Mumbai Court March 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.
V.J. Acharya Vs. Retinal Fulchand Shah and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-1984
Reported in: II(1984)ACC420; AIR1984Bom335; 1984(2)BomCR82; 1984MhLJ456
1. A car owner hands over a car for repairs to a garage. The mechanic of the garage who does not have and never had a driving licence drives the vehicle negligently and knocks down a man. Should the owner of the vehicle be held liable for damages arising out of the accident?2. Dr. Acharya was proceeding from Gamdevi to British council Library on the morning of 18-1-1969 when his car MRC 7456 failed and got stalled just beyond the Life Insurance Corporation building near traffic control department. Acharya pushed the car near the curb, made unsuccessful attempts to start the same and finally after locking the car went to Kaypee garage near Bhatia hospital where he used to usually give his car for repairs. Prawin Udeshi, the owner of the garage, received Acharya and after hearing the nature of the complaint, asked his mechanic Salim to accompany the customer. Acharya and Salim came to the spot where the car was parked. Salim fiddled with the engine for a considerable time but the motor w...
KamruddIn ShabuddIn Tamboli Vs. AllauddIn Fattemohamed Malik and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-1984
Reported in: 1985(1)BomCR101; 1984MhLJ750
Sharad Manohar, J.1. A meaningless objection was raised by the defendants to the suit filed by the plaintiffs for possession of the suit premises from the defendants and when the Court negatived the contention this revision application was filed against that order in the year 1982 and the same has been allowed to remain cooling its heals in this Court for a good part of two years. The plaintiffs suit for recovery of possession, inter alia on the ground on bona fide requirements, is being kept in the cold storage during all that period.2. The plaintiffs are admittedly the owners of the suit premises. Defendant No. 1 is in occupation of the same. The plaintiff's contention is that the said defendant is only a licensee: but fearing that the defendant might contend that he is a tenant, a notice was given by the plaintiffs on 12-6-1980 to him, by way of abundant caution terminating the tenancy and demanding the possession of the suit premises. When the defendant did not oblige, the suit had...
V.J. Acharya Vs. Ratilal Fulchand Shah and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-1984
Reported in: 1(1985)ACC186
V.V. Vaze, J.1. A car owner hands over a car for repairs to a garage. The mechanic of the garage who does not have and never had a driving licence drives the vehicle negligently and knocks down a man. Should the owner of the vehicle be held liable for damages arising out of the accident 72. Dr. Acharya was proceeding from Gamdevi to British Council Library on the morning of 18-1-1969 when his car MRC 7456 failed and got stalled just beyond the Life Insurance Corporation building near traffic control department. Acharya pushed the car near the curb, made unsuccessful attempts to start the same and finally after locking the car went to Kaypee garage near Bhatia Hospital where he used to usually give his car for repairs. Pravin Udeshi, the owner of the garage, received Acharya and after hearing the nature of the complaint, asked his mechanic Salim to accompany the customer. Acharya and Salim came to the spot where the car was parked. Salim fiddled with the engine for a considerable time b...
Devkabai W/O Ramchandra Mariyali and ors. Vs. Manohar Pradhan Mariyali ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-1984
Reported in: 1984(2)BomCR813
Sharad Manohar, J.1. This application has got to be allowed on the simple ground that the order passed by the learned Judge dismissing the Darkhast cannot just be sustained having regard to the provisions and principles of our procedural law.2. Just a few facts are enough for the purpose of formulating the question involved. The suit property belonged jointly to one Pradhan Mariyali and his son Ramchandra Mariyali. Pradhan Mariyali admittedly had two wives. One, the mother of Ramchandra and the other, one Malkavva, the step mother of Ramchandra. It is alleged that Pradhan had a third wife by name Parubai; but that is not an admitted fact. The present petitioners are the heirs, that is to say, wife, son and daughter of Ramchandra. Ramchandra died on 26-5-1967. The present petitioners filed Civil Suit No. 91/1981 for partition and possession of the joint family property. Pradhan Malkappa Mariyali was the defendant in that suit. Pradhan died pending the suit and the petitioners brought on...
Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Excess Profits Tax Officer.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-1984
Reported in: [1984]8ITD788(Mum)
ORDERPer Dr. Balasubramanian, Vice President - The excess profits tax assessment of this assessee for the chargeable accounting period ending 30-9-1943 year of assessment 1944-45 was reopened by the Excess Profits Tax Officer (EPTO) consequent to a disallowance of a sum of Rs. 3,35,938 in the income-tax assessment. This latter sum was assessed to income-tax also in a reassessment. Rejecting the assessees objection, the EPTO completed the fresh assessment and demanded the extra tax payable. Before the Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee challenged the validity of the assessment itself and the addition of Rs. 6,35,938 to the profits liable to excess profit tax. The Commissioner (Appeals) decided the matter against the assessee on both the points. Hence, the appeal before the Tribunal.2. Before the Tribunal, elaborate grounds of appeal were taken dealing with the reopening as well as quantum of reassessment. An additional ground was raised that the conditions necessary for the issue of a...
Fifth Income-tax Officer Vs. A. M. Vaishnav.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-1984
Reported in: [1984]9ITD109(Mum)
ORDER1. The assessee is an employee of Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. He received a house building loan of Rs. 65,000 on 12-3-1975 from the employer at a concessional rate of interest of three and a half per cent per annum. According to the ITO, the prevailing market rate of interest varied from 12 to 15 per cent per annum. He proceeded to treat the difference between 12 per cent being the market rate and three and a half per cent being the rate at which the interest was charged by the employer, namely, eight and a half per cent as a perquisite in the hands of the assessee under section 17(2) (iii) (c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act).2. On an appeal by the assessee before that the AAC, the AAC relied on some decisions of the Tribunal and held that the loan given by the employer to the assessee at a concessional rate of interest did not constitute a perquisite in the hands of the employee.3. The revenue is in appeal against the order of the AAC on this issue Conflicting decisio...
Mechno-plast Vs. Sixth Income-tax Officer.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-1984
Reported in: [1986]17ITD786(Mum)
ORDER1. The assessee was served with a notice of demand by the ITO on completion of the assessment on 3-12-1982. The assessee was aggrieved by the order of the ITO. It filed an appeal before 1-1-1983. On 4-1-1983, it filed another memorandum of appeal before the AAC with a covering letter dated 3-1-1983 wherein it has been explained that as the only surviving partner in the firm had to suddenly go out of station on 31-12-1982, the pervious memorandum of appeal could not be signed by him. In the circumstances, the memorandum of appeal was signed by its constituted attorney Kabra Associates, chartered accountants. It was further stated in the letter that in compliance of rule 45(2) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (the Rules), a fresh memorandum of appeal and connected papers duly signed by the partner of the assessee-firm was being filed with a request that it may be taken on record in addition/substitution to the appeal papers already filed on 1-1-1983.2. After hearing the assessees repre...
Colour Chem Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-1984
Reported in: (1984)9ITD247(Mum.)
1. This appeal, filed by the assessee-company, relates to the assessment year 1973-74.2. The original assessment of the assessee was completed on 29-12-1975 on a total income of Rs. 1,25,33,350. In this assessment, the ITO allowed the extra shift allowance of Rs. 1,34,910 in respect of the following electrical machinery and installations: Name of the item Cost Rs.(i) Power cables and transformer 1,49,740(ii) H.T. cubicles 1,10,901(iii) C.I. Clad, switch board panels 1,25,072(iv) Diesel generating set and transformers 8,08,499(v) Miscellaneous items 62,166 13,49,094 (sic) 3. Later on, the audit department pointed out that the assessee was not entitled to the extra shift allowance in respect of the aforesaid electrical machinery and installations under item III(iv) of Part I of Appendix I to the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ('the Rules'). The relevant portion of this item reads as follows: The extra shift allowance shall not be allowed in respect of any item of machinery or plant which has be...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Bhiku Mahadeo Chavan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-1984
Reported in: 1985(1)BomCR556
M.S. Jamdar, J.1. This is a State Appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, F.C., Koregaon in Summary Case No. 150 of 1979 acquitting the respondent of the offences under sections 279, 304-A, IPC and section 116 of the Motor Vehicles Act.2. The respondent was prosecuted for the aforesaid offences for driving his truck in rash and negligent manner and thereby causing death of one Babu Hari Jadhav.3. The incident took place at about 12.00 noon on 12-2-1979 near Mugaon ` at a distance of about 175 feet Mile Stone No. 2 on Satara-Koregaon road, which runs west-east. Koregaon being to the east of Satara. At that time the deceased Babu was proceeding by the southern side of the road, following his cattle while his companion Raghunath Londhe was moving by the northern side of the road, towards Koregaon. It is the prosecution case that the respondent, who was driving his truck bearing No. MHD 4466, on his way from Satara to Koregaon, suddenly moved to the...
Babanrao Shankarrao Chavan Vs. Chandrashekhar Ramchandra Shinde
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-1984
Reported in: 1984(2)BomCR671
Sharad Manohar, J.1. This second appeal arises from the suit filed by the respondent for recovery of possession of the suit premises from the appellant with a contention that the appellant is nothing but a trespasser in the suit premises and that, hence, he is entitled to recover possession of the same from him. The appellant's contention was that he was one of the tenants in respect of the suit premises within the meaning of the Bombay Rent Act and, hence, was not label to eviction having regard to the provisions of the said Act.It is unnecessary to refer to the meandering manner in which the litigation wended its way till this Court. It is enough here to state that initially the suit was decreed by the trial Court, but the decree was et aside in appeal and it was remanded to the trial Court and after the remand, after going through the evidence lead by both the parties, the learned Judge was persuaded to take the view that the present appellant was a member of the family of the origi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »