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.
D. Vasantrai and Co. Vs. the Official Assignee, High Court of Judicatu ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-08-1983
Reported in: AIR1985Bom1
Rege, J.1. This is an appeal by an applicant-appellants one M/s.D.Vasantrai & Co. against the judgement and order of Mrs. Sujata Manohar, J. dated 20th September 1978.2. By an order of adjudication dated 6-3-1973 by the Insolvency Court, on the petition dated 6-3-1973 by the Petitioning creditors, the firm of M/s. Bhavanidas and its partners were adjudicated insolvents (hereinafter called the Insolvents.). At the relevant time the said insolvents were the tenants of the premises at the ground floor, Sethna Building, opposite Parsee Fire Temple, Princess Street, Bombay 400002, where they were carrying on business in cloth. By an agreement of subtenancy dated 11-10-1971 made between the insolvent firm and its partners of one part and one Messrs. D.Vasantrai and Co. the appellants herein of the other, the insolvents sublet the said premises to the appellants. The said agreement specifically stated that the insolvent firm had closed down the business and that it had given the said premises...
Waman Deoram Sonawane Vs. Shri Ganesh Mandir, a Public Trust
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-08-1983
Reported in: (1984)86BOMLR40; 1984MhLJ791
Masodkar, J.1. This is the original tenant's petition with regard to the decree made for eviction with reference to the provisions of Section 12(3)(a) and Section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. Respondent No. 1-landlord initiated proceedings for possession of the tenanted premises after giving due notice dated October 12, 1971 (Ex. 54) terminating the tenancy. The decree was sought both on the grounds of reasonable and bona fide need of the plaintiff-Trust as well as with regard to default in payment of rent. The trial Court made the decree holding in favour of the plaintiff-landlord with regard to the reasonable and bona fide need of the trust who have the tenanted property. It, however, refused to make a decree on the ground of default. The matter was taken up in appeal and the appeal Court affirmed the decree on the ground of default but not on the ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement ...
Blue Star Limited Vs. Santosh Datta, Iac and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-1983
Reported in: (1984)39CTR(Bom)134; [1984]150ITR356(Bom); [1983]15TAXMAN548(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. The petitioners, Blue Star Limited, a company registered under the Companies Act, is challenging the legality of the notice dated April 30, 1979, issued by the IAC, Acquisition Range II, Bombay, in exercise of the powers under s. 269A of the I.T. Act, 1961. The fact giving rise to the issuance of notice are required to be stated briefly to appreciate the grievance of the petitioners.2. By an agreement of sale dated March 21, 1972, the petitioners agreed to purchase from M/s. Modern Sixteen Cline Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., the second floor of building admeasuring 5,200 sq. ft. and a portion of land for a parking place for a total consideration of Rs. 3,60,000. The property agreed to be purchased is in a building known as Suhas, at Prabhadevi, Bombay. The petitioners paid the entire consideration on March 22, 1972, and recovered possession of the property agreed to be purchased. The agreement also provided that all the liabilities including municipal taxes in respect of the pro...
Shankar Mahadeo Charpe Vs. S.S.H. Qazi and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-1983
Reported in: (1985)IILLJ94Bom; 1984MhLJ615
ORDER1. A short question that arises in this writ-petition, arising out of the proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short the 'Act'), is whether it is mandatory under regulation 101 that an application for condonation of delay in filing the complaint under S. 28 of the Act must be filed along with the original complaint.2. Briefly the facts are that the petitioner filed a complaint under S. 28 of the Act on 7th September, 1981 challenging the order of the respondent No. 1 dated 5th June, 1981 withholding increments, as an unfair labour practice under the Act. According to the petitioner, the impugned order dated 5th June, 1981 is communicated to him on 8th June, 1981. It is not in dispute that the petitioner did not file a separate application for condonation of delay along with his original application which he filed on 7th September, 1981. A separate application for condonatio...
The Nav Samaj Ltd. Vs. Shamrao Tukaramji Patel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Bom23
ORDER1. This revision application is filed by the original defendant against the order dated 31-7-1982 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division , Nagpur in Special Civil Suit No. 213 of 1980 rejecting his application under Order 2, R. 2, C. P. C.2. The defendant is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and owns two daily newspapers in Nagpur named ' Nagpur Times ' and Nagpur Parika and has its office at Ramdaspeth Nagpur. The plaintiff was appointed sole selling agent for these two papers under written contract. Amongst other terms, the plaintiff as sole selling agent had deposited Rs. 30, 000/- as deposit with the defendant at the prescribed rates and he was entitled to commission as per terms of contract.The plaintiff filed a special Civil Judge . Senior Division, Nagpur on : 3-12-1980, for recovery of Rs. 52,443.83 detailed as under(see Table below )3. The plaintiff in para 16 of his plaint stated that besides the aforesaid amount the deposited amount of Rs.20,000/- d...
Gaurabai and anr. Vs. Jagsih Prasad and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-1983
Reported in: 2(1984)ACC191; AIR1984Bom231
1. The original plaintiffs in Special Civil Suit No. 51/72 having failed before the trial Court who dismissed their suit, have preferred this appeal against the judgment passed by Second Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur on 31-7-1975.2. The appellants filed a suit in forma pauperis to claim damages from the defendants. The application to sue in forma pauperis was allowed and the proceedings were registered as Special Civil Suit No. 51/72. It was the case of the appellants/plaintiffs that appellant No. 1 Gaurabai is the window of Dhondo Datar, while appellant No. 2 - Sushila is the daughter of deceased Dhono Datar. It was on 1-3-1970, between 9P.M. and 9.30 P. M. the deceased Dhondo Datar was standing near a Pan Thela in front of Popular Book Depot opposite Patwardhan High School, sitabuldi, Nagpur. At that time, one Ambassador Car bearing No. BYJ-8037 belonging to defendant No. 2- present respondent No. 1, came from the side of Variety Square in full speed. It was going toward...
Miss A. Sundarambal Vs. Government of Goa, Daman and Diu and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-1983
Reported in: 1984(2)BomCR53; (1983)IILLJ491Bom
Jahagirdar, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as a teacher in a school conducted by the Society of Franciscan Sisters of Mary, which is the fourth respondent in this petition. The first respondent is the Government of Goa, Daman and Diu; the second respondent is the Lt. Governor of Goa and the Union of India is the third respondent. The services of the petitioner were terminated by the fourth respondent by a letter date 25th April, 1975. The termination of the services was done on several grounds, reference to which is unnecessary for the disposal of this petition.2. The petitioner took several measures to get herself reinstated including what she thought was a remedy available under the Grant-in-Aid Code governing the school conducted by the fourth respondent. She was unsuccessful in those steps. Thereafter, taking resort to S. 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, she raised an industrial dispute which was admitted in conciliation by the Assistant Labour Commissioner acting as the Conci...
Sixth Income-tax Officer Vs. Pithva Engineering Works
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-1983
Reported in: (1983)6ITD413(Mum.)
1. This appeal has been filed by the department against the order dated 4-3-1982 of the AAC relating to the assessment year 1975-76.2. The assessment for the assessment year 1975-76 was completed under Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). In this assessment, the ITO had allowed depreciation and expenses towards gratuity as claimed by the assessee. Subsequently, the ITO came to hold the view that depreciation has been allowed at a higher rate and that expenses tawards gratuity were wrongly allowed. He issued a show-cause notice dated 10-7-1979 asking the assessee to state his reasons as to why the assessment made under Section 143(1) should not be rectified under Section 154 or 155 of the Act in order to correct the aforesaid mistakes. The date of hearing was fixed on 23-7-1979. On 19-7-1979, the assessee requested for ten days' time on the ground that the person who looked after the income-tax affairs of the assessee was out of India.This application dated 19-7-1979...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Omprakash Bulkhidas Agarwal and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-1983
Reported in: 1983(2)BomCR572
A.D. Tated, J.1. The State has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 13th April, 1979, passed by the learned Sessions Judge Sangli in Cri. Appeal No. 102 of 1978, allowing the appeal from judgment and Order dated 27th October, 1978, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, F.C. Miraj convicting the present respondents of the offence under section 7(i) read with section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as the 'said Act') and sentencing them to suffer R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, and setting aside this conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Magistrate.2. The facts have been stated in detail by the learned Sessions Judge in his judgment and it is not necessary to reproduce them. Briefly stated, the prosecution case was that the accused No. 1 Omprakash Agarwal is a licence holder of a canteen at the S.T. Stand, Miraj and the accused No. 2 Suresh Omprakash Agarwal i...
Wim Manintveld Vs. Additional First Income-tax Officer.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-1983
Reported in: [1986]17ITD561(Mum)
ORDERPer Shri K. B. Menon, Judicial Member - This appeal by the assessee relates to the assessment year 1977-78 for which the previous year ended on 31-3-1977.2. The only ground taken is that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the determination of the perquisite value in respect of the rent-free accommodation provided to the assessee at Rs. 16,800 as against the perquisite value of Rs. 7,716 based on the municipal valuation.3. The assessee is an individual deriving income from salary and other sources. During the relevant previous year, the assessee was occupying a residential accommodation in Manek Building at Nepean Sea Road, Bombay, provided by his employer. The municipal valuation of the accommodation was Rs. 7,716 only and the perquisite value was returned by the assessee on this basis. The ITO relying upon Explanation 2 to rule 3(a) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (the Rules), estimated the market rent of the property at Rs. 48,000, and after the statutory deductions, a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »