Mumbai Court September 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.
Haresh Hemandas Melwani Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1983
Reported in: 1986(23)ELT400(Bom)
1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the legality of the order dated October 19, 1978 passed by the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports in exercise of the appellate jurisdiction, and the order passed by the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports in revisional jurisdiction and communicated to the petitioner by letter dated March 30, 1979.2. The petitioner is carrying on business in the firm name and style of M/s. Hassanand Hemandas & Co., and the firm is an 'established importer' and carries on business as wholesalers and retailers in arms and ammunition. The Import Trade Control Policy for the period April 1977 to March 1978 was announced by the Union of India and it provides for policy for, 'established importers.' The detailed import policy for established importers is given in Section IV of the Import Trade Control Policy Rules. It inter alia provides that the quota licence is given to an established impor...
Manjula D/O Jagjivandas Adhia and anr. Vs. Himansu Prakash Boral and a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1983
Reported in: 1984(1)BomCR433; (1983)85BOMLR604
Sujata V. Manohar J. 1. The 1st petitioner is the mother of two minor children Bhagwan alias Bhruguraj and Nandraj. The 2nd petitioner is the brother of the 1st petitioner. The 1st petitioner Manjula was married to Dilip Jyotiprakash Boral on 7th July, 1974. Out of this marriage a son Bhagwan alias Bhruguraj born on 5th December, 1975 and another son Nandraj was born on 7th April, 1977. Since 1978 there have been disputes and differences between the 1st petitioner and her husband Dilip Jyotiprakash Boral. This resulted in criminal proceedings being taken by the husband against the 1st petitioner and a matrimonial petition being Petition No. 793 of 1978 being filed by the husband of the 1st petitioner against her in the City Civil Court at Bombay on the ground of adultery. The 1st petitioner had, in the same year 1978, filed a petition for guardianship for her minor children in this High Court, being Misc. Petition No. 556 of 1978. Thereafter she also filed a petition for dissolution of...
Rewant and Others Vs. Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corpn. of Ind ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1983
Reported in: [1986]59CompCas792(Bom)
1. The petitioners, who were minors at the time when this petition was filed on August 9, 1978, seek a declaration 'that the respondents are under a legal obligation , subject to the terms of the relevant contract between them and the assured, to pay surrender value even to a Hindu minor absolute assignee of the contract, acting through his natural or legal guardian'' and for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay forthwith to the petitioners, acting through the father and natural or legal guardian, surrender value of all the three policies.2. The facts leading to the present writ petition, briefly stated, are as follows:The petitioners were born on March 20, 1961, October 4, 1963, and December 13, 1965, respectively. Their father, who is admittedly their natural guardian, had obtained 17 policies of life insurance from the second respondent. On the advise given by an insurance agent, he decided to surrender five of them and to invest the surrender value in fixed deposits...
Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore Vs. M.S. Caro
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1983
Reported in: (1984)38CTR(Bom)185; [1985]151ITR39(Bom); [1983]15TAXMAN530(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. This reference under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, is made at the instance of the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore, Bangalore, and poses this questions :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee-firm was carrying on business before the appointed day and, hence, was entitled to the taxation concession as envisaged in para. 9 of the Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Goa, Daman and Diu (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1964, for the assessment year 1964-65 ?'2. The reference arises out of the assessment made for the assessment year 1964-65. The assessee is a partnership of four persons doing business in wholesale and retail sale of cloth and surgical goods. A deed of partnership was entered into on March 31, 1964. It recited that the business of the partnership firm had been running from April 1, 1963, and the deed was deemed to have come into operation from that day. Relying upon the deed of...
P.K. Divekar (by Legal Representatives - S.P. Divekar and A.P. Divekar ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1983
Reported in: [1985]151ITR11(Bom)
Desai, J.1. In the reference, two questions stand referred to us :'(1) Whether the Tribunal erred in law or exercised its discretion un-judicially in not deciding the applicant's first submission that the Income-tax Officer was not justified in taking action under section 34(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and in remanding the case without giving a decision on that submission. (2) Whether the Tribunal erred in law or acted without any evidence and contrary to the materials on record in treating the sum of Rs. 3,00,000 (Rs. 3 lakhs) as the concealed income of the applicant ?'2. We may add that initially the Tribunal had not accepted the assessee's application to refer the said two questions, but the assessee thereafter preferred Income-tax Application No. 32 of 1966 and on the said application an order was made in the assessee's favour and in pursuance of the said order dated August 23, 1967, the aforesaid two questions stand referred to us.3. We are inclined to reframe question ...
R.B.S. Khandeparkar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1983
Reported in: (1984)38CTR(Bom)200; [1985]151ITR15(Bom); [1983]15TAXMAN495(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. We are called upon in this reference at the instance of the assessee to answer the following question :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee could be held to have carried on any business in Goa before the appointed day so as to become entitled to the concession as provided in Para. 9 read with Para. 3(1)(iii) of the Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Goa, Daman and Diu (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1964 ?'2. The assessee carried on the business of road, building and forest contractor in the Union territory of Goa during the relevant assessment years 1964-65 to 1969-70. The Partnership Act was extended to Goa with effect from March 15, 1964. A partnership deed was executed by the partners of the assessee on March 30, 1964.3. The I.T. Act became applicable to Goa on and after April 1, 1963. The Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Goa, Daman and Diu (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1964, gave to the assessee who carried on any business in Goa before the appo...
General Superintendence Company of India Ltd. Vs. General Secretary, G ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1983
Reported in: (1984)86BOMLR30; (1984)ILLJ56Bom; 1983MhLJ938
Jahagirdar, J.1. This is a group of five petitions which are begin heard together and are beginning disposed of by this common judgment and order. These petitions seek to challenge an order passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1 at Bombay, hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal', on 14th July, 1980 by which the Tribunal rejected the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to proceed with the hearing of the references.2. There is a protracted history behind these petitions. However, we prefer not to refer to the same. It is enough for our purposes to mention that the Tribunal is seized of five references made to it be the Central Government. They are Reference Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9 all of 1979 and 19 of 1978. In each of the first four references mentioned above, there is only one employer while in Reference No. 19 of 1978 all the employers in aforesaid four references have been covered. Industrial disputes relating to category...
Rewant and ors. Vs. Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1983
Reported in: AIR1985Bom75
ORDER1. The petitioners, who were minors at the time when this petition was filed on 9-8-1978, seek a declaration 'that the respondents are under a legal obligation, subject to the terms of the relevant contract between them and the assured, to pay surrender value even to a Hindu minor absolute assignee of the contract, acting through his natural or legal guardian 'and for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay forthwith to the petitioners, acting through the father and natural or legal guardian, surrender value of all three policies.2. the facts leading to the present writ-petition, briefly stated, are as follows.The petitioners were born on 20-3-1961, 4-10-1963 and 13-12-1965 respectively. Their father, who is admittedly their natural guardian, had obtained 17 policies of life insurance from the 2nd respondent. On the advice given by an insurance agent, he decided to surrender five of them and to invest the surrender value in fixed deposits. Out of these five policies, ...
Balaji Bhaurao Kalbanade Vs. Parubai Bhaguji Warhade and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1983
Reported in: 1984(1)BomCR61
G.M. Khandekar, J.1. In this Criminal Application, I am called upon to interpret a benign provision in regard to the economic condition of neglected wives and discarded divorcees enacted in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, namely, section 125. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, will hereafter be referred to as 'the 1973 Code'.2. It is common ground that the present petitioner, namely Balaji Kalbanade, and present respondent No. 1, namely, Parubai, entered into a legal marriage sometime in the year 1960 and they put an end to this marriage in the year 1970 by executing a deed of divorce. The deed of divorce came to be executed on 17-10-1970 and since then, respondent No.1 stands in the position of a divorcee. There is no dispute that respondent No. 1 has not remarried since the divorce.3. The original petitioner who is respondent No.1 in this petition, alleged in the lower Court that she used to maintain herself by doing labour work, but since about six months prior to the date ...
R.M. Goculdas Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-1983
Reported in: (1984)38CTR(Bom)203; [1985]151ITR67(Bom)
Desai, J.1. In this reference two questions referred to us at the instance of the assessee by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay, Bench 'D', are as under :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the loss apportioned to the wife in the firm of M/s. Kosangas & Company was rightly excluded in determining the appellant's total income or total loss ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax had rightly assumed jurisdiction under section 263 and had rightly passed the order in question ?'2. A few facts necessary to appreciate the point in controversy may now be stated. The assessee, an individual, was a partner in the firm of Messrs. Kosangas & Company in which his wife, Rukmini, was also a partner. We are concerned in this matter for assessment years 1966-67 and 1967-68. For these two years the said firm had suffered a net loss in its business. When the ITO finalised the assessment for the two y...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »