Mumbai Court July 1982 Judgments
Bapu Atmaram Shinde Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-1982
Reported in: 1982(2)BomCR551
B.J. Rele, J.1. The petitioner, a driver of a motor lorry, has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash proceedings launched against him under Rule 138 of Bombay Motor Vehicles Rules, 1959, read with section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.2. Motor Lorry No. MHT 2725 is registered with the R.T.O., Bombay in the name of M/s. Mangatram and Brothers. The petitioner is the driver of that motor vehicle. The prosecution case in brief is that on 24-2-1981 at about 10.10 a.m. at 'R.A.K.' Road (Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road), committed an offence under Rule 138 of the Motor Vehicles Rule. Then in the charge-sheet what is stated is a word 'Mangatram'. There is no section of the Motor Vehicles Act mentioned in the charge-sheet. The column in the charge-sheet is blank. It is on this truncated charge-sheet that the petitioner is sought to be punished for the alleged offence under the said Rule 138 read with the said section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act.3. Shri Gursahani, the learned C...
Tag this Judgment!Premchand Manikchand Rathor and ors. Vs. Ramkunwar S/O Ramchandra Chou ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-1982
Reported in: 1982(2)BomCR499; 1982MhLJ832
S.J. Deshpande, J.1. This appeal raise a short but interesting question regarding limitation, governing the transaction between the parties and it arises in the following manner.2. Ramkunwar the present respondent pledged ornaments thrice with the firm of the appellants. The first pledging was on 16-11-1932, second pledging was on 7-1-1933 and the third pledging was on 22-1-1934. The pledging was with Babulal Manikchand Rathor, who is dead and whose heirs and legal representatives are the defendants, who are the appellants before me.3. The defendants resisted plaintiff's claim, inter alia, on the ground of limitation, and the trial Court framed several issues. Issue No. 4 related to limitation.4. It appears that it was represented to the trial Court that plaintiff's suit was ex facie barred by limitation and hence the issue of limitation should be decided as a preliminary issue. This request was granted and after hearing the Counsel, the learned trial Judge held that the suit was barre...
Tag this Judgment!Daleep Singh and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Bom356
1. The proceedings were initiated under the provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceilings on Holdings) Amended Act, 1961. The original petitioner held lands in two divisions of the Maharashtra State, namely, at Aurangabad Division and Nagpur Division. Section 14(4) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceilings on Holdings) Amended Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ceiling Act') lays down that where a person or family unit holds land in two or more districts of the same division, the enquiry shall be held by the Collector whom the Commissioner may, by order in writing, designate. In view of the facts of this case, it was necessary for the Collector, whom the Government would designate, to make an enquiry. Accordingly the State Government by an order or authorisation dated Jan 23, 1976, bearing No. ICH-1675/342053, signed by the Desk Officer, was issued. It is thereafter the Surplus Lands Determination Tribunal, Aurangabad, (hereinafter referred to as 'the S. L. D...
Tag this Judgment!Sardar Daleepsingh S/O Sardar Pratapsingh Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-1982
Reported in: (1983)85BOMLR497; 1983MhLJ75
Kanade, J.1. The proceedings were initiated under the provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Amended Act, 1961. The original petitioner held lands in two divisions of the Maharashtra State, namely,' at Aurangabad Division and Nagpur Division, Section 14(4) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holding) Amended Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ceiling Act') lays down that where a person or family unit holds land in two or more districts of the same division, the enquiry shall be held by the Collector whom the Commissioner may, by order in writing, designate. In view of the facts of this case, it was necessary for the Collector, whom the Government would designate, to make an enquiry. Accordingly the State Government by an order or authorisation dated January 23, 1976 bearing No. ICH-1675/342053, signed by the Desk Officer, was issued. It is thereafter the Surplus Lands Determination Tribunal, Aurangabad, (hereinafter referred to as '...
Tag this Judgment!Premier Tyres Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-14-1982
Reported in: (1984)8ITD693(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal by the assessee, a limited company, who has been treated as the agent of a non-resident company by name Uniroyal inc., USA. There is no dispute that the assessee is the agent. The point at despute is that the amount remitted by the Indian agent, Premier Tyres Ltd., to Uniroyal Inc. is not income accruing or arising in India. It is also not income which could be deemed to accrue or arise in India.Therefore, nothing is taxable.2. Premier Tyres Ltd., the Indian company, had entered into an agreement with the American company for technical services. There was an agreement subsisting between these two companies, dated 23-2-1962, but that agreement was terminated 10 years later. A new agreement was made out on 1-4-1974 between them which governs the assessment year we are concerned with. Article II 2-1 provides for the technical assistance to be given by the American company and it reads as follows: UNIROYAL will furnish or cause to be furnished to PREMIER detailed info...
Tag this Judgment!Metal Rolling Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-14-1982
Reported in: (1982)31CTR(Bom)116; [1983]142ITR170(Bom)
Kania, J.1. This is a reference on a case stated under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (referred to herein as 'the said Act'). The questions referred to us for our determination in this reference are as follows :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim of the applicant that the receipts of Rs. 99,021 for the assessment year 1966-67 and Rs. 1,71,982 for the assessment year 1967-68, arising on account of sale of import entitlements, were : (a) items of capital receipts or (b) items of casual and non-recurring nature and hence exempt from income-tax under Section 10(3) of the Income-tax Act, or (c) an item of export profits or export sales eligible for rebate from income-tax under Section 2(5)(a)(i) or 2(4)(a)(ii) of the Finance Act, 1966, or 1967, has been rightly rejected ? (2) Whether the sum of Rs. 99,021 for the assessment year 1966-67 and Rs. 1,71,982 for the assessment year 1967-68, have been rightly assessed as applicant's income from busin...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Bombay Castwell Engineering Pvt. Ltd. and Castwell Engineering ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-1982
Reported in: [1984]55CompCas75(Bom)
1. This is a petition for winding-up brought by M/s. Castwell Engineering Corporation against Bombay Castwell Engineering Private Limited in respect of a debt of Rs. 92,560.12 together with further interest on the principle amount of Rs. 74,053 at the rate of 15 per cent. per annum to be calculated from 1st December, 1978, till payment and also for the royalty amount of Rs. 9,800.2. It is not necessary to go into the facts because at the stage of admission of the petition the parties filed consent terms. Under these consent terms, the company acknowledged its debt to the extent of Rs. 74,053 together with interest thereon at the rate of 12 per sent per annum, from 14th September, 1978, till payment and the cost of the petition fixed at Rs. 1,310.64. Under the consent terms, the petitioners also recorded that the company was to pay the cost of the machinery purchased by the petitioners from M/s. Grindwell Engineering Industries as per Invoice No. 15 dated 1st May, 1977. The amount of th...
Tag this Judgment!Centron Industrial Alliance Limited Vs. PravIn Kantilal Vakil and Anot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-1982
Reported in: [1984]55CompCas731(Bom)
Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. Liberty to take out a judge's summons in terms of the draft handed in, returnable on 11th August, 1982. Affidavit in reply to be filed on or before July 22, 1982, and copy thereof to be given to the other side before that date. Affidavit in rejoinder to be filed and a copy thereof to be given to the other side on or before August 6, 1982.2. The applicant prays for ad interim relief restraining the petitioner-company and the opponents from holding a requisitioned meeting of the company today. Pursuant to a requisition received from some of the shareholders for calling an extraordinary general meeting of the company, a notice dated June 11, 1982, has been sent by the company to its shareholders including the applicant for holding an extraordinary general meeting today. The meeting which is proposed to be called is for the purpose or passing the following resolution :'RESOLVED that the company re-negotiate with Brooke Bond India Ltd. and/or examine alternate S...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Poona Vs. Alpana Talkies
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-1982
Reported in: [1983]139ITR1055(Bom); [1983]12TAXMAN65(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. The two questions which have been referred to this court under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, are as follows;'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on the true construction of lease deeds of November 21, 1960 and March 4, 1965, the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the assessee is the owner of the building, fixtures and fittings of 'Shirin'/'Alpana' Talkies within the meaning of section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the relevant year 1964-65 to 1969-70 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to depreciation under section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the above items ?'2. The assessee carries on business as an exhibitor of films at Poona. The theatre in which the assessee exhibits films was originally leased out by M/s. Ismail and Babumiyan, both sons of Rasulbhai, to one Homi Meher Mistry, for 20 years with effect from January 1, 1948, by lease deed dated May 30, 194...
Tag this Judgment!V.R. Potdar Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Bom76; 1982MhLJ779
Deshpande, C.J.1. The petitioner and respondent No. 4 had applied or admission to Post-Graduation Course in Medicine. The choice of the both fell on 'Paediatrics' as their subject, though the petitioner in the alternative had applied for studies in 'General Medicine' and 'Diploma in Child health'. For the year under dispute, only two seats were available for 'Paediatrics: one being earmarked for 'open merit', and the other being reserved for Scheduled Caste student. Respondent No. 4 belonged to 'Other Backward Class', the whom no seat in Paediatrics and reserved. But the relevant rule contemplates allotment unfilled seat of Schedule Caste to a student belonging to any group of Backward Class up to the maximum percentage fixed thereunder for the said group. Such rules for admission to the Post-Graduation courses are framed under the Government Resolution dated 18th June 1971. Only students admitted to M.B.B.S. course though reserved seats could claim admission to Post-Graduation course ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »