Mumbai Court February 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.
Shahaji Dattu Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-1982
Reported in: 1982(1)BomCR418
S.C. Pratap, J.1. In Sessions Case No. 29 of 1980, Sessions Court, Kolhapur, original accused Nos. 1 to 3 were charged with the offence of having committed murder of one Rama Govinda Patil, being offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the Penal Code. Original accused No. 1 was, in the alternative, charged for the substantive offence of murder of the said Rama Govinda Patil, punishable under section 302 of the Penal Code and accused Nos. 2 and 3 were in the alternative, charged with having shared common intention of accused No. 1 for committing the murder of the said Rama Govinda Patil and thereby committing an offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the Penal Code. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were further alternatively charged with having voluntarily caused simple hurt to the said Rama Govinda Patil by means of sticks and thus committing offence punishable under section 323 of the Penal Code. By judgment dated 19th January, 1981, the Sessions Court a...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-iii Vs. Oriental Government Se ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-1982
Reported in: (1982)29CTR(Bom)112; [1983]141ITR215(Bom); [1982]10TAXMAN308(Bom)
Kania, J.1. Both the aforesaid references arise out of the same order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and hence they are being disposed of together by this common judgment.2. The facts relevant to the appreciation of the controversy raised before us are as follows :The assessee is the Oriental Government Security Life Assurance Co. Ltd. (referred to hereinafter as 'the said company'). The said company was established in 1874 and was to leader amongst the Indian companies carrying on life insurance business in India. In later years it floated a subsidiary company which carried on the business of general insurance. The assessment year involved is 1957-58, the corresponding financial year being March 31, 1956, to April 1, 1957. During this year the assessee carried on, as usual, its life insurance business as well as the general insurance business through its subsidiary company, from January 1, 1956, to January 18, 1956, and earned a profit of Rs. 2,39,574 for the said period from Ja...
K.G. Agarwal Vs. the Divisional Superintendent, South Central Railway, ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Bom281
Bharucha, J.1. A dispute between the parties regarding a claim arising out of a contract was referred to sole arbitration. On 25th Feb., 1976 the arbitrator made an award in favour of the appellant in the sum of Rs. 59,500/- He prescribed 'that the amount shall be paid to Shri K. C Agarwal (the appellant) not later than 31st May, '76 and for any delay beyond this date, the money in Award will carry a simple interest at the rate of 5% per annum. The arbitrator applied to the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, for a decree in terms of the award. The respondents contended before the court that the arbitrator had no power to award interest after 31st May. 1976. The court accepted the contention and passed a decree in terms of the award excluding the direction for payment of interest. It directed that the amount of Rs. 59,500/- deposited by the respondents in the court should be paid over to the appellant without delay. Being aggrieved by this decision, the appellant has preferred this app...
Willingdon Sports Club Vs. C.B. Patil, 3rd Additional Wealth-tax Offic ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-1982
Reported in: (1982)30CTR(Bom)226; [1982]137ITR83(Bom); [1982]11TAXMAN155(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. This is a petition by the Willingdon Sports Club, Bombay, challenging the notices under s. 17 of the W. T. Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') issued to the petitioner club on 11th March, 1970, on the footing that for the assessment years 1961-62 to 1968-69, the wealth of the club has escaped assessment. Similar notices have also been issued on 17th March, 1979, in respect of assessment years 1970-71 to 1977-78. In addition to these notices, notices under s. 14 of the Act have been issued to the club on 11th March, 1970, for the assessment year 1969-70, calling upon the club to file a return of net wealth. A similar notice has been issued for the assessment year 1978-79 on 17th March, 1979, to the assessee-club by the WTO. The petitioner-club seeks to have these notices quashed on the ground that the club is not a taxable unit under s. 3 of the Act and all the notices are, therefore, without jurisdiction.2. It is the case of the petitioners-club that it is a non...
Orient Club Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Bombay City-ii
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-08-1982
Reported in: (1982)29CTR(Bom)117; [1982]136ITR697(Bom); [1982]10TAXMAN57(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. This reference made under s. 27(1) of the W.T. Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), raises a question as to whether a members club is liable to assessment under the Act.2. The assessee is the Orient Club, Bombay, which was opened on May 1, 1900, and was started with a view 'to provided a first class club to which person of culture and position could be admitted irrespective of race, creed or politics on terms of social equality'. The rues and bye-laws of the club provide for different classes of membership such as, (1) permanent members, (2) life members, (3) temporary members and (4) honorary members. In order to obtain a membership in the club, fees have to be paid. A person can become a life members on payment of a lump sum of Rs. 2,000 and he is not to pay any further subscription. Permanent members have to pay an entrance fee of Rs. 1,000 and the necessary monthly subscription. No fees are payable by honorary members. Temporary members have also to pa...
D.P. Mandelia Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-1982
Reported in: (1982)1ITD545(Mum.)
1. We dispose of these two appeals by the assessee by a common order since they involve common points. The assessee is an individual and the main source of his income is from salary. In the assessment for the years 1977-78 and 1978-79, there were two points of dispute. The first point is in respect of the perquisite value of a car kept at his disposal. The ITO had included Rs. 5,400 as perquisite value for both the assessment years. This was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).The assessee is on further appeal before us.2. We find that this identical point had come up before the Tribunal for the assessment year 1976-77. The Tribunal, after going through the facts of the case, had held that an amount of Rs. 1,200 could be treated as perquisite value. For the reasons stated in that order, we would direct that the figure of Rs. 1,200 be substituted for Rs. 5,400 for both the assessment years.3. The second controversial point arises like this. The employer of the assessee is maintaining ...
Mohd. HussaIn Vs. Secretary, Govt. of Maharashtra, Home Department, Ma ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-1982
Reported in: (1982)84BOMLR379; 1982CriLJ1848
Sawant, J.1. By this habeas corpus petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged his detention under order dated 5-10-1981 issued by the State Government in exercise of the powers under sub-section (1) of S. 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').2. Shri Merchant, the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following four contentions in support of the said challenge viz. (1) that the detaining authority has taken into consideration extraneous and irrelevant material for coming to the conclusion that the petitioner had indulged, and was indulging, in smuggling of goods as stated in the grounds supporting the detention; (2) that the petitioner was not supplied with the relevant documents to enable him to make an effective representation against the detention order and thus was deprived of an opportunity to make such representation; (3) that the detaining...
L.Y. Lagoo Vs. the Special Land Acquisition Officer (2), Pune and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Bom440
Masodkar, J.1. This appeal questions the order made by the Land Acquisition Court i.e. the Court of the Joint Judge, Pune, i.e. the Court of the Joint Judge, Pune, under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, deciding the compensation mentioned, at the outset, that the Land Acquisition Officer granted the rate of Rs. 8/- Per sq. It on the basis of the instances cited on behalf of the appellant as well as the enquiry. He awarded the compensation at the flat rate, the area being 16,839 sq. It, There existed a structure, which is valued at Rs 6,000/- as compensation. In the compensation reference under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. 1984, the learned trial Judge, by the impugned judgment, found against the appellant, holding that the land should be valued by applying belt system and he granted three rates of compensation. It is surprising to observe that, for the third block or belt the learned trial Judge was pleased to even reduce the rate and fix it at Rs. 5/- per eq. Ft, ev...
M. Vijayan Vs. Lajpatrai G. Jasani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-1982
Reported in: 1983(1)BomCR135
V.S. Kotwal, J.1. The suit premises consist of a small garage located on Telang Road in Matunga area of this metropolitan city. The respondent herein claims to be the tenant of the suit premises and he further claims that he had given front portion of the said garage to the petitioner herein on leave and licence basis for conducting a tailoring shop since the parties were known to each other for some time. It is categorically stated that no lease-hold rights were created in favour of the petitioner on any count. The licence was revoked by the plaintiff by the notice dated 22nd August, 1969 under which the petitioner was called upon to hand over vacant possession of the suit premises and on his failure to comply with the said demand, the plaintiff that is, the respondent herein filed Ejectment Application No. 707/E/69 in the Small Causes Court at Bombay.2. The defences were filed by the petitioner raising several contentions, the foremost of which is more relevant, is to the effect that...
Gleitlargor (India) P. Ltd. and H.S. Kamlani, Official Liquidator Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-1982
Reported in: [1985]57CompCas742(Bom)
Deshpande, C.J.1. This group of 13 appeals raise a common question of law as to the scope of ss. 458A of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and can, therefore, be disposed of by this common judgment.2. The official liquidator is the appellant in all these appeals. Respondents in all these appeals are the debtors of Alcock Ashdown Co. (hereinafter referred to as 'the company'). The company claims this amount for the repair works of the vessel carried on in the year 1971 at the instance of the debtors. An order for winding up of this company was passed on December 13, 1972, in Company Petition No. 86 of 1971 dated August 24, 1971. The appellant was appointed as liquidator therein.3. The State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the bank') is one of the secured creditors of the company, the books debts of the company having been hypothecated, amongst others, therewith as security. The bank filed a suit being Suit No. 426 of 1973, against the official li...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »