Mumbai Court October 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.
Asian Paints (India) Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1984
Reported in: AIR1986Bom19; 1985(5)ECC296
1. The petitioner Company has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing and setting aside orders dated 27th Feb. 1974, 16 th November 1974 and 4th August 1980, passed by the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports and for a Write of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Direction or Order directing the respondents to withdraw and/or cancel the said orders and to issue Import Licences of the value of Rs. 1,75,271/- for the items specified in the three import licenses bearing Nos. 2666861, 2666862 and 2666863 dated 23rd March 1973.2. The three licences were issued to the petitioner company as a nominee of M/s. Shahidabhai & Co., M/s. Zakaria Shahid Impex Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Pearson Traders registered exporters under the handicrafts scheme. These licences were valid for 35 items mentioned in the lists attached to the said licences. The value of the said items , as mentioned in licence No. 2666861 was Rs. 1,11,837/-, in licence No. 2666862 as Rs...
Virji Nathuram and ors. Vs. Krishnakumar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Bom429; 1985(1)BomCR332
ORDER1. This petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution is by 14 persons who are obstructing the execution of a decree obtained by the respondent in a suit, being R.A.E. & R. Suit No.124/856 of 1964 filed by the latter in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay. The said suit had been filed against Shivnarayan and Surajmal under the provisions of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Bombay Rent Act') for possession of a plot of land which had been originally given to the aforementioned Shivnarayan under a registered lease deed dt. 29th Sept.1962. Under the said lease deed the respondent had prohibited the said Shivnarayan from subletting the plot without his prior permission but a clause in the lease deed had permitted the said Shivnarayan to erect structures which he was allowed to let out to third parties.2. The suit, however, had been filed on the ground, among others, that the said Shivnarayan was guilty of arrears of rent for mor...
Asian Paints (India) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1984
Reported in: 1984(18)ELT687(Bom)
M.S. Jamdar, J.1. The petitioner Company has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing and setting aside orders dated 27th February 1974, 16th November 1974 and 4th August 1980, passed by the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports and for a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Direction or Order directing the respondents to withdraw and/or cancel the said orders and to issue Import Licenses of the value of Rs. 1,75,271/-for the items specified in the three import licenses bearing Nos, 2666861, 2666362 and 2666863 dated 23rd March 1973,2. The three licenses were issued to the petitioner company as a nominee of M/s. Shahidabhai and Co., M/s. Zakaria Shahid Impex Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Pearson Traders registered exporters under the handicrafts scheme. These licenses were valid for 35 items mentioned in the lists attached to the said licenses. The value of the said items, as mentioned in license No. 2666861 was Rs. 1,11,837/-, in license ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-iv, Bombay Vs. Universal Fire ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-1984
Reported in: (1985)49CTR(Bom)364; [1986]157ITR156(Bom)
Desai J.1. The assessee is the Universal Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd., Bombay. Today, after nationalisation of general insurance business, it is one of the subsidiary units of the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. The Assistant General Manager of the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. has addressed a letter dated September 25, 1984, to the Central Government Advocate stating that the assessee (as now amended) is not interested in appearing in the reference or engaging an advocate for assisting the court.2. We have heard Mr. Jetly for the Commissioner of Income-tax. He has frankly stated that the answer to be given to the question referred to us is governed by a Circular No. I-P (XV-5) issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes dated January 23, 1968, to be found in [1968] 69 ITR 25.3. A few facts may be stated. We are concerned with the assessment year 1969-70. The assessee was the Universal Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd., Bombay.4. The company was incorporated under the Compan...
S.A. Kadre, Excess Profits Tax Officer and Others Vs. Binod Mills Comp ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-1984
Reported in: (1985)47CTR(Bom)171; [1986]157ITR177(Bom); [1985]20TAXMAN407(Bom)
Kania, J.1. This appeal raises an interesting question as to the meaning of the term 'regular assessment' as used in section 14A(7) of the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940 (referred to hereinafter as 'the said Act'). The appeal is directed against a judgment and order of Pendse J., dated July 18, 1979 [Binod Mills Co. Ltd. v. S. A. Kadre, EPTO - reported in : [1980]122ITR778(Bom) , making the rule absolute in the aforesaid writ petition filed by the respondents.2. The facts necessary to appreciate the controversy raised before us lie within a narrow compass. The respondent is a public limited company carrying on business as manufacturer and dealer in cotton textile goods. The respondent was assessed under the said Act and the chargeable accounting period with which we are concerned in this appeal is the calendar year ending December 31, 1942. For the said chargeable accounting period, the respondent filed before appellant No. I a return showing a turnover in the taxable territories of Rs. ...
Taha Abdul Razak Hamadi of Kurbala Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-1984
Reported in: 1985(1)BomCR531; (1984)86BOMLR520
M.M. Qazi, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner-detenu has challenged the order of detention dated January 4, 1984 passed by the Assistant Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department (Special), detaining the petitioner-detenu under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (Act No. 52 of 1974) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') with a view to preventing him for engaging in transporting or concealing or keeping smuggled goods. He was taken into custody on the same day, i.e. on January 4, 1984, and the grounds of detention were also formulated and supplied to him on the same day. The incident which gave rise to the impugned order is dated December 7, 1983 when the Customs Officers attached to the Air Intelligence Unit of the Customs (Preventive), Collectorate, Bombay, on suspicion intercepted the petitioner-detenu, who had arrived from Delhi as a domestic passenger by Air-India Flight No. AI-...
Federal Bank Ltd. Vs. Indiradevi Kunjamma and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1984
Reported in: AIR1986Bom101
1. Whether monies payable under an Insurance Policy on the life of the judgment-debtor after the latter's death can be attached, or whether the payment of such monies to the nominee after the death of the assured can be restrained in a suit for recovery of monies borrowed by the latter, is the question that this appeal gives rise to and falls for my determination.2. The appellant Bank has filed a suit against the respondents for recovery of an amount of Rs. 2,15,720.20 p. based on an advance made to the late Dr.P.P.Pillai. The respondents are the successors of the said Pillai and he was dead at the time the suit was instituted. Dr. Pillai had some Life Insurance Corporation of India, the respondent No.1 being his widow and nominee in the said Policies. In the course of the suit, the appellant filed an application for attachment of the aforesaid Insurance Policies before judgment, under O.38 R. 5, C.P.C. and the trial Judge by his order dated 22nd Sept. 1979, granted the alternative pra...
Namdeo Asruba Mali Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Bom211; 1985(1)BomCR392; (1985)87BOMLR42; 1985MhLJ671
Madhava Reddy, C.J.1. This matter comes up before us on reference by a Division Bench to resolve the conflict of views in Punamchand v. Dattatraya : AIR1978Bom103 and Tukaram v. Shankar : AIR1983Bom116 on the question of jurisdiction of the Authorised Officer under section 7(6) of the Maharashtra Debt Relief Act, 1975 (for short 'the Act') to go behind the apparent nature of the transaction and determine the real nature of the transaction and grant relief to the debtor.In Punamchand's case : AIR1978Bom103 , the Division Bench held:--'If the transaction is expressed in the form of a sale-deed we do not understand how the Tahsildar acting under the provisions of the Debt Relief Act can go beyond the document and adjudicate that the transaction appears to be one of mortgage. The provisions of the Maharashtra Debt Relief Act, 1975 do not include any section which permits the Authorised Officer to go out beyond the transaction and find out the real nature thereof ....... The legislature lly...
Madhav Gopalrao Sanap Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Bom239; 1985MhLJ636
Masodkar, J.1. this petition questions the process of the land acquisition with regard to which S. 4 notification was issued on Dec. 17, 1968. The land to the extent of 18 acres 3 gunthas was needed for the purpose of government Polytechnic to be established at Yavatmal. Eventually after holding enquiry, S. 6 notification came to be issued on Jan. 13, 1970. It appears from the proceedings that S. 9 proceedings were initiated thereafter and on 25-5-1970 claims statements were taken. The petitioner is claiming through claimant Gopalrao Sanap. By the end of 1970 recording of evidence was also completed. Thereafter the case was taken after three years in the year 1973. Spot was also inspected and after12-9-1974 the award proceedings were adjourned from time to time because allotment of necessary funds for compensation was not available. Eventually the award appears to have been made on 28-3-1983. Thus the offer that is required to be made by passing the award under S. 11 of the Act was fin...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›