Mumbai Court March 1982 Judgments
Span Industries Vs. Shridhar Ganesh Jamsandekar and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-1982
Reported in: 1983(1)BomCR231
Sharad Manohar, J.1. This writ petition was assiduously and elaborately argued on behalf of the both the petitioners as well as respondents. However, I find that the concurrent decree for eviction passed by both the courts below has got to be sustained atleast on one of the grounds urged on behalf of the original plaintiff. The petition, therefore, can be disposed of on the said narrow ground. However, since the petition was argued at length on all the points. I will give brief indications as regards the points urged before me and the tentative view taken by me in that behalf.2. Both the petitions arose out of a common judgment and common decree of eviction passed by the trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court though, to some extent on different grounds. For the sake of convenience, I will refer to the facts stated and averments made in Writ Petition No. 659 of 1981 only. The decision in the other petition will follow the decision in the said Writ Petition No. 659 of 1981. For...
Tag this Judgment!Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Ratanlal Budhamal Taki
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1982
Reported in: (1983)32CTR(Bom)112; [1983]142ITR151(Bom); [1983]12TAXMAN98(Bom)
Kania, J.1. This is a reference on a case stated under s. 64(1) of the E.D. Act, 1953 (referred to hereinafter as 'the said Act').2. The following two questions have been referred to us for our determination :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in holding that the sum of Rs. 2,82,000 (Rupees two lakhs and eighty-two thousand only) is not includible in the dutiable estate of the deceased under section 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal erred in holding that the sum of Rs. 58,000 (Rupees fifty-eight thousand only), being the value of the goodwill of the business run by the partnership was wrongly included in the principal value of the estate of the deceased partner ?'3. The facts giving rise to this reference are as follows :4. The deceased had a proprietary business of the manufacture of bidis. At the end of the Samvat year 2011, that is, on Diwali 1957, ...
Tag this Judgment!Controller of Estate Duty Vs. G.H. Malhotra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1982
Reported in: (1983)35CTR(Bom)362; [1983]144ITR925(Bom); [1983]13TAXMAN540(Bom)
Kania, J.1. This is a reference on a case stated under s. 64(1) of the E. D. Act, 1953. the questions referred to us for our determination in this references are as follows :' (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the deceased's share in the goodwill of the firms of M/s. Shiv Shakti Silk Mills and M/s. Universal Dyeing and Printing Works were not liable to be included in the principle value of the estate of th deceased ? (2) Whether, on the fact's and in the circumstance of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding tat the sum of Rs. 40,000 gifted by the decease to his son was not liable to be include in the principal value of the estate of the deceased ?'2. It is agreed between the learned counsel for he Revenue and the learned counsel for the assessee that as far as question No. (2) is concerned, the same is concluded in favour of the assessee by the decision of this court in Khatijabai Abdulla Soomar v. CED [1...
Tag this Judgment!Controller of Estate Duty, Bombay City Vs. Mohammed Habib A. Valiwalla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1982
Reported in: [1981]132ITR414a(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. The two question which have been referred in this reference under s. 64(1) of the E.D. Act referred to us at the instance of the Controller of Estate Duty are as follows :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, two amounts of Rs. 25,000 gifted by the deceased to his two sons were to be included in the principal value of his estate under section 10 of the Act ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the value of the share in the immovable properties gifted by the deceased was liable to be included in the estate of the deceased under section 10 of the Act ?'2. The deceased, Abdulkadar Nanamiya, was the owner of immovable property bearing No. 3/100/154 in Nagpada Street, Bombay. He gifted the whole of his property equally to his wife and three married daughters. The property was in the possession of tenants. The rent received was credited in the joint accounts of the wife and the three daughters in the books of M/s. Abdull...
Tag this Judgment!Miss A.N. Khan Vs. First Asst. Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1982
Reported in: (1983)32CTR(Bom)107; [1983]140ITR293(Bom); [1983]12TAXMAN167(Bom)
Candurkar, J.1. One Pestonji Dinshawjee Khan had executed a trust deed dated November 3, 1919, in respect of his properties, one of which was house property situated at 103, Walkeshwar Road, Bomaby. The deceased, Banoobai Nusserwanji Khan, was the daughter-in-law of the said Pestonji. Banoobai died on April 16, 1966.2. Clause 2 of the trust deed of 1919 provided that the trustees were to hold the trust property upon trust to permit the said settlor, Pestonji, to reside and occupy the same free of rent during his lifetime. After the death of the settler the trustees were required to permit the decease,Banoobai, and her three daughter to reside in any occupy the said house free of rent during the lifetime of Banoobai. After the death of the survivor of the said Pestonji and Banoobai, the trustees were to permit Banoobai's daughters, namely, Armaiti, Meherbai and Gulbai, or any one or more of them to reside free of rent in the said house until the same was sold for the purpose of distribu...
Tag this Judgment!Trilokchand Kapoorchand Vs. Basubai Vastimal Oswal and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Bom12; 1983(1)BomCR124
ORDER1. An extremely interesting and somewhat ticklish question has arisen in this petition which is filed by the original decree-holder who has obtained a decree against one of his joint tenants by compromise and the said decree has been set at naught by the Court during the execution proceedings on the ground that the decree was inexecutable on account of various reasons. I will presently allude to those various reasons.2. The facts of the case are as follows :--The petitioner in these proceedings is the owner of the suit premises. At this stage at least, there is no dispute that the suit premises were let out by him jointly to two persons -- one Vastimal and other Kapoorchand. It needs to be emphasised that it was a joint lease. Before the suit in question was filed Kapoorchand had died and hence will be presently made his heirs and legal representatives were impleaded as defendant Nos. 2 to 9. It may be mentioned here further that even Vastimal had died during the pendency of this ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Nirmala Keshavlal Vs. Controller of Estate Duty, Bombay City-i
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-1982
Reported in: (1983)32CTR(Bom)114; [1982]138ITR604(Bom); [1983]12TAXMAN96(Bom)
Kania, J.1. This is a reference on a case stated under S. 64(1) of the E.D. Act,1953. The question referred to us for our determination in this reference is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the donation of Rs. 1,00,000 made for public charitable purposes is dutiable in terms of section 9 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 ?'2. The facts giving rise to the reference, which are relevant for our purposes, can be very briefly stated. The deceased Parvatibai Parsram Dabrai died on 14th September, 1966. On 29 th August, 1966, that is, less than one month prior to her death, the deceased had given a cash donation of Rs. 1,00,000 for public charitable purposes to an institution called Seva Sadan. The Assistant Controller, in assessing the estate of the said deceased to estate duty, included the said sum in the dutiable estate of the deceased. He held that this sum was liable to be included in the dutiable estate under the provisions of s. 9 of the E.D. Act, 19...
Tag this Judgment!Shrikant Pandurang Lele and ors. Vs. Rajaninath Govind Pataskar and an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-1982
Reported in: 1983(1)BomCR310
S.J. Deshpande, J.1. The petitioners are the original accused in a criminal case arising out of a complaint filed by respondent No. 1 in the Court No. 2 of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Thane. This is an application by the petitioners original accused filed in this Court to exercise its powers under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This application is directed against an order of issue of process dated 22-9-1981 passed by the learned Magistrate, II Court at Thane in Criminal Case No. 5466 of 1981.2. It is not necessary to give all detailed facts. The respondent complaint is the landlord and petitioners are the tenants. There is a civil suit pending between and the parties in the Court of the Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Thane in which a question of eviction of the tenant is involved.3. On 25-9-1981 the complainant has filed a complaint before the Magistrate narrating the allegations which are attracted by provisions 341, 504 and 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code. ...
Tag this Judgment!Dhirajlal Haridas Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-1982
Reported in: (1983)33CTR(Bom)144; [1982]138ITR570(Bom); [1982]12TAXMAN234(Bom)
Kania, J.1. This is a reference on a case stated under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1965-66 (referred to hereinafter as 'the said Act'). The facts giving rise to the reference are as follows :2. The assessment year with which we are concerned is the assessment year 1965-66, the previous year relevant to which ended on March 31, 1965. The assessee was a South African national and stayed in India for more than 30 days during the relevant previous year. He came to India some time in April, 1962, and he left India on May 25, 1964. During this period, he and his family, consisting of his wife and children, stayed with his mother and sister in the premises provided free of cost by M/s. Arvind Industries Pvt. Ltd. of which he was a director. It was common ground that the premises were given in the name of the assessee's mother. With effect from September 1, 1964, these premises were transferred to the name of the assessee's sister, Miss Sudhaben Kanji and the said M/s. Arvind Industries Pvt. Lt...
Tag this Judgment!Kalyandas Manilal Shah Vs. S.M. Kankaria and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Bom532
ORDER1. This is a writ petition filed by the judgment-debtor whose contention that the compromise Decree passed against him for possession was not executable against him on account of various reason, has been negatived by both the courts below.For the reasons which are somewhat peculiar to the case before me I am required to allow this petition by accepting at least one of the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner-judgment-debtor.2. The facts of the case which are not in dispute are as follows:-(A) The suit premises consist of a shop situate in village choti, Taluka lgatpuri , District Nashik. There is no dispute that Rent Act is applicable to the premises situate in this village. Admittedly the present petitioner (referred to hereafter as 'the defendant') was a tenant in respect of the premises which belong to the plaintiff. In the year 1969, the plaintiff filed Regular Civil suit No.119 of 1969 for recovery of ;possession of the suit premises on the ground that he required th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »