Mumbai Court December 1983 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.
Nusli Neville Wadia Vs. T.L. Nilkanthan, Wealth-tax Officer, Companies ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-1983
Reported in: (1984)39CTR(Bom)145; [1985]154ITR447(Bom); [1984]17TAXMAN64(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. The petitioner is a wealth-tax assessee and had filed wealth-tax returns for the assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69. The WTO, Bombay, completed the wealth-tax assessment for the assessment year 1967-68, by order dated March 18, 1968, and computed the total net wealth at Rs. 20,44,794. The assessment for the assessment year 1968-69 was completed by order dated August 22, 1970, and the net wealth was found to be Rs. 22,22,007. On March 29, 1976, the petitioner was served with a notice under s. 17 of the W.T. Act, 1957, issued by respondent No. 1, inter alia, claiming that there is reason to believe that the petitioner's net wealth chargeable to tax for the assessment year 1967-68 had escaped assesment. The petitioner was called upon to file a return within thirty five days of the receipt of notice. The petitioner received the notice for reopening the assessment for the assessment year 1968-69 on March 31, 1977. The petitioner filed fresh returns for the relevant assessment...
Purshottam Thackersey Vs. K.N. Anantarama Ayyar, Commissioner of Incom ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-1983
Reported in: (1985)44CTR(Bom)109; [1985]154ITR438(Bom); [1984]17TAXMAN162(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. The petitioner is an assessable person on behalf of Purshottam Thackersey, HUF, of which the petitioner is the karta. The order under challenge in this petition was passed on December 21, 1978, by the Commissioner of Income-tax under s. 273A of the I.T. Act, 1961, and the relevent assessment years are 1968-69 to 1975-76. The assessee claims that among the properties held by the HUF are shares in two private limited companies, M/s. Sunderdas Thackersey and Bros. Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Ashvin Properties Pvt. Ltd. Both the said companies had their offices at Calcutta and both the said companies were family concerns carried on exclusively by and under control of the brother of the petitioner in Calcutta. The asessee claims that for the first time in December, 1976, the HUF learnt that the companies had declared dividends for each year from year the 1960-61 onwards. The assessee claims that no intimation was given at any time to the members of the HUF about the declaration of the d...
Purshottam Thackersey Vs. K.N. Anantarama Ayyar, Commissioner of Wealt ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-1983
Reported in: (1984)39CTR(Bom)249; [1985]154ITR395(Bom); [1984]18TAXMAN443(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. There is no merit in this petition filed under articles 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the legality of the order dated May 2, 1979, passed by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Bombay, in exercise of the powers under s. 18B of the W.T. Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The facts giving rise to the filing of this petition are as under :The petitioner is the karta a Purshottam Thackersey (HUF) and was liable to file the return of wealth-tax under s. 14 of the Act. The petitioner was liable to pay wealth-tax from the assessment years 1967-68 onwards and the wealth return was to be filed for each of the assessment years before June 30. The petitioners filed the wealth-tax returns for the assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70 on August 6, 1970, while the wealth-tax return for the assessment year 1970-71 was filed on January 1, 1972. After the assessment was completed, the WTO commenced penalty proceeding under s. 18(1)(a) of the Act for delay...
Manavendra Chitnis and Another Vs. Leela Chitnis Studios P. Ltd. and O ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-15-1983
Reported in: [1985]58CompCas113(Bom); 1984MhLJ586
Parekh, J.1. This judge's summons dated October 21, 1983, has been taken out by the applicants for an order that further proceedings in Company Petition No. 577 of 1983 be stayed under the provision of s. 34 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940, and that costs of the summons be provided for and for such other and further reliefs as this court may deem fit. The summons by the respondents.2. The facts that give rise to this summons are that there are two groups in the first respondent company, one group known as 'the Chitnis group' and the other group known as 'the Srivastava group'. Both these groups are at loggerheads. Certain disputes and differences having arisen between the two groups, the same were referred to the arbitration of one Bal Thackeray. The Bal Thackeray made an award dated November 24, 1982, whereby he, inter alia, directed that the members of the Srivastava group do transfer their shareholding in the first respondent company to the Chitnis group, on the Chitnis group pa...
Gulam HusaIn Mirza Vs. Laxmidas Premji Alias Sagar Premji and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-15-1983
Reported in: 1984(1)BomCR520; 1984MhLJ215
B.A. Masodkar, J.1. The petitioner is the tenant. He has been subjected to a decree for possession under section 13(1)(c) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the trial Court and that decree has been affirmed by the Appeal Court. The petitioner-tenant questions that decree in this writ petition.2. The landlords, who are the respondents, are the purchasers of this property. They became owners by reason of their purchase on December 26, 1968. The respondents-landlords are the occupants of the second floor premises in the same building. The petitioner tenant who was inducted as the tenant prior to the purchase by the predecessors of the landlords, is the tenant with regard to three rooms on the third floor and one room called a 'terrace room' on the top floor, which is the terrace floor. The respondents landlords served a notice as per Ex. 184 complaining of the conduct of the petitioner-tenant that he had trespasse...
Nirmala Dhondiram Kadam (Smt.) Vs. Shatrughana K. Padava and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-1983
Reported in: 1984(1)BomCR395; 1984MhLJ244
H.H. Kantharia, J. 1. This is an appeal from order dated 1-7-1983 passed by the learned Judge of the Bombay City Civil Court dismissing the chamber summons taken out by the appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff') in S.C. Suit No. 5577 of 1979.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the plaintiff and the member of her family were occupying Room No. 4569, in Building No. 150 at Kannamwar Nagar, Vikroli, Bombay belonging to Maharashtra Housing Board (hereinafter referred to as `the suit premises'). The said premises were allotted to her as she was an industrial worker. Sometime after December 1975 as her husband expired in an accident she vacated the suit premises and handed over the same to one Ghanshyam S. Kawade (hereinafter referred to as `defendant No. 1') for a temporary period for use and occupation. After one year she requested defendant No. 1 to vacate the suit premises and she was given assurance on that behalf. Subsequently she found, in the month of Aug...
Namdeo Govindrao Patil and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-1983
Reported in: 1984(1)BomCR592
V.A. Mohta, J.1. Often there is talk about sickening law delays. One contributing factor is 11 ill drafted legislations. This case aptly proves this point and that 'in drafting, it is not enough to gain a degree of precision which a person reading in good faith can understand but it is necessary to attain if possible, a degree of precision which a person reading in bad faith cannot misunderstand.'2. The Latur Taluka Sahakari Kharedi Vikri Sangh Limited, Latur is a specified society within the meaning of section 73-G of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 ('the Act' for short). Elections of the Board of Directors of this federal society had become due for the year 1982-83, Board consists inter alia of 8 representatives of the affiliated Co-operative Societies. The election to the Board is governed by Chapter XI-A of the Act and the Maharashtra Specified Co-operative Societies Elections to Committees Rules, 1971 ('the rules' for short). Election process was started by prepar...
Rameshchandra Ramlal Khandelwal Vs. Shankarlal Maganlal Joshi and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-1983
Reported in: 1984(2)BomCR245; 1984MhLJ187
H.H. Kantharia, J.1. An interesting and important point that arises for consideration in this civil revision application is with regard to the proper construction of section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The facts leading to this revision application under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code are that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiffs') filed Regular Civil Suit No. 417 of 1982 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kalyan against the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the 'Defendant No. 1') and respondent No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as 'Defendant No. 2') for dissolution of their partnership firm and for accounts. The plaintiffs made an application in the said suit under Order 39, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code praying for interim and ad interim reliefs. The Court issued a show cause notice in the matter of the said application and also summons in the suit and both were ma...
Vimalabai W/O Jayant Pawar Vs. Laxmibai W/O Jaywantrao Nandrekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-1983
Reported in: 1984(1)BomCR177
B.A. Masodkar, J.1. This is tenant's petition that questions the order made by the appeal Court, directing eviction of the petitioner tenant under section 13(1)(b) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). That is done on the basis of the finding that the petitioner tenant put and erected a permanent roof covered with Mangalore tiles on the tenanted premises without written permission from the respondent-landlady.2. In this Court, Mr. Apte, the learned Counsel appearing in support of the petition, argued that in the context of the facts available in the present litigation, section 13(1)(b) of the Act should not have been applied. He submitted that the roof of the tenanted premises was covered with Shahabadi stone and the respondent-landlady was trying to remove it and, therefore, to protect the tenement, the petitioner, tenant had to resort to this construction. As against this, the appeal Court has found that the tenem...
Laxman Rana Gavli and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-1983
Reported in: 1984(1)BomCR458
P.S. Shah, J.1. The four accused who have been found guilty by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Raigad for offences under section 302 read with section 34 and under section 324 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code have preferred this appeal challenging their conviction. Accused Nos. 1 to 3, Laxman, Eknath and Bhau are the sons of accused No. 4, Rama, who is the brother of P.W. 3 Namdeo. Deceased Hiraji and P.W. 2 Kashinath are the sons of Namdeo. P.W. 5 Pasabai is the wife of Namdeo and P.W. 6 Hirabai is the widow of Hiraji. The third son of Namdeo is Madhukar and Madhukar's wife is Tarabai. Thus there are two families. One of which is headed by accused No. 4 Rama and the other headed by P.W. 3 Namdeo. They all are the residents of village Manivali in District Raigad. The houses of the family of the accused and that of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses and the deceased are adjacent to each other. The map (Exh. 6) provides a clear picture of the house of Namdeo which consists of thr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »