Mumbai Court January 1984 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.
Trustees of Smt. Rajkumari Vs. Third Wealth-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-1984
Reported in: (1984)9ITD847(Mum.)
1. This order consolidates the appeal proceedings in four wealth-tax appeals for the years 1975-76 to 1978-79 and three income-tax appeals for the years 1976-77 to 1978-79. In the wealth-tax appeals it is the contention of the assessee, who are the trustees of Smt. Rajkumari Radhakrishna Ruia Charitable Trust, that the assessee was entitled to exemption in terms of Section 5(1)(i) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ('the 1957 Act') and that the provisions of Section 13(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') and Section 21A of the 1957 Act are not attracted in the assessee's case. In the income-tax assessments it is the assessee's claim that the AAC erred in upholding the ITO's decision that the provisions of Section 13(2)(a) were applicable in the assessee's case.2. The facts giving rise to the disputed assessments are that for the wealth-tax assessment year 1975-76, on 6-3-1979, the assessee filed a return of net wealth disclosing as net wealth liable to charge nil amount. The return...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-v, Bombay Vs. Anil. J. Chinai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-1984
Reported in: [1984]148ITR3(Bom); [1984]17TAXMAN181(Bom)
Kania J.1. This is an application by way of a petition under s. 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, for directing the Tribunal to refer certain question of law to this court for its opinion and to draw up a statement of case for that purpose. The question which are sought to be referred are as follows :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that a sole surviving coparcener can dispose of the coparcenary property as if it were his separate property ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the gifts made by the assessee in the capacity of a sole surviving coparcener out of the HUF immovable property to his minor daughters and wife were valid gifts ?(3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the capital gains arising in the hands of trustees of Arti Trust, Anjana Trust and Smt. Jayantika A Chinai and which ...
Walchandnagar Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-1984
Reported in: 1987(27)ELT613(Bom)
ORDERChandurkar, C.J.1. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioners in this petition is already concluded by a decision in favour of the petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 1090 of 1978 decided on 2nd July, 1981 by the Division Bench of Kanade & Pendse, JJ.2. The claim in the petition relates to the rebate under the Notification of the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, New Delhi, dated 12th October, 1974 in respect of sugar produced in a factory during the period commencing on the 1st October 1974 and ending with the 30th November 1974 in excess of the average production of the corresponding period of preceding five years. The consistent stand taken by the Union of India that the rebate permissible is only to the extent of the figure of average production has been negatived by the Division Bench in the decision referred to above. The Division Bench has expressly taken the view, on a plain reading of the Notification, that rebate is permissible on the entire exce...
Abhay Shrawanji Parate Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Bom45; 1984MhLJ289
Mohata, J.1. The petitioner Abhay Shrawanji Parate, resident of Umrer in district Nagpur was given a caste certificate dated 22nd June 1982 by the Executive Magistrate, Umrer, certifying that he belongs to a Scheduled Tribe 'Halba' as mentioned in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976. The present petition is directed against the orders of the Director of the Social Welfare and Divisional Commissioner invalidating the said certificate.2.Undisputed position is that the birth certificate of the petitioner dated 2nd June 1964, his Primary School Leaving Certificate and the 12th standard Junior College Leaving Certificate of the year 1982 describe him as Halba. On the basis of the caste certificate issued by the Executive Magistrate, the petitioner was provisionally admitted in the Government Medical College, Nagpur, in the First Year M.B.B.S. course. As per the practice, the matter was referred to the Director of Social Welfare Department, Pune (respondent...
Dattu Bhau Undage and ors. Etc. Vs. Tarabai Dattu Undage and Etc.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Bom106; 1985(1)BomCR203; 1984MhLJ224
1. These two matters, though unconnected with each other, can be conveniently decided by a common judgment, as a similar controversy arises in both of them.2. Before considering the dispute between the parties, I would like to state briefly the relevant facts in both the litigations. Civil Revn. Appln. No. 744 of 1982 arises from an order passed in Special Darkhast No. 121 of 1979 that the amount of maintenance claimed in that darkhast should be recovered from the judgment-debtor. This darkhast was filed by the decree-holder- wife on the basis of a decree dt. 31-7- 1967 passed in Special Suit No. 44 of 1966. Maintenance of Rs. 100/- per month has been granted to the wife. In Darkhast No. 121 of 1979 the husband resisted the execution on the ground that after the passing of the decree the husband and the wife (viz. the judgment-debtor and the decree-holder) had resumed cohabitation and that on this count the decree for maintenance had become unenforceable. This contention was rejected b...
Ambiabal K. Killeder Vs. Kisan Ramchandra Nair and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-1984
Reported in: 1984(1)BomCR446
G.M. Khandekar, J.1. The order of acquittal recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jalna, in Criminal Case No. 2972 of 1979 on 16-2-1981 is properly challenged by the original complainant in this appeal.2. The present appellant by name Ambiabal had filed Criminal Case No. 2972 of 1979 against respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in respect of offence under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jalna, on 5-11-1979. The learned Magistrate ordered issue of summons to the accused, who appeared in the Court on 10-4-1980. along with their advocate. The plea of the accused was recorded on 6-9-1980. and the case was adjourned to 26-11-1980 for hearing. On 26-11-1980, the case was adjourned to 30th December 1980 on the application of the complainant. On 30-12-1980, the case came to be adjourned to 16-2-1981, as the learned Magistrate was on leave. On 16-2-1981, the complainant was absent and the learned Magistrate passed the following order ...
Homi Jamshedji Khansaheb and ors. Vs. Chandrakant Atmaram Lamage and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-1984
Reported in: 1984(2)BomCR342; (1984)86BOMLR188; 1984MhLJ719
R.A. Jahagirdar, J. 1. This petition seeks to challenge a decree of the Court of Small Causes at Bombay by which a suit filed by the petitioners was dismissed. That decree of dismissal of the suit was subsequently confirmed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Cause Court and it is against this decree of the Appellate Bench of the Small Cause Court that this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has been filed.2. The first respondent in this petition is the owner of a building situated at Khetwadi Cross Lane, Bombay-400 004. In this building there is an apartment bearing Block No. 5 which was originally tenanted by one Jamshedji Khansaheb. The first respondent, hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent', filed a suit, being R.A.E. Suit No. 4048 of 1965, in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay against the said Jamshedji Khansaheb for possession of the said apartment, hereinafter referred to as 'the suit premises', on the ground that the said Jamshedji Khansaheb was guilty of arr...
Naarden (India) Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-1984
Reported in: 1989(20)LC369(Bombay); 1989(39)ELT530(Bom)
1. The petitioners manufacture edible flavouring agents. On 1st March 1975 a notification was issued by the Central Government exempting inter alia all kinds of food produced and food preparations falling under Item 68 of the First Schedule of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 from the whole of the excise duty leviable thereon. On 4th April 1975 the petitioners filed a classification-list claiming the benefit of the exemption under that notification. On 26th April 1975 the classification-list was rejected. The petitioners preferred an appeal. On 4th February 1976 the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, held that since the product under appeal was a flavouring agent it fell under the notification. Accordingly, he allowed the appeal. On 30th April 1979 the petitioners were addressed a letter by the Superintendent, Central Excise, which stated that enquiries revealed that the flavouring agents manufactured by them were not entitled to the benefit of the exemption under the...
Deorao Vs. Devkinandan Bhojaj Chandak and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-1984
Reported in: (1984)86BOMLR264; [1985]58CompCas267(Bom); 1984MhLJ439
ORDER1. Since a common question of law is involved in both these Revision Application. They are being disposed of by on judgment. The facts leading to these revision applications, stated briefly, are as follows.2. Devkinandan Bhojarj, non-applicant in Civil Revision Application No. 305 of 1980, had filed a suit against Deorao Patilbuwa Raut who is applicant in both Civil Suit No. 276 of 1978 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior division at Malkapur for recovering an amount of Rs. 10,150/- Defendant Deorao appeared in that suit through a counsel. On 17-10-1979, the Counsel for the plaintiff and the counsel for the defendant in the suit filed an application for recording a compromise as stated in the sadi application and for drawing up a decree accrodingly. Both the counsel stated below their signatures that they had authority to compromise. The learned Civil Judge allowed the application and passed a decree in terms of the compromise. Being aggrieved by this decree. Defendant deorao ...
In Re: Joseph Eleouet
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Bom266
ORDER1. This matter is placed before me for directions in view of unusual circumstances, which would be set out hereinafter.2. The petitioner - Joseph Eleouet, a national of France, of France, has filed this petition in this Court on September 8, 1983, under the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, for his appointment as guardian for the person of a female minor by name Alisha. The minor was an inmate of Shraddhanand Anathalaya, which is a public Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. The relief sought by the petitioner was supported by the trustees of the ShraddhanandAnathalaya.3. The petition was accepted by the learned single Judge of this court and the intimation of filing of the petition the intimation of filing of the petition was given to the Indian Council of Social Welfare, Bo,maby, as required by the Rules of this Court. The petitionwas made returnable on October 12, 1983. The learned Judge after hearing the counsel for the petitioner and the r...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »