Mumbai Court August 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.
Honraj Jethanand Sadarangani and ors. Vs. Sheth Sakharam Nemchand Jain ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-1983
Reported in: 1983(2)BomCR574
B.A. Masodkar, J.1. All these five petitions arise out of a group of suits which were filed by the respondent, public trust, seeking eviction of different tenants under the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the ground that they needed the tenanted premises for their bona fide and reasonable use and occupation. It appears that nine suits were filed against nine tenants and all of them appealed against the decree that was eventually made. Out of the group of nine tenants, the present five petitions are filed by five tenants questioning the concurrent finding by both the courts below that the trust was entitled to a decree for possession on the ground that the trust needed the suit premises for its bona fide use and occupation and, consequently, decree is made under section 13(1)(g) of the Act.2. The admitted facts are that the plaintiff-respondent is a registered public charitable trust. A copy of the...
South Eastern Railway Administration and anr. Vs. Govindlal Gopikishan ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-1983
Reported in: II(1984)ACC183
Joshi, J.1. In this second appeal the original defendants Nos 1(A) and 1(B) have challenged the decree of the Courts below directing the appellants to pay an amount of Rs. 3632.25 and proportionate costs of the suit with, interest at 6 per cent per annum on Rs. 36,000/- from the date of suit till realisation, to the plaintiff the present respondents Nos. 1 and 2 as damages caused to the plaintiffs by the appellant-railways as carriers on account of nondelivery and short delivery of the goods consigned to the railways for carriage. The main contention of the appellants in this second appeal is that the trial Court at Gondia had no jursidiction to entertain the suit as against the appellants.2. The plaintiffs who are real brothers and grain dealers a Gondia carry on grain business in the name and style 'Mathuradas Kaluram Mundra' at Gondia in Bhandara District. On 2-6-1966 respondent No. 3 M/s. Nathuran Chandulal, General Merchants at Katabhanji in Orissa State, entered into a contract w...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-iv Vs. Godfrey Phillips India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-1983
Reported in: (1983)37CTR(Bom)14; [1984]150ITR202(Bom); [1983]15TAXMAN401(Bom)
Desai, J.1. In this reference three question of law stand referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, two at the instance of the Commissioner and one at the instance of the assessee.2. The three question pertain to three amounts which were claimed by the assessee as constituting reserves for the purpose of computing the capital under the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963. These three items pertain to the assessment year 1963-64 and were :(1) Provision for taxation Rs. 27,57,781(2) Proposed dividend Rs. 17,54,688(3) Provision for gratuity Rs. 9,65,203Question No. 1 pertains to the amount set aside as a provision for gratuity. Question No. 2 pertains to the amount set aside for proposed dividend. Question No. 3 (as we shall designate it) referred to us at the instance of the assessee pertains to the amount set aside by the assessee-company as provision for taxation.These three questions are as under :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the provision for gra...
J.K. Vacuum Flasks Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-1983
Reported in: 1984(1)BomCR598; 1984(2)ECC303; 1983(14)ELT2095(Bom); [1982]135ITR727(Bom); 1984MhLJ674
Vaze, J.1. Two reasonable persons can perfectly reasonably come to opposite conclusions on the same set of facts without forfeiting their title to be regarded as reasonable. So said Lord Hailsham L.C. in Re : W. (An Infant) (1971) A.C. 682. But, in this appeal, we meet two reasonable men who are as different from each other as cheese from chalk. One reasonable manufacturer of vacuum flasks tells revenue that the refills which are made of glass are a fragile commodity and consequently about 5% of his manufactured goods broke in the process. Another equally reasonable officer of Central Excise feels that not a single vacuum flask should be accounted for under the head of 'breakages'. This thus is the focal point of the controversy.2. J. K. Vacuum Flasks Limited are engaged in the manufacture of vacuum flasks and refills at Chinchvad, Poona 19, and hold Central Excise L-4 Licence. Under Section 3 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, duties of excise are levied on all excisable goods...
Satish Balkrishna Shekatkar Vs. Subhada Satish Shekatkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-1983
Reported in: 1984(1)BomCR344
B.A. Masodkar, J.1. This appeal by the original petitioner, who claimed a decree for divorce, is being disposed of by consent of the parties as the original petition was amended with the leave of the Court and both the parties are presently praying for the divorce by mutual consent. Both the parties are personally present and they are identified by their respective learned Counsel. Wife Shubhada states that she has voluntarily filed this application. So also husband Satish states that there is no other go for him but to take divorce by consent, for they are residing separately for the last 21/2 years. Both of them further admit that there is one child by name Aniket. Father Satish expressly states that he has no objection if that child remains in the custody of mother Shubhada, who is employed in the State Bank of India. He further admits that she will be properly looking after the well-being and education of the child. Under these circumstances, both of them pray that custody of the c...
Rajaram Narayan Anturkar Vs. F.F. Wadia and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-1983
Reported in: 1983(2)BomCR765
A.D. Tated, J.1. Shop Inspector, Pune Municipal Corporation, Pune filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 6th October, 1979 passed by the learned J.M.F.C. Pune, acquitting the first respondent of the offence under section 7(1) read with section 52(a) of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act (hereinafter for the sake of brevity called as 'the said Act').2. The appellant is a Shop Inspector of the Pune Municipal Corporation. He filed a complaint against the respondent No. 1 for contravention of section 7(1) of the said Act, punishable under section 52(a) of the said Act. The appellant alleged that the first respondent is Yeravada Stud and Agricultural Farm a commercial establishment, within the area of Pune Municipal Corporation. The appellant visited the said establishment on 2nd August, 1978. The Secretary of the establishment Shri Sawale was present. It was noticed that the establishment was not registered under the said Act. Hence a notice was sent to the respondent ...
Kushaba and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-1983
Reported in: 1985CriLJ1369
S.P. Kurdukar, J.1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellants-accused challenging the Order of conviction and sentence dt. Oct. 4, 1979 in Sessions Case No. 58 of 1979, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Beed. The Appellant No. 1 (Accused No. 1) was convicted of the offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. Both the appellants were also convicted of an offence under Section 201 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years. It is, this order of conviction and sentence which is the subject matter of this appeal.2. The prosecution case lies within a very narrow compass and the same can be summarised as under;Originally, six accused persons were tried for offence punishable under Sections 302,201,116 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. However, accused Nos. 1 and 2 were alone found guilty and they were accordingly convicted by the learned Ad...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Cadbury Fry (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-1983
Reported in: 1992(40)LC149(Bombay)
M.N. Chandurkar, Actg. C.J.1. This is an appeal by the Union of India against the order of the learned Single Judge, who held that a substance which is known as cocoa cake does not fall within item 21(2) of the First Schedule-Import Tariff to the Indian Tariff Act, 1934 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The process as a result of this cocoa cake is manufactured is not in dispute. This cocoa cake is used for the manufacture of cocoa, chocolates and malted milk foods by the respondents-company.2. The principal raw material required for the manufacture of cocoa, chocolates and malted milk food is cocoa beans, which are obtained by the process of fermenting and drying the seeds of a tropical or equatorial tree known as The bromine cocoa. These seeds are cleaned, roasted and cracked and the broken pieces of the beans known as 'nibs' are separated from the shells. The nibs are ground and converted into a fine paste, which is called 'mass'. This mass is treated with chemicals and subjec...
Amit Textiles Vs. First Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-1983
Reported in: (1983)6ITD471(Mum.)
1. The first four appeals are by the assessee and the last two by the department. The appeal for the year 1977-78 is directed against the order of the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') and the appeals for other years relate to Section 143 of the Act. The common ground in dispute in all these appeals relate to the inclusion of interest paid to HUFs of Mansukhlal Dwarkadas and Himatlal Dwarkadas in the total income of the assessee.2. For the assessment year 1977-78, there were three partners in the firm out of which the above two persons represented their respective HUFs, and the third was an individual partner. The individual resigned from the firm and for the assessment years 1978-79 to 1980-81, the two individuals representing the HUFs, continued to be partners. For all the years, there was no capital account in the name of the individuals Mansukhlal Dwarkadas and Himatlal Dwarkadas. There were accounts in the name of the HUFs of Mansukhlal Dwarka...
Jadavjibhai Ambaram Kathrani Vs. Eighth Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-1983
Reported in: (1983)6ITD606(Mum.)
1. In this appeal, the grievance of the assessee relates to disallowance of Rs. 40,000 as value of the share of goodwill in a firm, Rs. 55,950 as value of the assessee's share in the said firm and Rs. 26,561 as interest by the ITO and confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. The assessee-appellant, his son Dilip Jadavji Kathrani and seven others were partners in the firm Asian Chemical Works under the deed of partnership dated 12-11-1971. It was a partnership at will. Some disputes arose between the assessee and his son on the one hand and the other partners on the other hand and on 10-8-1974, a notice of dissolution of the partnership with effect from 16-8-1974 was issued to the other seven partners on behalf of the assessee and his son. On the failure of the said partners to dissolve the partnership, the assessee and his son instituted on 30-9-1974 a suit being No. 924 of 1974 in the ordinary original jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court for a declaration that the partnership sto...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »