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.
Manohar Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Bom47
Shah, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the validity of sub-section (5) of S. 73-A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act) has been called in question.2. Section 73-A of the Act was inserted in the Act by the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (second Amendment ) Act, 1969 (Act No. XXVII of 1969), which came into force on July 1, 1971 . Sub-section (5) of S. 73-A runs as under:'(5) No person shall be , or shall continue to be a designated officer of any society of any of the categories referred to in sub-section (2) for a consecutive period of more than six years, and at the expiration of that period any such person shall appointed as a designated officer, until a period of three years has elapsed after the expiry of the aforesaid period of six years. Explanation: For the purposes of this sub-section - in calculating the consecutive period of six years in office, any period for which the person concerned may ha...
Maruti Sambha Surve Vs. Parshuram Krishna Koratkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-1983
Reported in: (1984)86BOMLR1; 1983MhLJ958
M.N. Chandurkar, Acting C.J.1. This is one more case in which the trial Court has mechanically made a reference under Section 85-A of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 referring the issue with regard to the status of the defendant to the revenue Court. There is an agreement of sale dated May 27, 1974 executed in favour of respondent No. 1 by one Ajinath, who is the owner of survey No. 85/3C, area 1 acre and 20 gunthas.2. Respondent No. 1 has filed a suit for injunction simpliciter, alleging that he is in possession and the defendant has been obstructing his possession and he should, therefore, be restrained from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff. One of the defences raised by the present petitioner is that he is the tenant of the suit land in dispute and has been recorded as such. The alleged tenancy is dated April 1, 1972 granted by a lease deed by owner Ajinath. One of the issues framed by the trial Court reads : -Whether the defendant is lawful tenan...
The Phoenix Mills Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-1983
Reported in: 1988(14)LC482(Bombay)
Pendse, J.1. The issue involved in this petition stands concluded by the decision of Mr. Justice Shah in Miscellaneous Petition No. 1828 of 1979 decided on January 23, 1980. I have followed the decision of Mr. Justice Shah in Writ Petition No. 1192 of 1980 decided on April 22, 1981. Only few facts are required to be stated to appreciate the grievance of the petitioners.2. The petitioners purchase raw cotton and process it into Absorbent Cotton Wool, carded or uncarded. The process of manufacture is for removal of waxes to make cotton wool absorbent. The absorbent cotton wool by medical standards is stamped 'B.P.' or 'I.P.'. The absorbent cotton wool without these stamps is known in the trade market as 'absorbent cotton wool, carded or uncarded'. In the year 1968, the respondents declared a cash subsidy scheme, under which the exporter is entitled to the cash compensatory support at 15% FOB value on certain items. Item 'BBI' of the scheme reads 'absorbent cotton wool'. The scheme was br...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Poona Vs. New Sind Weaving Factory
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-15-1983
Reported in: (1984)38CTR(Bom)208; [1984]150ITR671(Bom); [1983]15TAXMAN551(Bom)
Desai, J.1. Today there is no appearance of the respondent, either in person of through an advocate. However, it may be stated that on September 2, 1983, one Gurdinomal Jumrani, a partner of the respondent firm, had appeared and had handed over the written submission. He had then stated that the court may consider them at the time of hearing. These submissions are before us and we have duly considered them.2. The assessee-firm submitted its return for the year 1962-63 on August 1, 1964.3. The ITO was of the view that the return ought to have been filed on or before June 30, 1962. Accordingly, in his opinion, penalty was leviable under s. 271(1)(a) of the I.T. Act, and, hence, he issued notice against the respondent under s. 274 of the Act. The assessee made its submissions but the ITO was not satisfied with the same and he imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,250.4. The assessee-firm thereupon preferred an appeal before the AAC. Various contentions were urged before the AAC. These are summarise...
Kamani Engineering Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Ce ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-15-1983
Reported in: (1984)37CTR(Bom)204; [1984]150ITR586(Bom); [1983]15TAXMAN211(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. This reference made at the instance of the assessee, poses this question :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 2,57,314 was the taxable income of the assessee ?'The year of assessment concerned is 1964-65 for which the previous year ended on September 30, 1963. The Government of India had formulated a scheme known as the 'Special Export Promotion Scheme for Engineering Goods' effective from April 1, 1963. It gave registered exporters under the scheme the benefit of import entitlements on production of proof of export and/or receipt of payment therefor. The exporter under the scheme was competent to transfer or sell his import entitlement to other manufacturers. The assessee, as a supplier and erector or transmission line towers was registered under the scheme. It had disposed of its import entitlements during the year under consideration for the sum of Rs. 2,57,314. Before the ITO, the assessee contended that the said sum received o...
indravan Trivedi Vs. Ambaben Mohanlal Soni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-15-1983
Reported in: 1985(2)BomCR41
M.N. Chandurkar, Ag. C.J.1. This is a petition filed by the tenant challenging the decision of the Appeal Bench of the Court of Small Causes at Bombay holding that the tenant was liable to be evicted from the suit premises on the ground that there were arrears of rent and the case was covered by section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter the Bombay Rent Act). The plaintiff is admittedly the mother of one Manganlal. Maganlal was admittedly recovering rent from the defendant. According to the plaintiff, the defendant was in arrears of rent for the period July 1968 to January 1969, the monthly rent being Rs. 64.75 p. An Advocate's notice was issued on 7th February, 1969. It is rather curiously worded. The noticed states that the plaintiff is the owner and also the constituted attorney of her son Manganlal Mohanlal and the defendant is his tenant of the premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 64.75 p. The notice further states that rent fro...
Chandrakant Bhalchandra Nalavadkar and anr. Vs. Hiralal Mulchand Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-15-1983
Reported in: 1984(1)BomCR480; (1984)86BOMLR45; 1983MhLJ1100
M.N. Chandurkar., Ag. C.J.1. The petitioners-plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 are owners of an open plot of land which originally belonged to a Hindu Joint family. The respondent-defendant was admittedly a lessee of this piece of land, having taken it on lease for a period of 11 years from 1st June, 1960. Exhibit 55 is the lease. The original landlords asked to return of the plot as they required it for erection of a building thereon by a notice dated 17th February, 1971, as the period of lease was to expire on 31st May, 1971. Exhibit 78 is another notice given on 3rd September, 1971. This is after the period of the lease had expired. The tenant denied that the landlords needed the open plot.2. The plaintiffs' case is that by virtue of a partition dated 29th January, 1972 the plot in question fell to their share, and after having given a notice dated 31st January, 1972 they filed a suit for possession on 21st March, 1973 in which it was alleged that the plot in question is situated in the midst...
Phoenix Mills Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-1983
Reported in: 1985(4)ECC286; 1983(14)ELT2113(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. The issue involved in this petition stands concluded by the decision of Mr. Justice Shah in Miscellaneous Petition No. 1828 of 1979 decided on January 23, 1980. I have followed the decision of Mr. Justice Shah in Writ Petition No. 1192 of 1980, decided on April 22, 1981. Only few facts are required to be stated to appreciate the grievance of the petitioners.2. The petitioners purchase raw cotton and process it into Absorbent Cotton Wool, carded or un-carded. The process of manufacture is for removal of waxes to make cotton wool absorbent. The absorbent cotton wool by medical standards is stamped 'B.P.' or 'I.P.'. The absorbent cotton wool without these stamps is known in the trade market as 'absorbent cotton wool, carded or un-carded'. In the year 1968, the respondents declared a cash subsidy scheme, under which the exporter is entitled to the cash compensatory support at 15% FOB value on certain items. Item 'BBI' of the scheme reads 'absorbent cotton wool'. The scheme was...
Association of Engineering Workers Vs. Automobile Products of India Lt ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-1983
Reported in: (1984)86BOMLR52
Kantharia, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated April 18, .1983 passed by the learned Member of the Industrial Court Maharashtra, Thane, Camp at Bombay (hereinafter referred to as 'respondent No. 3'), in application (MRTU) No. 2 of 1982, cancelling the recognition of Association of Engineering Workers, having their office at Janata Colony, Plot No. 252, R.N. Narkar Marg, Ghatkopar, Bombay 400 077 (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner') under Section 13(l)(i) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') at the instance of Automobile Products of India Employees' Union, having their office at Automobile Products of India Ltd., Lal Bahadur Shastri Marg, Bhandup, Bombay 400078 (hereinafter referred to as 'respondent No. 2').2. The short facts giving rise to this writ petition are that respondent No. 1 viz. Automobile Products of India Ltd., Lal Bhadur Shastri Marg, Bhandup...
Anandrao and ors. Vs. Govindrao Zingraji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Bom338; ILR1984Bom2559; 1984MhLJ671
1. This is a defendants second appeal against a decree for partition and separate possession of respondent plaintiffs held share in two suti fields.2. The fields in suit are survey No. 66, Area 18 acres 39 gunthas and Survey No. 60, Area 14 acres of village of Mokhed Primpari in parties are related and their admitted relationship is disclosed by the following genealogy : -genealogy and his sons formed a joint Hindu family. According to the plaintiff, on 22-5-1945 during the lifetime fo Zingraji, he effected a partition of his property between himself and his two sons under the registered partition deed, Exhibit 39. The plaintiffs case was that the field survey No.66 was allottee in that partition to Zingraji share, certain other properties being allotted to the shares of two sons. After the partition, Zingraji purchased the second field survey No.60. Thus the plaintiffs case was that at the tie of Zingraji death in 1950, he owned these two field as his separate property. Tullsabai, the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »