Mumbai Court April 1982 Judgments
Hirjee Veerjee and Co. Vs. Smt. Saroja Narayan Shetty and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-15-1982
Reported in: (1982)84BOMLR312; [1984]55CompCas595(Bom); 1982MhLJ885
Chandurkar, J.1. This appeal by defendant No. 1 against the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane, awarding compensation of Rs. 1,49,400 under the Fatal Accidents Act, has been referred to the Full Bench by the Division Bench consisting of Dharmadhikari and S. J. Deshpande JJ. as they felt that the decision of another Division Bench of this court in Jaikumar Chhaganlal Patni v. Mary Jerome D'Souza, : AIR1978Bom239 , in so far as it took the view that the amount received from a life insurance policy on the death of the deceased was liable to be deducted from the compensation to which the plaintiffs were entitled, required reconsideration.2. Since the whole appeal has been referred to the Full Bench, it becomes necessary to briefly state the facts leading to the present appeal.3. Original plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 5 are the legal representatives of deceased, Narayan Shetty. Plaintiff No. 1 is the widow of deceased Narayan. Plaintiff No. 2, who was then a minor, is his...
Tag this Judgment!JaIn Tapasvi Umarsi Samji Pasoo Chheda (Kutchwala) Vs. Harilal Dhanji ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-15-1982
Reported in: 1983(1)BomCR174
Sharad Manohar, J.1. There exists a building by name Anantdeep Chamber, at 273/277, Narsi Natha Street, Bhat Bazar, Bombay-9 (thick business locality). From the record it appears that the building was constructed by a builder. Probably it was intended to be used for business purpose only and hence on each floor of the building there were cabins and those cabins were sold by the builder to various persons. Although the premises are called cabins, it is common ground before me that they were in fact various rooms on the various floors.The next factual statement can be given only with reference to the pleadings. The present petitioner before me was the plaintiff who had filed a suit in the small Causes Court under section 41 of the presidency Small Causes Court Act for recovery of possession of the suit premises from the defendant who is respondent before me. His contention was that one of the cabins in the building was purchased from the builder by one Hariram Shroff. The exact date when...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-iv Vs. Freyssinet Prestressed ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-14-1982
Reported in: (1982)30CTR(Bom)211; [1983]143ITR197(Bom); [1982]11TAXMAN126(Bom)
Kania, J.1. This is a reference under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The facts giving rise to this reference are as follows : The assessee is a limited company in which the public are not substantially interested, and the previous year followed by the assessee is the calendar year. The assessee-company manufactures and sells come anchorages under a licence granted to it by a French company, which has been referred to in the statement of the case as 'S.T.U.P., Paris'. We propose to refer to the said company as 'the French company'. The said licence was granted to the assessee by an agreement dated February 1, 1955. The recitals in that agreement show that the French company was the exclusive licensee in respect of certain patents and processes relating to post-tensioned pre-stressed concrete structures and/or products incorporating cone anchorages and that the French company had developed the use of post-tensioned pre-stressed concrete structures and/or products incorporating cone anc...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-iv Vs. Mumbadevi Mansion Co-ow ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-14-1982
Reported in: (1982)30CTR(Bom)248; [1983]143ITR150(Bom); [1982]11TAXMAN50(Bom)
Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. The assessees in the present case are Mumbadevi Mansion Co-owners Housing Co-operative Private Ltd., Bombay. The case refers to the assessment years from 1963-64 to 1966-67. The dispute is in respect of a plot of land bearing City Survey No. 1345 of Bhuleshwar Division and a new building which is constructed on it.2. One Talakchand Uttamchand Zaveri and his sons and other family members were the owners of the said plot of land together with the structure which was then standing on it. On January 10, 1952, Talakchand Uttamchand Zaveri and the other co-owners entered into an agreement with one Mulchand Hukmatrai whereunder they leased out the said property to Mulchand Hukmatrai for a period of 99 years on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,101. Mulchand Hukmatrai was to get the building then standing on the said plot vacated by the tenants, to demolish it and then to construct one or more buildings in its place at his cost. Pursuant to this agreement, Mulchand Hukmatrai got ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i Vs. Indian Textile Engineers ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-1982
Reported in: (1982)30CTR(Bom)234; [1983]141ITR69(Bom); [1982]11TAXMAN48(Bom)
Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. The assessees in the reference are Indian Textile Engineers Pvt. Ltd., agents of Platt Bros. (Sales) Ltd., Bombay. One Textile Machinery Makers Ltd., is a company registered in the United Kingdom carrying on business of manufacture and sale of textile machinery and spare parts. It has a number of subsidiary companies. Platt Bros., (Sales) Ltd., which is also a company incorporated in the U.K., is a subsidiary of Textile Machinery Makers Ltd. Similarly, Platt Brothers & Co. Ltd., Platts (Barton) Ltd., Howard Ltd. Howard & Bullough Ltd.,. and Dobson & Barlow Ltd., which are all companies registered in the United Kingdom, are also subsidiary companies of Textile Machinery Makers Ltd. All these subsidiary companies carry on the business of manufacture and sale of textile machinery and spare parts under the control of the parent company. The assessee-company is a selling agent of Platt Bros. (Sales) Ltd.,. in India.2. Section 20 of the Finance Act, 1953, of the Unite...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Shankar Patil Vs. Commissioner of Police and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-1982
Reported in: 1982(1)BomCR949
C. S. Dharmadhikari, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner-detenu has challenged the order of this detention dated 15th January, 1982 on various grounds. One of the grounds raises is that the ground No. 1 is hopelessly vague and the material on which the ground is based was also not communicated or furnished to the detenu, and because of this non-supply of documents and material, the detenu's right to make effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India is violated. As in our opinion there is much substance in this contention, it is not necessary to considers other contentions raised and argued before us.2. Shri Kamble, the learned Public Prosecutor contended before us that what is incorporated in paragraph 1 of the grounds of detention is not a ground of detention but merely a preamble. It is not possible for us to accept this contortions for obvious reason. The relevant grounds of detention are as under :---'Mr. Krishna Shankar Patil of Bhopar, Taluka Ka...
Tag this Judgment!Shantabai Hari Chavhan Vs. Satyawatibai Alias Chandrabai Raghunath Ach ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-1982
Reported in: 1983(1)BomCR139
Sharad Manohar, J.1. This petition is entirely devoid of any merits.2. This petition is filed by the original opponent against whom an application under section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Act, 1882 was filed by the respondent. The contention of the respondent was that in the suit premises which consist of a mere one room in a chawl and which are held by the respondent as a tenant, the present petitioner was allowed to stay along with the respondent. In other words the contention was that she was given leave and licence to stay in the suit premises along with the respondent. It was further contended that the licence was revoked and since the petitioner refused to vacate inspite of revocation of the license, the suit for recovery of possession was filed under said section 41 of the Act.The defence of the present was that the respondent was not the exclusive tenant in respect of the suit premises but that both the petitioner as well as the respondent were the joint tenants of the s...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sitadevi N. Podar Vs. Second Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-1982
Reported in: (1982)1ITD1021(Mum.)
1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 13-10-1981 of the Commissioner (Appeals) relating to the assessment year 1975-76, the previous year of which ended 31-3-1975. The assessee is an individual. During the previous year under consideration, she sold silver utensils for Rs. 4,05,959. The details of the utensils sold are as below :Particulars Weight Amount Rs.Kalash One 31.165 34,201.50Kalash Two 62.340 70.755.90KalashOne 31.160 34,276.00Topne One 69.970 79,419.95Kundi One 79.500 90,252.50Top One 85.460 96,997.10 4,06,958.95 The assessee had not declared the details of the utensils in the original return, but had declared the same in the revised return, filed before the original assessment was made. The claim of the assessee was that the silver utensils were personal effects, and so were not capital assets within the meaning of Section 2(14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). Hence, no capital gains arose out of their sale. The ITO accepted the abov...
Tag this Judgment!Xyz Vs. Third Wealth-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-1982
Reported in: (1982)2ITD566(Mum.)
1. In these appeals, the asses-see has disputed the penalties levied by the WTO under Section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act'), as sustained by the AAG for the five years under consideration.2. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed original returns of wealth on 4-9-1968, 29-6-1969, 30-6-1970, 30-6-1971 and 30-6-1972, respectively, admitting jewellery worth Rs. 57,550. The assessments were completed for these five years valuing the jewellery at Rs. 58,244 and Rs. 58,166 for the first two years and at the figures declared by the assessee for the last three years under consideration. In the meanwhile, the assessment for the year 1976-77 came up for consideration, during the course of which, at the instance of the WTO, the assessee got the jewellery valued. According to the assessee's valuer, the value of the jewellery was Rs. 95,131 for the first two years and Rs. 1,24,702 for the last three years, which the assessee had shown in her returns of wealth for the fiv...
Tag this Judgment!Colaba Land and Mill Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-08-1982
Reported in: [1985]58CompCas513(Bom)
Aggarwal, J.1. In the present application, the principal question which falls fir consideration is whether under s. 555(7)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956, the applicant company (take out of liquidation) is entitled to claim the money representing the assets refundable to the contributories, which had been paid into the company's liquidation account under sub-s. (1)(b) of s. 555 of the said Act. The only direction which is sought is that the respondent, the Union of India, be ordered to pay to the applicant company an aggregate sum of Rs. 5,40,667 or such amount as has been deposited by the Official liquidator in the company's liquidation account as undistributed assets of the company.2. The brief facts, giving rise to the present application, are as follows :The company was ordered to be wound up by order dated October 7, 1959, passed by this court in I.C. No. 221 of 1958 and the official liquidator was appointed as the liquidator of the company. The authorised capital of the company wa...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »