Mumbai Court February 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.
Faijulbee Hajeel and ors. Vs. Yadali Amir Shaikh Ansari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Bom290; 1984(2)BomCR253; 1984MhLJ268
Jahagirdar, J.1. The facts cavantinvolved in this petition are few and the point of law that arises for our determination is also a simple one. Though this civil revision - application could have been in the normal course disposed of by the single Judge it has found its way before the division Bench because it was though that a judgement of a single Judge of this Court requires a second look in the context of the amendment of Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, herinafter referred to as 'the Small Cause Courts ACt'. That judgement is delivered by d. No. Mehta, J. on 5+6 February 1981, while deposing of the Notice of Motion No. 1310 of 1980*, Chamanlal Dutta v. Jharna Ghosh, on normally the file of this Court. One would have normally thought that the point which arose in this petition has been settled finally as far as this Court is concerned by the judgement of the Division Bench of this Court in Shiavax C. Cambata v. Sunderdas Ebji, : AIR1950Bom343 . However, in...
Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City-i, Bombay Vs. Hoechst Pharmace ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-1984
Reported in: [1984]149ITR94(Bom)
Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. This is an application under s. 256(2) of the I. T. Act, 1961, for asking the Tribunal to state a case and raise the following question of law :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunals was right in law in holding that the amount of the advance tax paid on account of the profits of the new industrial undertaking constitutes an asset the value of which should be considered in the computation of capital of the new industrial undertaking for purposes of section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The question relates to the calculation of capital employed in an industrial undertaking for the purpose of s. 80J of the I.T. Act, 1961. This calculation has to be made in accordance with the provisions of rule 19A of the I.T. Rules, 1962. Under sub-rule (3) of rule 19A, in computing the value of capital employed, amounts due towards any liability in respect of tax are to be deducted.3. The petitioner company has shown in its balance-shee...
Birusingh Ratansingh and anr. Vs. Vesava Koli Sahakari Vahatuk Sangh L ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-1984
Reported in: 2(1985)ACC444
V.V. Vaze, J.1. Pohal was the son of Biru singh, Ratansingh and Dipa of Verseva, staying near Biju Bank Building, Ganga Bhuvan Road, Andheri, Bombay. On 14th September 1973 a motor vehicle belonging to opposite party No. 1 dashed against Pohal who was then about six and a half years old, and bounced him to a distance of about 17 feet away as a result of which he was killed. The parents of the child filed an application before the Additional Motor Accidents claims Tribunal for Greater Bombay, making the owner of the vehicle and the Union Co-operative Insurance Co. Ltd., as the opposite parties. The Tribunal rejected the claims and hence this appeal.2. Though the Insurance Company had put in appearance, they did not file any written statement, and the owner of the vehicle did not appear at all before the tribunal. The applicants examined Dipa, the mother of the child, who said that while she was standing by the door of her house, she noticed that a vehicle came and hit her son with the r...
Chhedi Lal Nandai Vs. the Regional Director, Employees State Insurance ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-1984
Reported in: 1(1986)ACC27
Vaze, J.1. Chhedilal Nandai was working as a watchman with Messrs. Dhanraj Mills: Sun Mill Road, Lower Parel, Bombay 13, in 1973. As the Mill management asked three of their watchmen Chhedilal, Ramnath and Kedarnath to proceed to Ahmedabad on 14th February 1973 for which a car was provided, Chhedilal along with his two colleagues went to Ahmedabad. After finishing his assignment, they were returning to Bombay on 19th February 1973 when the car met with an accident and fell in a river at Vapi. Chhedilal sustained certain injuries, and preferred a claim before the Employees' Insurance Court at Bombay, - against the Employees State Insurance Corporation. The claim baying been rejected, Chhedilal comes up in appeal.2. Mr. Jaikar, on behalf of the Corporation, supports the judgment on the ground that Chhedilal having proceeded to Ahmedabad in connection with the marriage ceremony of the daughter of employer's relative, did not receive the injuries in the course of his employment within the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›