Mumbai Court June 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.
Gani Abdulla Since Deceased by His Legal Heirs and ors. Vs. Nennmal Ja ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-1984
Reported in: 1984(2)BomCR738
Sharad Manohar, J.1. This first appeal is filed against the decree passed by the City Civil Court in the year 1977 decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff in the year 1964 in that Court. The facts to which the instant suit relates are even of much earlier period. At least from the year 1946, if not earliest still. The suit relates to the plaintiff's right to possession of one room and a kitchen in the suit premises, namely a tenement consisting of two rooms and a kitchen in a building called Navnidhan Bhuvan, 313, Masjid Bunder Road, Bombay. Evidently, the suit premises have a great commercial value and that is the reason why it has become the subject matter of quite a spate of litigation.2. The facts which are relevant for the purpose of this appeal are the following :---(a) One Abraham Ayohanoff was a tenant in respect of one of the tenements on the first-floor of the building now known as Navnidhan Bhuvan. It appears that Ayohanoff was in occupation of the tenement from the year 1...
income-tax Officer Vs. National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-1984
Reported in: [1984]10ITD398(Mum); (1985)22TTJ(Mumbai)494
ORDER, ADMISSIBILITY--Interest under s. 215.Ratio :Levy of interest under section 215 can be appealed against only if the assessee denies his liability of penal interest, not in a case where he mere disputes the quantum of interest.Held :If an assessee challenges only the quantum of the penal interest, then it is not permissible to him to go in appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner under section 246(c) (as it then stood) but if the assessee denies the very liability to be charged with penal interest, then it is permissible to him to go in appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner under section 246(c) and when such an appeal has been filed, it will be open to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to take into account all points which may ligitimately reduce the taxable income or the tax to be paid but also substantially reduce the quantum of the penal interest. Application :Section 215 is inoperative now.Income Tax Act 1961 s.215Income Tax Act 1961 s.246Depreciation--BUILDI...
Siloo Homee Mistry Vs. Second Assistant Controller of Estate Duty.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-1984
Reported in: [1984]10ITD391(Mum)
ORDERPer Shri. D. V. Junnarkar, Accountant Member - Though the accountable persons have filed this appeal on various grounds, the only ground pressed at the time of the hearing is that the Appellate Controller had erred in not granting exemption under section 33(1) (n) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (the Act) in respect of one-fourth share of the deceased for the part of the house exclusively used by the deceased for his residence at Fatehgunj, Baroda. The facts of the case are that the deceased along with his three brothers inherited the house at Fatehgunj in Baroda from their father. Three of the brothers continued to reside in the property, whereas the deceased, who was a ground engineer in the Air India, used to be at the place of his duty all over the world. When on leave he would come and reside in the property at Baroda. In the assessment proceedings, the Assistant Controller overruled the plea on behalf of the accountable persons for relief under section 33(1) (n) and included th...
Union of India Vs. K.T. Rizvi and Brothers
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1984
Reported in: II(1986)ACC243; AIR1985Bom84; 1984MhLJ1011
ORDER1. This revision application by the Union of India is directed against the decree for Rs. 528.70 passed against it.2. The non- applicant-plaintiff, who was the consignee and the owner of the goods, i.e., 51 bundles of rope, booked from Nagarcoil on April 29, 1978, for delivery at Akola, received the goods on 15-7 -1978. At the time of the delivery, a part of the goods in 15 bundles was found to be damaged, and the damage was assessed. According to the non- applicant, the loss and deterioration was due to the gross negligence and misconduct of the Railway administration and their servants. A notice under S. 80 of the Civil P.C. was sent on 31-12-1978 to the applicant. As no amends were made, the suit came to be instituted. One of the contention of the applicant was that notice under S.. 78-B of the Railways Act, 1890 had not been served on it within six months, as required, and the claim was not maintainable.3. The learned trial Judge took the view that as the delivery was effected...
B.S. Hebbar, Assistant Collector of Customs Vs. Jolly John
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-1984
Reported in: 1984(2)BomCR476; 1989(24)ECC28; 1989(20)LC463(Bombay); 1989(40)ELT324(Bom)
1. It is unnecessary to state the facts in this petition in a fulsome manner. The short question is as to whether respondent No. 1 (hereafter, the respondent) who has admittedly smuggled certain dutiable goods in India of the value of about Rs. 67,600/- should be allowed to be let off with a fine of Rs. 21,000/- only when the law mandates that in such a case the minimum sentence should be imprisonment for a period of 6 months in addition to fine. It is not disputed that the court has jurisdiction to give sentence for less than the minimum; but special reasons has to be recorded by the court in that behalf. In the instant case, the learned Magistrate has given practically no reason as to why he was inclined to let off the prisoner with a light sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the court and with a fine totally amounting to Rs. 21,000/- in respect of the several charges levelled against him.2. Mr. Patwardhan for the customs department rightly argued that the order passed by the...
Subhkaran and Sons Vs. N.A. Kazi, 5th Ito and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-1984
Reported in: (1984)43CTR(Bom)16; [1985]152ITR231(Bom); [1984]19TAXMAN250(Bom)
Pratap, J.1. The petitioner (hereinafter 'the firm') has been at all relevant times carrying on business in textile goods, chemicals and yarn in Bombay. By a partnership deed dated January 1, 1971, one Subhkaran Jatia anda Shivhari Jatia had agreed to carry on business in partnership in the name and style of M/S. Subhkaran & Sons. The said Subhkaran Jatia and Shivhari Jatia admitted some Sunilkumar Jatia and one Anilkumar Jatia to the benefits of the partnership. By a partnership deed dated September 3, 1975, the firm was reconstituted as follows :Subhkaran Jatia ... 25% shareShivhari Jatia ... 25% shareVinodkumar Jatia ... 25% shareandAnilkumar Jatia(minor) ... 25% share2. As a result of this partnership deed dated September 3, 1975, Sunilkumar Jatia (minor), who was admitted to the benefits of the partnership, was not continued to be given the said benefits and Anilkumar Jatia, who was a minor, was admitted to the benefits of the partnership. On November 4, 1975 (Kartik sud 1, Samvat...
Ramkrishna Vithoba Pardhi and ors. Vs. W.T. Kamhade and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Bom448; 1984MhLJ816
Ginwal, J.1. The general election to the Gram Panchayat of dharmna was to be held in the month of March, 1984. Respondent No. 2 who was appointed as Returning Officer for holding this election issued a programmed as required by R. 7 of the Bombay village Panchayat Election Rules. According to this programme, the last date of filing nomination forms was 27 3-1984 and the nomination forms were to be scrutinised on 28-3-1984. The petitioners had filed their nomination forms for contesting the election from various wards of the said Gram Panchayat for the last date prescribed for filling the nomination forms. On 28-3-1984 when respondent No. 2 proceeded to scrutinise the nominations forms, an objection was raised to the validity of candidature of 14 of the candidates including the present nine petitioners on the ground that they were disqualified since they had not paid the tax of the Gram Panchayat within theree months from the date of demand as provided by cl/ (h) of s. 14 of the Bombay ...
B.R.T. Limited Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-1984
Reported in: (1989)(24)LC527Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal arises out of the order-in-appeal No. 8/49-729/82M dated 7-7-1982 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeal) Bombay by which he rejected the appellants claim and confirm the order-in-original bearing No. S/8-7-858/81M dated 6-2-1982 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, MCD by which rejected the appellants claim for refund holding that their claim does not fall either under Section 23(1) or under Section 13 of the Customs Act, 1962 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Collector the appellants filed a Revision Application before the Govt. of India which statutorily stood transferred under Section 31B of the Act to the Tribunal.3. The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are in dispute.The appellants imported 5000 kgs. of Nylon Moulding Powder in 5 pallets of 40 paper bags each. The out of charge order was passed in respect of all the five pallet on 8-5-1981. Prior to this on 6-5-1981 the appella...
Chemiequip Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-1984
Reported in: (1984)(18)ELT135Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal arises out of the Order-in-Appeal No. 1138/79 dated 6-11-1979 passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Bombay by which he confirmed the order-in-original bearing No.V. 14D (30) 406/TB/78/23, dated 1-1-1979 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs by which he rejected the appellant's claim for Proforma Credit of Rs. 18,475.14.2. The undisputed facts are that the appellants M/s. Chemiequip Ltd. are the licensed manufacturers of Synthetic Organic Dyestuffs falling under Excise T. Item 14-D. They were using indigenous as well as imported duty paid raw materials and were availing proforma credits in respect of the excise duty/countervailing duty paid on such raw materials in accordance with the permission granted to them under Rule 56-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Rules).3. On 11-4-1978, the appellants received a consignment of 993 kgs. Of imported Alpha Napthol a raw material used in the manufacture o...
Sitaram Vishnu Shirodkar Vs. the Administrator, Government of Goa and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-1984
Reported in: (1985)ILLJ480Bom; 1984MhLJ566
Waikar, J.1. This is a petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order of reference made the Award respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and to quash the Award passed by the respondent No. 3.2. The petitioner runs an establishment namely a restaurant under the name and style 'Cafe Real' at Panaji, Goa. It is registered under the Shops and Establishments Act. The respondent No. 4 was in the employment of the petitioner since the year 1973. Admittedly, since 1st March, 1978, the respondent No. 4 did not report to duty. A dispute was then raised, for the first time, about 6 months thereafter on 26th September, 1978 by the respondent No. 4 and the conciliation proceedings were held by the Assistant Labour Commissioner in respect of the alleged dispute. The contention of the respondent No. 4 was that he was removed from the service. Whereas the contention of the petitioner was that he used to remain absent from duty without any prior intimation and he abandoned the j...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »