Mumbai Court April 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.
Dr. Subramaniam Swamy Vs. Prabhakar S. Pai and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-20-1983
Reported in: 1983(2)BomCR129
ORDER1. By this writ petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India and S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 19th Court, Esplanade, Bombay, dated May 14, 1982, issuing process against the petitioner.2. The jurisdiction of the Court to take cognizance of an offence is challenged in this petition. That arises on the following facts of the case.3. The petitioner, Dr. Subramaniam Swamy who is a Member of the Lok Sabha and Deputy Leader of the Janata Party in Parliament, is the accused in a complaint filed by respondent No. 1, Prabhakar S. Pai, who happened to be the May or of Bombay at the time of the filing of the complaint. It is contended by the complainant in his complaint that the General Elections were scheduled to take place in the country in four States, namely, Himachal Pradesh, Haryana, West Bengal and Kerala. The accused in his capacity as the General Secretary of the...
K. Subramanian, Ito and Another Vs. Siemens India Ltd. and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-20-1983
Reported in: (1983)36CTR(Bom)197; [1985]156ITR11(Bom); [1983]15TAXMAN594(Bom)
Kania, J.1. This is an appeal by the ITO from the judgment of Madon J. (as he then was) which comes before us for admission. We admit the appeal merely because we are informed that there is no earlier judgment of this court or any other court on the construction of s. 7 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 (7 of 1964), which has been construed in the said judgment appealed against. We may, however, make it quite clear that prima facie we are completely in agreement with the construction put by the learned trial judge on s. 7 of the said Act. The earned judge has carefully set out six features of a provisional assessment under s. 7 of the said Act and held that in view of these features, the departure made in s. 7 of the said Act from the language used in s. 141 of the I.T. Act, 1961 (deleted w.e.f. from 1-4-1971), though it may not confine the ITO only to the position as shown in the return, does not at the same time authorise him to reject that return, in whole or in part, or t...
Bungalow Plot Owners (Sector 8) Association and ors. Vs. State of Maha ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-1983
Reported in: AIR1983Bom448
Chandurkar, Actg. C.J.1. The petitioners in this petition are challenging the continuation of recovery of the toll charges, which are collected at, what is generally known as Thana Creek bridge, originally levied by the State Government by its Notification D/- 13-1-1972 and the rates enhanced by the Government Notification D/- 26-4-1982 in exercise of the powers under the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 20, Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. This petition is filed by four petitioners, out of whom petitioner 1 is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and is an Association of individual plot-owners, who had purchased plots and built residential houses at Vashi in New Bombay and these owners have to regularly commute between Vashi New Bombay and Bombay City. Petitioner 2 is a resident of the township developed in New Bombay and has to come to Bombay City at his place of employment at Express Towers, Nariman Point,...
Valson Dyeing, Bleaching and Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC1756DTri(Mum.)bai
1. The dispute giving rise to the present appeal may be briefly stated.The Supdt. of Central Excise, Bombay, by a Show Cause Notice dated 26.12.74, alleged that the appellants had declared a certain variety of fabric as viscose x staple lining dyed fabric with tariff value of Rs. 3/- per sq, metre, whereas test of a sample of the fabric showed its composition as of viscose filament yarn, attracting tariff value of Rs. 4 20 per sq. metre in terms of Central Excise Notification No. 90/73 dated 5.3.1973. On this basis, the appellants were served with a demand for Rs. 4,103 93 representing the differential amount of duty. At the instance of the appellants, a sample was sent for re-test by the Chief Chemist, Central Revenues, New Delhi who reported that the sample was composed mainly of filament yarn of cellulosic origin with 0.15% of staple, fibre yarn of cellulosic origin (only four, 2-ply staple yarn present) about 0.5 cm. from the selvedges. On adjudication, the Asstt.Collector held th...
Pinhas Ezekil Silas Vs. Sally Pinhas Silas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-15-1983
Reported in: AIR1983Bom263
1. This is a suit filed by a husband against his wife, both practising Jewish Religion, praying for a Decree for divorce of their marriage. In the alternative, the plaintiff-husband has prayed for judicial separation against the defendant. Thirdly, the plaintiff-husband has prayed for the custody of the minor daughter Michelle and lastly, for costs of the suit.2. The suit was called out for hearing and final disposal today, when the plaintiff was represented by his Advocate. the defendant has remained absent. The Affidavit of Service has been marked as Exhibit 'A'. A copy of the letter of the Superintendent of Post Offices, Bombay City South Division. addressed to the Sheriff of Bombay has been marked as Exhibit 'B'.3. The plaintiff has examined himself. In his evidence he has deposed that he and the defendant both practiced Jewish Religion and that he was domiciled in India. He has stated that he was married to the defendant on 24th May, 1972 at the Jewish Synagogue. Byculla, Bombay ,...
Shree Siddheshwar Sahakari Sankar Karkhana Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-15-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Bom81; ILR1984Bom1784; 1983MhLJ719
Chandurkar, Actg. C.J.1. In this Writ Petition No. 1418 of 1981 under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the question raised relates to the constitutional validity of S. 73A(1) and (5) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). This question also arises in Writ Petitions Nos. 1419 of 1981 and 1330 of 1981 and two other petitions, namely, writ Petitions Nos. 735 of 1983 and 1298 of 1983. Counsel appearing in these petitions were, therefore, also heard on the question referred to above and these petitions are being disposed of by this judgment.2. Section 73 of the Act provides that the management of every society shall vest in a committee, constituted in accordance with the Act, the Rules and By-laws, which shall exercise such powers and perform such duties as may be conferred or imposed respectively by the Act the Rules and the By-laws.3. Rules have been framed under the Act and are known as the 'Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961 (...
Rajabally Hirji Meghani Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-15-1983
Reported in: 1983(2)BomCR5
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. The petitioner was detained under provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, by an order of the Union of India, the first respondents, dated 19th December, 1974. Pursuant thereto, a notice dated 17th March, 1976, was served upon the petitioner under the provisions of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'SAFEMA') in respect of the property therein mentioned. On 20th May, 1977 this petition was filed to restrain the respondents from acting upon the notice under the SAFEMA.2. On 16th December, 1982 the Supreme Court of India, in Criminal Appeal No. 188 of 1976, set aside the detention order under the COFEPOSA passed against the petitioner.3. SAFEMA applies, inter alia, to every person in respect of whom an order of detention has been made under the COFEPOSA provided that such order of detention has not been set aside by a court of compete...
Champion Construction Co. Vs. First Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-1983
Reported in: (1983)5ITD495(Mum.)
1. The assessee is a firm, its business being that of earning income by constructing multi-storeyed buildings and selling flats and other accommodation therein. The proceedings relate to the assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79 for which the respective previous years ended on 30-6-1976 and 30-6-1977. It is common ground that the assessee-firm undertook a project of constructing a multi-storeyed building known as 'Monalisa' at Bandra, Bombay, during the previous year relevant for the assessment year 1976-77. For this purpose, it acquired a plot of land on long lease. The position as regards cost of construction and the receipts by way of sale of flats/other accommodation by the end of the assessment years 1976-77, 1977-78 and 1978-79 is as under ; Assessment year2. Sale value of Nil 30,73,216 58,02,516 flats/other (out of which (net) It is also common ground that the total area to be constructed in this regard was 61,396 sq. ft. and that the building was complete by the end of the asse...
Ladhaji Mavaji JaIn Vs. the Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-1983
Reported in: 1983(2)BomCR90; (1983)85BOMLR339
Jahagirdar, J.1. This petition seeks to challenge an order of detention passed by the Additional Secretary to the Government of India under S. 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the COFEPOSA Act', against one Babulal Ladhaji Jain, who is the son of the present petitioner and who will hereinafter be referred to as 'the detenu'. That order is 25th November 1982 and recites to state with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the augmentation of foreign exchange it was necessary to detain him under the provisions of the said Act. By a communication of the same date, namely 25th November 1982, the detenu was supplied with the grounds of detention and this communication is annexed an Annexure 'B' to this petition. In order to appreciate the various lines of attack made by Mr. Karmali, the learned Advocate appearing in support of the petition, against the order of detention it ...
Ladhaji Mavaji JaIn Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-1983
Reported in: 1983CriLJ1468
Jahagirdar, J.1. This petition seeks to challenge an order of detention passed by the Additional Secretary to the Government of India under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the COFEPOSA Act', against one Babulal Ladhaji Jain, who is the son of the present petitioner and who will hereinafter be referred to as 'the detenu'. That order is of 25th Nov. 1982 and recites to state that with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the augmentation of foreign exchange it was necessary to detain him under the provisions of the said Act, By a communication of the same date, namely 25th Nov. 1982, the detenu was supplied with the grounds of detention and this communication is annexed an Annexure 'B' to this petition. In order to appreciate the various lines of attack made by Mr. Karmali, the learned Advocate appearing in support of the petition, against the order of detentio...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »