payment of auxiliary duty on t...
Vishwanath S. Sapre Vs. First Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-11-1982
Reported in: (1983)3ITD520(Mum.)
1. The assessee-individual held 2020 shares out of 16,400 shares in a company Diamond Shamrock (I) Ltd. His wife held 282 shares in the same company, whereas his daughter and son held 2,898 and 3,000 shares, respectively. Both the wife and the husband thus had substantial interest in this company as defined in Section 64 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). In another company Speciality Formulations (P.) Ltd., the assessee held 1,250 and his wife 3,735 out of the total 5,000 shares of the company. In this company also the assessee and his wife thus had substantial interest.2. For the assessment year 1978-79 under appeal in working out the total income of the assessee, the ITO included the salary received by the assessee of Rs. 82,800 from Diamond Shamrock (1) Ltd. and, under Section 64(1)(ii) of the Act, two amounts of Rs. 33,000 each totalling up to Rs. 66,000 being the salary income of the assessee's wife in the two companies Diamond Shamrock (I) Ltd. and Speciality Formulations...
Rashid Gafoor Parkar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-05-1982
Reported in: (1983)85BOMLR35
S.J. Deshpande, J.1. The petitioners are original accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in Criminal Case No. 59 of 1977 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dapoli. The petitioners are prosecuted for commission of offences under Section 135(a) and (b) of the Customs Act and Section 5 of the Import and Export Act read with Section 120 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners are facing trial along with 9 other accused. Accused Nos. 1 and 12 are reported to be dead. The offence was alleged to have been committed on November 23, 1968. The enquiries were made by the investigating officer and obtained prior sanction and the accused were put for trial before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dapoli. The learned Judicial Magistrate, on the basis of the statements made by other co-accused framed charge against the petitioners and other accused by his order dated May 31, 1982. It is this order of framing charge which is challenged by ...
Allied Chemical Corporation Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-04-1982
Reported in: (1983)3ITD418(Mum.)
1. The assessee is a non-resident foreign company. The proceedings relate to its assessment for the assessment year 1977-78 for which the previous year is calendar year 1976. The main source of income for the year is by way of dividend on its shares held in an Indian company styled Nirlon Synthetic Fibres & Chemicals Ltd. As against the gross amount of dividend of Rs. 13,11,200, the assessee offered a sum of Rs. 11,43,366 for taxation. The differential amount of Rs. 1,67,834 was claimed as loss or expenditure. Both the ITO and the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the claim. The appellate order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is dated 24-1-1980.2. It appears that, the" Commissioner (Appeals) through inadvertence, omitted to deal with one or two other grounds in his appellate order.The assessee filed an application under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), which was disposed of by the Commissioner (Appeals) by his order dated 20-3-1980. The assessee has, thus, filed tw...
Kisan Amrut Pawar Vs. Sarangdhar Baban Dhore and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-03-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Bom442; 1983MhLJ592
ORDER1. Plaintiff's request for amendment of the plaint is rejected by the trial court and hence this revision.2. Originally the plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for declaration and permanent and mandatory injunctions in respect of the suit property. He obtained an ex parte ad interim injunction in this suit but this was subsequently vacated by the trial court. Plaintiff went in appeal but lost it. Thereafter the plaintiff sought to amend his plaint in the trial court so as to include relief of possession instead of relief for injunction and he sought to make suitable relevant amendments in the various clauses of the plant. The amendment application was opposed on behalf of defendants and the learned trial Judge rejected the application on the ground that the entire nature of the suit was going to be changed by this amendment. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has filed this revision application.3. It is apparent that the order of the trial Court is clearly wrong. The basic...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »