Mumbai Court August 1982 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
G.S. Wagh Vs. Ananda Lahanu Dhonnar and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-1982
Reported in: 1983CriLJ1147
Deshpande, J.1. By this revision application, the original complainant desires to challenge the order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nasik in Criminal Appeal No. 149 of 1980 on a very limited ground. The order of acquittal was passed on 4th Dec. 1981. It is unnecessary to narrate the whole facts in this case. One Ananda Lahanu Dhonnar was the original accused in Criminal Case No. 2415 of 1979, which was instituted upon the complaint made by the Food Inspector, Nasik Municipal Council at, Nasik. The prosecution was founded on the alleged contravention of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Respondent No. 1 accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 7 (i) and (v) and Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous- imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. This conviction was recorded by the learned Magis...
Kantilal Nahalchand and Others Vs. T.Y.C. Rao, Commissioner of Income- ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-1982
Reported in: (1983)33CTR(Bom)111; [1984]145ITR378(Bom); [1983]14TAXMAN162(Bom)
S.K. Desai, J.1. In this miscellaneous petition the petitioners have raised two principal complaints. The petitioners Nos. 1 to 4 were the partners of petitioner No. 5, Agarwal and Co. The said petitioners are complaining in the first place of certain adjustments made in respect of the EPT refund allowed to the said firm and the grievance is that although the excess EPT was paid by the firm, the refunds have been adjusted amongst the 13 partners which is not warranted by the legal provisions pertaining to refund. The second complaint is that they have not been allowed interest on the excess payment between the periods from March 31, 1956, to June 9, 1960.2. The opposing respondents to this petition are respondents Nos. 1 to 4.3. In order to understand the grievances of the petitioners and the legal provisions to be applied and considered, a few facts may be stated.4. The firm of Agarwal and Co. was constituted under a partnership deed dated May 15, 1944, and at the relevant period cons...
income-tax Officer Vs. Lata Mangeshkar
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-1982
Reported in: (1982)2ITD618(Mum.)
1. This appeal has been filed by the department against the order dated 23-3-1981 of the Commissioner (Appeals), relating to the assessment year 1976-77, the previous year of which ended on 31-3-1976. The grounds taken in this appeal are as below : 7. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the assessee being a professional is engaged in business and that the assessee is eligible for weighted deduction under Section 35B. 2. He further erred in accepting the alternative claim of the assessee that the foreign tour income should be treated as business income and not income from profession and hence entitled to deduction under Section 35B.2. The assessee is an eminent playback singer in the Film Industry.During the year under consideration, she had been to the USA to give public performances at nine places, in accordance with an agreement dated 11-3-1975 with Image of India, who acted as the agent of the assesse...
Sukhdev Prasad Raghubir Vs. Rambhujarat Kshampati
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Bom25; 1982(1)BomCR832; (1982)84BOMLR546; 1983MhLJ9
Bharmadhikari, J.1. The petitioner original plaintiff has filed the writ petitioner challenging the order passed by the Bench of the Court of Small Cause at Bombay dated 11th of June, 1981 holding that the Revision Application under Section 29(3) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging house Rates Control Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was not maintainable against an order refusing permission to amend the plaint. The plaint shit was filed by the petitioner - landlord for the eviction of the tenant-respondent. It appears that during the pendency of the suit, amendment of the written statement was permitted on 10th of September, 1975. therefore, the plaintiff filed an application proposing to amend the plaint by adding para 6-A raising the ground that the eviction could also be order since the defendants -tenant has denied his title. Since the said amendment application came to be rejected, the plaintiff was debarred from raising this additional ground in the present suit...
Ganesh Damodar Datar, Manager, United Commercial Bank Vs. State of Mah ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-1982
Reported in: 1982(2)BomCR612
B.J. Rele, J.1. These two revision applications are disposed of by this common order as the facts giving rise to these two revision applications are identical and the order passed by the learned Special Judge are also in identical terms.2. The petitioner was at the relevant time Manager of the Aurangabad Branch of the United Commercial Bank. The second respondent in both these cases are the customers of the bank. It is the prosecution case that between January 1971 and July 1973 the petitioner and the second respondent in each of the above two cases hatched a criminal conspiracy to cheat the bank. In the first case, that is Special Case No. 1 of 1976, it is the prosecution case that the bank was cheated by discounting bills and cheques without there being any sanctioned limit in favour of the customer and by crediting the proceeds by such bills and cheques before realisation from the drawee bank viz., Saraswat Co-operative Bank Limited, in the account of M/s. Anjali Cinetorium, Auranga...
Centron Industrial Alliance Ltd. Vs. PravIn Kantilal Vakil and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-1982
Reported in: [1985]57CompCas12(Bom)
Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. The petition company, Centron Industrial Alliance Limited, has filed a company Petition bearing No. 84 of 1981 (See , under the provisions of s. 391 of the Companies Act, 1956, for sanctioning a scheme of amalgamation of the petitioner company with M/s. Brooke Bond India Ltd. The petitioner company was incorporated in the year 1949. It became a public limited company in the year, 1974. It is admittedly in financial difficulties since 1975. In September, 1976, the board of directors of the petitioner company was reconstituted and director sponsored or nominated by the State Industrial and Investment Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. (SICOM) and United commercial Bank (UCO Bank) were inducted on the board of directors of the petitioner company. Ever since the petitioner company became a public limited company in the year 1974, the petitioner company has not paid any divided whatsoever under the shareholders. The company has been declared a relief undertaking un...
Madhusudan Dwarkadas Vora Vs. Superintendent of Stamps
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-1982
Reported in: (1982)84BOMLR595; (1983)35CTR(Bom)370; [1983]141ITR802(Bom); 1982MhLJ842
Bharucha, J.1. The petitioner has filed a petition in this court for probate of the last will and testament of his father, Dwarkadas's Hargovandas Vora, who died on December 29, 1979. The petitioner has annexed to the petition a schedule of the late late Dwarkadas's assets. Item No. 21 thereof relates to a 1/2 share in a self-occupied house property at Kallol, Plot No. B.9, Kapole Society Juhu Village Parle, Bombay 59. It is valued at Rs. 1,64,000 in the schedule. This has been found to be an under valuation by the Collector and Superintendents of Stamps, Bombay, who has sent to the prothonotary and Senior Master a valuation made by the Assistant Director of Town planning, Bombay City Survey and land Records, in the sum of Rs. 3,70,787. This valuation has been made on the land-plus-building method. The petitioner having filed his objection, an enquiry has to be held under the provisions of s. 28(5) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959.2. Ordinarily, the matter would forthwith have been r...
Pandurang Namdeo Dhabekar Vs. Vithal Rangrao Patil and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-1982
Reported in: 1982(1)BomCR891
M.H. Kania, J.1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking to impugned an order passed by respondent No. 4-the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Solapur.2. This petition is regarding the post of the Police Patil of village Dudhgaon, Taluka Barsi, District Solapur. On 27-9-1962, respondent No. 1 was appointed as a Police Patil of the said village. On 19-2-1964, there was a raid on the house of respondent No. 1 and it was alleged that some illicit liquor was found in that house. Respondent No. 1 was arrested and the police proceedings were launched against him. On 13-4-1964, respondent No. 1 was suspended from his post as the Police Patil of the said village. On 31st January, 1966, the petitioner was appointed as the Police Patil of the said village. The letter of appointment makes it quite clear that the petitioner was appointed temporarily and his services were liable to be terminated without a notice. The said appointment was stated to be under secti...
income-tax Officer Vs. Warden and Co. (India) (P.) Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-1982
Reported in: (1983)3ITD128(Mum.)
1 to 5. [These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.] 6. The assessee carries on business in the manufacture and sale of paper and hessian bags and plastic containers. It does not export these goods. The case of the assessee is that it supplies bags and containers to certain exporters who export their own goods in the same. On these facts, the assessee claimed weighted deduction under Section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') in respect of the following expenditure :SI. Assessment year Nature of Amount ofNo. expenditure expenditure1.1975-76 (a)Salary for staff Rs. 40,131 (b)Membership 7. The ITO observed that the expenses in question were incurred by the assessee in connection with its normal business in India and that there was no evidence to prove that these expenses related to the export business, if any. He, therefore, disallowed the claim of the assessee.8. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) found that the total turnover of the assessee amounted...
Maharashtra General Kamgar Union Vs. Glass Containers Pvt. Ltd. and An ... Overruled
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-1982
Reported in: (1983)ILLJ326Bom
1. In this writ petition the petitioners which are a registered trade union have impugned the decision give by the Industrial Court in Complaint ULP 301 of 1978. By the impugned decision the learned Member of the Industrial Court dismissed the Complaint filed by the Union and vacated the ad-interim injunction which was pending against the Employer till the date of his decision. The 1st respondent to the petition is the employer who was the opponent to the said Complaint. The 2nd respondent is the Tribunal whose order is impugned. I shall refer to the petitioners and the 1st respondent as the Union and the employer respectively in this judgment.2. It would appear that the relations between the employees of the 1st respondent Company became strained towards the middle of 1977 and the Employer filed a Complaint before the Industrial Court being Complaint ULP No. 288 of 1977. After further deterioration of the situation on 13th October, 1977, a lock-out was declared by the Employer. The Un...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »