Mumbai Court March 1982 Judgments
Tata Oil Mills Company Ltd. Vs. T.R. Srikantia and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-1982
Reported in: 1990(26)LC106(Bombay)
Kurdukar, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioners challenging the orders passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise at Exhs. H and I rejecting the classification list dated March 7, 1978 in respect of hardened vegetable non-essential oil, submitted by the petitioners.2. The petitioners are a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and have their mills at Sewri, Bombay. The petitioners are manufacturers, inter alia, of Laundry and Toilet soaps. In the manufacture of soaps, the petitioners use minor and inedible oils like rice-bran oil, castor oil, sal oil, kusum oil, neem-oil etc. The petitioners further stated that it has been the policy of the Government to encourage use of the minor oils. To make some of these oils fit for use in soap manufacture they have to undergo certain processes like bleaching, treatment with acid or alkali and also hardening by hydrogenation. The petitioners then described the process that...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Modern Dekor Painting Contracts Pvt. Ltd. and Modern Dekor Pain ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-1982
Reported in: [1985]57CompCas675(Bom)
Rele, J.1. This an appeal against the order dated January 27, 1982, dismissing Company Application No. 204 of 1981 in Company Petition No. 221 of 1977 taken out by the Company, Modern Dekor Painting Contracts Pvt. Ltd., for setting aside the ex parte order passed on June 24, 1981, ordering the company to be wound up and for restoring to file the said Company Petition No. 221 of 1977 for winding up for being heard on merits.2. A few facts necessary for the determination of the question in this appeal are that the said Company Petition No. 221 of 1977 was preferred by the petitioning creditors, Jenson & Nicholson (India) Ltd. for winding up of the company on the ground that Modern Dekor Painting Contracts Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the company'), was unable to pay its debts as and when they became due. It appears that the said petition was accepted and on December 5, 1977, the petition was placed on board for admission. The company appeared on an intimation having been receiv...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Poona Vs. H.V. Mungale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-1982
Reported in: (1983)32CTR(Bom)301; [1984]145ITR208(Bom); [1983]12TAXMAN201(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. The question which has been referred in this reference at the instance of the Revenue under s. 27(1) of the W.T. Act, 1957, is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the land Survey No. 699, Hissa No. 1, situated on the outskirts of Poona City, admeasuring about 30 gunthas owned by the assessee was agricultural land within the meaning of s. 2(e)(1)(i) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, on the valuation date and as such the value thereof was not includible in computing the net wealth of the assessee for the assessment years 1965-66, 1966-67, 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70 ?'2. The assesses is admittedly the owner of a piece of land, bearing Survey No. 699, Hissa No. 1, situated at Poona-Satara Road which was purchased by the assessee in the year 1955. In the course of the assessment proceedings under the W.T. Act the assessee claimed that the property in question was agricultural land for which land re...
Tag this Judgment!Jaypal Bandu Adke and anr. Vs. Basavali Gurulingappa and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Bom563; 1982(1)BomCR590
CHANDURKAR, J.1. These two petitions have been referred to the Division Bench on an order of reference made by a learned single judge, who experienced some difficulty in following decision of Jahagirdar, J. In Gulabchand v.Noorbeg, : AIR1980Bom307 . The questions referred relate to the construction of the provisions of section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rent Act') and the determination of the correct ratio of two decisions of the supreme court in Dhansukhal chhaganlal v.Dalichand Virchand, : [1968]3SCR346 and Harbanslal jagmohandas v.Prabhudas shivlal, : [1976]3SCR628 . Since the only points on which the decisions of both the petitions will really turn related to the construction of the provisions of sections 12(3)(a) and 12(3)(b) of the Rent Act, we have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents in these cases not only on the questions of law referred but also on the merits of t...
Tag this Judgment!Jaypal Bandu Adake and anr. Vs. Basavali Gurulingappa Mhalank and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-1982
Reported in: (1982)84BOMLR485; 1982MhLJ512
M.N. Chandurkar, J.1. These two petitions have been referred to the Division Bench on an order of reference made by a learned Single Judge, who experienced some difficulty in following decision of Jahagirdar, J., in Gulabchand v. Noorbeg, : AIR1980Bom307 . The questions referred relate to the construction of the provision of section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rate Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rent Act') and the determination of the correct ratio of two decisions of the Supreme Court in Shah Dhansukhlal Chhaganlal v. Dalichand Virchand Shroff, : [1968]3SCR346 , and Harbanslal Jagmohandas and another v. Prabhudas Shivlal, : [1976]3SCR628 . Since the only points on which the decisions of both the petitions will really turn related to the construction of the provisions of sections 12(3)(a) and 12(3)(b) of the Rent Act, we have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the respondents in these cases not only on the questions of law re...
Tag this Judgment!Prabhakar Eknath Gate Vs. Hassan HusseIn Dasti
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-1982
Reported in: 1982(1)BomCR412
Sharad Manohar, J.1. This writ petition is filled by the landlord whose suit for recovery of possession of suit premises on the ground mentioned under section 13(1)(hh) of the Bombay Rent Act has been dismissed by both the courts below for somewhat curious reasons.2. The petitioner who will be referred to hereafter as the 'plaintiff' is admittedly the owner of the building House No. 380, Shivajinagar, Poona-5. Originally, it was ground plus one floor structure. It is not disputed before me now that the total carpet area of the ground floor as well as the first floor was about 2900 sq. ft. Out of this area, an area of 159 sq. ft. on the first floor was let out by the plaintiff to the defendant. Being desirous of demolishing the house in question with a view to construct in its place a ground plus three floors' building, he obtained the necessary certificate from the Tribunal referred to in s.-section (3-B) of section 13 of the Rent Act complying with the requirements ordained by sub-sec...
Tag this Judgment!Vatsala S. Aney Vs. National Education Society
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-1982
Reported in: (1982)84BOMLR569
Ginwala, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner who is serving as headmistress of Shri Arjun Khimji National High School and Junior College at Khamgaon, run by the National Education Society (respondent No. 1) challenges the constitution of the Committee set up to enquire into the charges framed against her and the order suspending her, as contravening certain provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' and 'the Rules' respectively).2. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties it will be convenient at this stage to set out the relevant provisions of law. The Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, which has been placed on statute book for regulating recruitment and conditions of service of employees of ail ...
Tag this Judgment!Princess Maheshwari Devi of Pratapgarh, Poona Vs. Commissioner of Inco ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-1982
Reported in: (1983)33CTR(Bom)117; [1984]147ITR258(Bom); [1983]12TAXMAN220(Bom)
Kania, J.1. This is a reference under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (referred to hereinafter as 'the said Act'). The assessee was married to the Maharaja of Kotah on December 5, 1956. On September 11, 1963, the assessee obtained a decree of nullity of her marriage with the said Maharaja of Kotah in the Bombay City Civil Court at Bombay. The said decree shows that the petition filed by the assessee in the Bombay City Civil Court, she had claimed monthly alimony as well as a gross sum as permanent alimony and, therefore alternatively, prayed that, the event a periodic or monthly sum as permanent alimony was granted the same be secured by a charge on the immovable property of the said Maharaja of Kotah. The operative part of the said decree, with which we are concerned, runs as follows :'THIS COURT by and with such consent DOTH FURTHER ORDER that the respondent to day to the petitioner a sum of rupees twenty-five thousand as permanent lump sum alimony and pay to her a further sum of rup...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan Construction Co. (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-1982
Reported in: (1983)36CTR(Bom)202; [1984]148ITR61(Bom); [1983]13TAXMAN46(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. This is a reference under s. 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), at the instance of the assessee and the two questions which have been referred to this court for opinion are as follows :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, litigation expense of Rs. 16,050 was a permissible deduction ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the premium amount of Rs. 1,152 was a permissible deduction ?'2. The facts on which the above two questions arose are within a very narrow compass. The assessment year in question is 1968-69. The assessee company entered into an agreement of sale with one Rampiaribai on February, 23, 1962, under which Rampiaribai agreed to sell land known as Virawali Estate measuring 223 acres 15 guntas situated in Virawali Village in Thana District for a sum of Rs. 1,35,000. Earnest money of Rs. 10,000 was to be deposited with the vendor's attorneys. Admittedly, in respect of the same property, Rampiarib...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Venkatrao Nerlekar (Dr.) Vs. Sharanghadar Pandurang Nadkarni an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-1982
Reported in: 1982(1)BomCR867
S.J. Deshpande, J.1. This is an application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and also under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure inviting the High Court to quash the proceeding of Criminal Case No. 21/S of 1981 pending in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, 17th Court, Mazagaon, Bombay. The petitioner has not challenged any specific order in this application. Petitioner is the original accused. Respondent No. 1 is the Company by name 'The Modern Mills Limited' who has filed the above criminal case under section 630(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956. Initially the application was filed on October 12, 1981. It appears that at the admission stage the first respondent was also served and appeared. The application at that stage was found not to be maintainable as far as quashing of the proceeding is concerned. Thereafter the petitioner was allowed to amend the petition-application and the amendment was incorporated in the application, which is at pages 7 to...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »