Mumbai Court August 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.
Yeshwant C. Golecha and ors. Vs. Prabhu Radhakrishna Srinivas, Vice Pr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-1984
Reported in: 1985(2)BomCR72
A.D. Tated, J.1. This criminal application under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code is directed against the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate, 23rd Court, Esplanade, Bombay, for issuing process in Criminal Case No. 1133/S/83 (Misc. Case No. 62 of 1983) on the complaint filed by the respondent No. 1 for the offence under section 420 read with section 114 Indian Penal Code.2. The respondent No. 1 complainant is the Vice President of Cargo, Division of Cox & Kings (India) Ltd. having its registered office at Dr. Dadabhai Naoroji Road, Bombay. The accused are the partners of the firms styled as Fashions Exporters and Garment International, both having their offence at Galta Road, Jaipur. The accused Nos. 1 and 3 are brothers and the accused No. 2 is their sister in law. The accused in the name of their two firms are dealing in ready made garments, handicrafts, etc. for expert purposes. The respondent No. 1 company are clearing and forwarding agents. The accused were doing their export ...
Baliram Ganpat Janvilkar and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-1984
Reported in: 1984(2)BomCR633
V.S. Kotwal, J.1. At about 9.30 P.M. on August 6, 1980 a person claims to be moving all alone in Jogeshwari locality when he was accosted by a group of four persons and questioned as to why he was talking with the boys on the street and to his utter surprise it is claimed that one of them assaulted him with fist while the other inflected a stab blow on the head causing bleeding injury. The victim, therefore, ran in the opposite direction where is located a shop known as Rajesh Tailoring Shop. One of the said four persons, one parted company while three chased the victim and caught hold of him near the said shop. One of them who is original accused No. 1 assaulted with fist on the face and pressed his head down-wards on the road whereafter accused No. 2 is alleged to have inflicted stab blows which landed on the abdomen and the chest and original accused No. 4 inflicted blows with iron rod which landed on different parts of the person of the victim. This incident is claimed to have been...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. National Rayon Corporation Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-1984
Reported in: (1984)86BOMLR527; (1985)44CTR(Bom)103; [1985]155ITR413(Bom); [1984]19TAXMAN485(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. Three questions are posed in this reference under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The first question is referred at the instance of the Revenue and the second and third questions at the instance of the assessee. The questions read as under :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the expenses incurred by the assessee in the E.D.C. Plant and Pulp Pilot Plant were scientific research expenses related to a business of the assessee so as to be allowed under section 35(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 17,800 spent in the defence of Shri Mahant could be allowed as expenditure incurred for the purpose of its business ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 48,947 incurred by the assessee on foreign tours of the managing director, Shri R. J. Chinai, and the works manager, Shri J. J. Mehta, was allowable as revenue expenditure ?'2. In s...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-iii Vs. Central Dyes and Chemi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-1984
Reported in: (1987)61CTR(Bom)225; [1985]155ITR409(Bom)
Desai, J.1. The question referred to us by the Tribunal reads as under :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee should not have been penalised under section 273(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, when the failure was under section 18A(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ?'2. A penalty of Rs. 5,000 (Rupees five thousand) was levied on the assessee. We need not, for reasons which are obvious, refer to the circumstances under which the penalty came to be levied. When the matter was carried by the assessee before the AAC, the AAC relying on the decision of this court in the case of Shakti Offset Works : [1967]64ITR637(Bom) , allowed the appeal. In further appeal to the Tribunal by the Revenue, the decision of the AAC was maintained. Neither the AAC nor the Tribunal seems to have considered the question whether the levy of penalty was justified, or whether, if held justified, the quantum should be as determined by the I...
NizamuddIn ShamsuddIn Shaikh Vs. J.F. Ribeiro, Commissioner of Police ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-1984
Reported in: 1986(1)BomCR586
S.P. Kurdukar, J.1. The petitioner who is a detenu has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the legality and correctness of the detention order dated September 14, 1983 passed under sub-section (2) of section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 by the 1st respondent.2. The 1st respondent-Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, on the material placed before him was subjectively satisfied that with view to preventing the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it is necessary to detain him under the provisions of the National Security Act. The grounds of detention were also formulated simultaneously along with the order of detention and were served upon the detenu on September 14, 1983. Since then the detenu is in jail.3. The detenu in this petition has taken up several contentions but it is not necessary to refer to all these contentions. The petition could be disposed of on one ground taken up in ...
Nau Saurekhshan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corpor ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-1984
Reported in: 1985(1)BomCR679
S.J. Deshpande, J.1. The appellant is the original plaintiff in Suit No. 7083 of 1982 pending in the City Civil Court at Bombay. Respondents are original defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in the said suit.2. The plaintiffs Instituted the above suit in the City Civil Court, Bombay, against the defendants-respondents for declaration and injunction. Respondent No. 1 is the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and respondent No. 2 is M/s. Noble Construction, a firm doing business of construction. The main attack in the suit from the averments appears to be against respondent No. 1 saying that respondent No. 1 has granted permission for construction of certain buildings on certain plots without following certain procedure. The said lands are governed by Development Control Rules and plans to be submitted to the Municipal Corporation. It is alleged that defendant No. 1 i.e. Municipal Corporation has granted completion certificate to respondent No. 1 in regard to certain buildings on certain plots, ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Putco Private Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-1984
Reported in: (1985)44CTR(Bom)108; [1982]133ITR506a(Bom)
S.K. Desai, J.1. Three questions stand referred to us in this reference. The same are :'(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ship 'S. S. Shila Margaret' which the assessee acquired from M/s. Gill Amin Steamship Co. Pvt. Ltd. towards the satisfaction of an amount of Rs. 4 lakhs out of loan of Rs. 4,06,492 outstanding against M/s. Gill Amin Steamship Co. Pvt. Ltd. was stock-in-trade of the assessee ?' '(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the expenditure of Rs. 14,513 incurred by the assessee on the maintenance of the said ship 'S. S. Shila Margaret' during the accounting year relevant to the asst. yr. 1970-71 was an admissible deduction in computing the income of the assessee for the said year ?' '(iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the litigation expenses of Rs. 3,000 incurred by the assessee for the acquisition of the said ship 'S. S. Shila Margaret' during the accounting period relevant to the asst...
Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City-i Vs. General Electrodes and E ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-1984
Reported in: (1984)43CTR(Bom)21; [1985]155ITR78(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. The assessee is a public limited company. It was engaged in the business of manufacturing electrodes in collaboration with M/s. Griesheim GmbH of West Germany. The assessee's share capital consisted of 29,622 shares of Rs. 100 each, of which 11,907 shares were held by the foreign collaborators and 4,788 by Harshadray Private Limited. The foreign collaborators arranged through their bankers, Deutsche Bank, for a guarantee in the sum of Rs. 10 lakhs to enable the assessee to obtain a loan of like amount from the Bank of Baroda. It appears that the assessee ran into financial difficulties. An understanding was reached between the foreign collaborators and Harshadray Private Limited and it was recorded on January 18, 1971. The record of understanding noted that the foreign collaborators had arranged for a bank guarantee from the Deutsche Bank to the Bank of Baroda for Rs. 10. lakhs so that the Bank of Baroda could advance a loan of Rs. 10 lakhs to the assessee. Clauses (c) a...
Abdul Jabbar and ors. Vs. Jumankhan S/O. Mohamed Hassan Khan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-1984
Reported in: 1985(2)BomCR74
Sharad Manohar, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the original defendants. Suit was filed against them by the respondent (who will be referred to hereinafter as 'the plaintiff') in substance for removal of the defendants from the suit premises, meaning thereby for recovery of possession of the suit premises which they have been occupying jointly with the plaintiff for a considerable period. The trial Court found that they have next to no defence to the suit and hence the suit has been decreed by the Court. For the reasons which will be presently stated, I have found it impossible to find fault with its judgment in general and the conclusion arrived at be the trial Court in particular, though I do feel sorry for the appellants.2. The facts are fully and carefully stated in the judgment of the trial Court and since I have found that no fault can be found with the said Judgment, it is un-necessary to state the facts elaborately once again. For the sake of discussing the points that arise...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Indian Film Combines Private Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-1984
Reported in: (1984)86BOMLR447
Lentin, J.1. In 1977 at considerable expense, the respondents built a cinema theatre at Bandra. Not the conventional type where you walk in, stand at the counter, buy your ticket, walk into the auditorium, and later walk out. In the respondents' theatre you drive into a vast open land, park your car facing a giant screen, have a sound contraption attached in your car, pay so much for the the car and so much for each occupant, and at the end of the show drive out. It is called a drive-in theatre. One would think watching a film from the cramped confines of a motor-car would be a trying experience. Apparently not. We are reliably assured across the Bar that it understandably meets with the enthusiastic approval of the younger generation.2. On December 29, 1977, at considerable expense the State's only drive-in theatre was inaugurated with some fanfare by the Chief Minister. Regular shows commenced the next day. Like all other theatres in Bombay, the respondents' licence contained the usu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »