Mumbai Court July 1982 Judgments
Laxminarayan Ramdayal Gutani Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Bom232
1. This is plaintiff's second appeal against the judgment and decree of the Joint Judge Aurangabad, who, in turn, reversed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad, and it arises out of the following facts.2. The dispute relates to Survey No. 79 admeasuring 27 acres 39 gunthas situated at Pandharpur in Gangapur Taluga of Aurangabad district. Admittedly, it is the ancestral property of the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged that there was a partition in his family, including his father, and that the suit land fell to his share in this partition. At Ex. 35 there is a decree dated 15-4-1956, supporting plaintiff's case about such partition and about falling of this land to the share of the plaintiff. It is true that it is a consent decree and it was usual in this part of this State to have such a consent decree.3. While considering the ceiling case of plaintiff's father the learned Deputy Collector (Ceiling) Gangapur included the suit land in th...
Tag this Judgment!Srikishan Sadashiv Chaudhary and ors. Vs. Deo Rao Bhikaji Goje and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-1982
Reported in: 1982(2)BomCR642
D.B. Deshpande, J.1. The only question which arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the order dated 11-9-1981 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Aurangabad, directing a reference to be made to the Tenancy Court about the following issue---'Whether the plaintiffs prove that they were put in possession of the suit land and they are in possession of the suit land as tenants.'is correct, and it arises in the following manner.2. The petitioners in this Court are original defendants Nos. 1, 3 and 4 and respondent No. 4 is the original defendant No. 2 and is also formal respondent. Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 are original plaintiffs.3. On 6-4-1978 the plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of contract dated 11-9-1973 alleged to have been executed by one Kaushallyabai, the mother of the defendants, in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of 15 acres 33 gunthas out of 18 acres 33 gunthas of Survey No. 130 for an amount of Rs. 3200/-. In this very plaint...
Tag this Judgment!Narandar B. Agarwal and anr. Vs. Usman Haji Abbas and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1982
Reported in: 1982(1)BomCR863
C.S. Dharmadhikari, J.1. The appellants-plaintiffs filed a suit for possession of the suit property being Godown No. 10 on Plot No. 176. Reti Bunder, Darukhana, Bombay 10. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they were in exclusive possession of the suit premises, but were dispossessed some time in November, 1981. Therefore, they filed a suit for restoration of possession under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act on the basis that they were in possession within six months before the date of the suit and were dispossessed without due process of law. It is not necessary to make a detailed reference to other averments made in the plaint.2. The defendants resisted the suit on various grounds and also raised a preliminary contention that the City Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit. The City Civil Court came to the conclusion that the suit squarely falls under the provisions of section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882, hereinafter referred to...
Tag this Judgment!Shantaram B. Mujumdar Vs. University of Poona and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1982
Reported in: 1983(1)BomCR181; (1982)84BOMLR335
D.B. Deshpande, C.J.1. These two writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution can be disposed of by this common judgment. On 27th February, 1982, elections, to the office of the Dean for Faculty of Science in the University of Poona, were held. The petitioner and respondent No. 2 in Writ Petition No. 578 of 1982 were the only contestants to the said office. Respondent No. 2 secured 40, while the petitioner 23 votes. Respondent No. 2 was declared to have been elected. Validity of this election is challenged in this petition filed on 2nd March, 1982.2. The Poona University Teachers' Association, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, is the petitioner in the second writ-petition. Elections to the Senate of the Poona University were held on 18th October, 1981. Under section 20(1)(B)(iii) of the Poona University Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act)' 25 teachers are entitled to be elected to the Senate from amongst the teachers of the University and th...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Card Clothing Co. Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-1982
Reported in: (1983)3ITD170(Mum.)
1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 6-2-1981 of the Commissioner (Appeals) relating to the assessment year 1977-78, the previous year of which ended 31-3-1977.3. The only other ground in this appeal relates to the disallowance of a sum of Rs. 6,000, The assessee is a limited company. During the year under consideration, it spent a sum of Rs. 39,629 as legal and professional charges paid to seven parties. The ITO allowed a sum of Rs. 33,029 relating to five parties as admissible deduction. He did not allow the remaining two items, namely, Rs. 1,000 paid to the Controller of Capital Issues for approval of the bonus share issue and Rs. 5,600 paid to the auditors for examining the application to the Controller of Capital Issues, in connection with the aforesaid bonus shares. The sum of these two items comes to Rs. 6,600 but the ITO disallowed a sum of Rs. 6,000 only, apparently due to inadvertence. The reason given by the ITO for the disallowance is that ...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. Mahalakshmi Glass Works (P.) Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-1982
Reported in: (1982)2ITD646(Mum.)
1. The revenue has appealed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that the net sale proceeds of Rs. 1,41,218 on the import entitlements was not taxable in the assessment of the assessee.2. The assessee is a manufacturer and exporter of glassware. For the year under consideration, it received cash assistance of Rs. 1,00,848, customs drawback of Rs. 34,123 and Rs. 1,41,218 by way of sale of import entitlements, in respect of the export of glassware carried on by it. The ITO in the income-tax proceedings has taxed the amount of Rs. 1,34,971, being the aggregate of cash assistance and the customs drawback. About this there is no dispute. Even the sale proceeds of import entitlements of Rs. 1,41,218 were initially offered by the assessee for the assessment as taxable profits and they were taxed accordingly. Only during the pendency of the appeal by the assessee before the Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee objected to the taxing of this amount. For the reasons recorded ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwandas S. Tolani Vs. B.C. Aggarwal and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-1982
Reported in: 1983(12)ELT44(Bom)
ORDER1. A very short point is involved in this petition. It would appear that on 2nd August, 1966, the firm known as Eastern Machinery and Trading Co. of which firm the petitioner is today the sole proprietor was issued a show cause notice in respect of alleged violation of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. It is the agreed position that in respect of the said show cause notice, cause was shown by the firm by its reply dated 9th August, 1966.2. The show cause notice has been issued by the Director of Enforcement from its Head Quarters at New Delhi. According to the petitioner, the Director of Enforcement, New Delhi, called the firm and its representatives for a hearing in connection with the show cause notice. According to the petitioner, the hearing was attended by the petitioner's representative including the petitioner's partner and one of India's senior and leading counsel. According to the petitioner, the hearing lasted for over one day.3. It would appear that thereafter, no ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›