Mumbai Court November 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.
Dinkar Mahadev-mahind Patil Vs. Ratnabai and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1984
Reported in: 1(1986)ACC143
C.S. Dharmadhikari, J.1. The only question argued in this appeal is that the accident took place because of the negligence of the boy aged about 9 years, the deceased.2. Shri Varadayya, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant contended before us that from the recitals in the panchanama as well as in the cross-examination of Kashinath, the only eye witness it is more than clear that the deceased and the tractor were going on the same direction. The deceased was driving the bicycle by catching the truck by one hand. In that process he got a jerk and fell down and therefore the accident took place. It is not possible for us to accept this contention.3. From the evidence of Kashinath, the only eye witness examined by the claimants, it is quite clear that the deceased was coming from the opposite direction, if this is the position then the suggestion made in the crossexamination and the story put up in the written statement is wholly intrust worthy and cannot be accepted. From the r...
Dinkar Mahadev Mahind Patil Vs. Ratna Bai and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1984
Reported in: 2(1985)ACC193
C.S. Dharmadhikari, J.1. The only question argued in this appeal is that the accident took place because of the negligence of the boy aged about 9 years, the deceased.2. Shri Varadayya, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant contended before us that from the recitals in the panchanama as well as in the cross-examination of Kashinath, the only eye witness, it is more than clear that the deceased and the tractor were going in the same direction. The deceased was driving the bicycle by catching the truck by one hand. In that process he got a jerk and fell down and therefore the accident took place. It is not possible for us to accept this contention.3. From the evidence of Kashinath, the only eye witness examined by the claimants, it is quite clear that the deceased was coming from the opposite direction. If this is the position then the suggestion made in the cross-examination and the story put up in the written statement is wholly untrustworthy and cannot be accepted. From the ...
Pandurang Dashrath Patil and ors. Vs. Kailash Chandra Mani Ram Chavan ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1984
Reported in: 1(1985)ACC390
V.V. Vaze, J. 1. Kishor Pandurang Thakare (Patil), an young man of athletic built and active haits was working as a Junior Clerk in the A.R.T. Office at Dhule. A bus belonging to M.P. State Road Transport Corporation and driven by the opponent Kailashchandra Chavan dashed against a scooter driven by Kishor Thakare on 18th November 1980 on the National Highway known as Agra Road. As Kishor died as a result of the accident his parents filed motor accident claim No. 14 of 1981 before the Tribunal at Dhule which awarded Rs. 13,000/- as damages against the opponents. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the parents have come up in this appeal.2. The only ground that has been urged in this appeal is regarding the manner in which the compensation has been arrived at by the Tribunal. The deceased was working in the pay-scale of Rs. 260-495 and did not have prospects of promotion for some 10 years whereafter he would have become a Senior Grade Clerk Accountant. The Tribunal foun...
Wealth-tax Officer Vs. Gopalji Jagmal
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-1984
Reported in: (1985)12ITD346(Mum.)
1. This appeal by the department relates to the assessment year 1975-76. The original assessee was Shri Gopalji Jagmal. He filed return of wealth-tax on 24-2-1976. He ought to have filed the same on 31-7-1975. He had not paid self-assessment tax before filing of the return as required by Section 15B(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act'). Section 15B(3) lays down that if any assessee fails to pay the tax in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (1), the WTO may impose penalty for every month during which the default continues.However, the proviso to Sub-section (3) lays down that before levying such penalty, the assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Shri Gopalji Jagmal died on 11-7-1978. Before his death, no proceeding for levy of penalty under Section 15B(3) had been initiated. On 22-3-1980, the WTO issued a notice in the name of Shri Gopalji Jagmal, to show cause why the penalty under Section 15B should not be levied. As already stated, Shri Go...
international Business Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-1984
Reported in: (1985)LC2378Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal directed against the Order-in-Original No.S/10-115/84H dated 6.7.84 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay. The point of dispute in this case is whether the import licence granted to the appellants, in their capacity as a manufacturing unit Actual Users (Industrial), was valid for the goods imported by them from Japan in the subject consignment.2. The licence permitted the appellants to import "components of typewriters". The Additional Collector, who adjudicated the case, recorded the finding, after examining a sample of the goods himself, that what the appellants had imported were not components but the main body of a fully assembled electronic typewriter, that the appellants were guilty of mis-declaring the goods in the bill of entry as components, that even if the goods were considered components (which in fact they were not), the licence was yet invalid because it permitted import of components of ordinary typewriters and not of electronic type...
income-tax Officer Vs. Ciffies Chemicals and
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-1984
Reported in: (1985)11ITD707(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).2. The assessee is a private limited company, which was incorporated in July 1974. It took over a going concern, Pharmaceuticals and Allied (India) Company, for the manufacture of pharmaceutical products by agreement dated 11-6-1975. We were given to understand, at the time of the hearing of the appeal, that even though Pharmaceuticals and Allied (India) Company was taken over by agreement dated 11-6-1975, the actual manufacture of pharmaceutical products commenced only in the subsequent year, i.e., the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1977-78.The ITO did not accept the claim of the assessee-company that since this was the second year immediately succeeding the previous year in which the industrial undertaking was set up for the manufacture and production of pharmaceutical products, the assessee's case is governed by the provisions of Section 37(3D) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the ...
Pfizer Ltd. Vs. Usan Laboratories P. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-1984
Reported in: (1985)87BOMLR12; [1985]57CompCas236(Bom); 1985MhLJ554
Desai J.1. The appellants before us are the original petitioner in Company Petition No. 759 of 1983 and appeal they impugn the order of learn company judge demission the petition. In order to appreciate the order and appellants' contention with respect thereto, a few facts may be noted.2. The appellants have, in the winding-up petition, claimed that an aggregate amount of Rs. 90,810.71 was due and payable by the respondent-company to them, being made up of the principle amount of Rs. 58,968 and interest thereon as indicated in the particulars of claim, exhibit 'A' to the petition. To the petition, the appellants had annexed correspondence between the parties consisting of the later addressed to the respondent-company on behalf of the appellants by third attorneys which is a letter dated August 31, 1982, and the reply of the respondents which is one dated September 12, 1982. The principle amount claimed by the appellants (Original petitioners) is in respect of value of 300 kgs. of a che...
Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State, Bombay Vs. La Bela Produ ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-1984
Reported in: 1985(5)ECC232; [1985]59STC221(Bom)
Kania, J.1. This is a reference on a case stated by the Sales Tax Tribunal under section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. The question referred to us for our determination in this reference is as follows :'Whether on a true and proper interpretation of the scope of entry 32 of Schedule A and entry 7 of Schedule E, the Tribunal was correct in holding that 'beauty spots' sold by he opponent were 'kumkum' within the meaning of the former entry and were not 'toilet articles' within the meaning of the letter ?'2. The facts giving rise to this reference are as follows :The respondent is a registered dealer under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. The respondent made an application by a letter dated 27th August, 1973 to the Commissioner for determining the rate of tax on the sale of auto-sticking bindies sold by the respondent under the name 'beauty spots'. Along with the said application the respondent sent its cash memo No. 115 dated 17th May, 1973 in respect of the sale of a number of...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Western India Chemical Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-1984
Reported in: [1985]59STC313(Bom)
Smt. Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. The respondents, M/s. Western India Chemical Company are registered dealers under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. They manufacture various pharmaceutical products. They also manufacture a product known as 'Jai Kajal' which is a black paste to be applied to the eyes. The respondents made an application dated 26th August, 1969 to the Commissioner of Sales Tax under section 52 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 together with a copy of the sale bill dated 20th August, 1969 for a determination as to whether the said transaction was covered by entry 19 of Schedule E or whether it was covered by entry 22 of Schedule E. The respondents produced before the Commissioner several certificates from practitioners of ayurvedic medicine to show that 'Jai Kajal' was a medicine and not a cosmetic. By his order dated 18th July, 1970 the Commissioner held that 'Jai Kajal' was a cosmetic falling under entry 19 of Schedule E.2. Being aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner, th...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Nhava Poultry Farm
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-1984
Reported in: [1985]58STC102(Bom)
Kania, J.1. This is a reference of a case stated by the Sales Tax Tribunal under section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). The following questions have been referred to us for our determination in this reference :'(a) Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the activity of the respondents in feeding the one day old chicks and rearing them to a desired maturity of consumable table birds under expert supervision in their poultry farm for realising better price, does not amount to 'manufacture' within the meaning of section 2(17) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 ?(b) Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the activity of the respondents in feeding the one day old chicks and rearing them with a view to obtain eggs, does not amount to 'manufacture' with the meaning of section 2(17) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 ?'2. The facts giving rise to the reference are as follows :The respondents conduct a poultry...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »