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.
Govindrao Narayanrao Prabhu Vs. Shankarrao Maruti Gawali
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-1984
Reported in: 1986(1)BomCR114
R.A. Jahagirdar, J.1. Civil Suit No. 1935 of 1979 had been filed by the respondent in the Small Causes Court at Pune against the petitioner who is his tenant, for possession of one room consisting of 1 1/2 Khans. The said room will hereinafter be referred to as 'the suit premises'. The petitioner is the tenant of the said room for several years on a monthly rent of Rs. 20. The respondent filed a suit as aforesaid on the ground, among others, that he required the suit premises reasonably and bona fide for his own use and occupation.2. The petitioner resisted the suit by contending that the respondent's need was neither reasonable nor bona fide and that greater hardship would be caused to him if a decree for possession were passed than the hardship that would be caused to the respondent if a decree for possession were refused. The learned trial Judge by his judgment and order dated 28th of September, 1981 dismissed the suit by holding against the respondent on all grounds. It may be adde...
income-tax Officer Vs. Amersey Exports (P.) Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-1984
Reported in: (1985)11ITD74(Mum.)
1. The assessee is a company carrying on business of export. In the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1977-78, the assessee received interest of Rs. 56,972 from the Government under Section 214 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). The assessee credited this amount in profits and loss account and treated this amount as part of the business income of the relevant years. The ITO treated this amount as income from other sources. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) directed the ITO to treat this amount as business income. The department has now come in appeal before us and the contention is that the said amount should be treated as income from other sources.2. In support of the contention that the said income was income from other sources, the learned departmental representative has relied on the decision of the Madras High Court in Smt. B. Seshamma v. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 314. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the assessee has relied on the decision of the Punja...
State of Maharashtra and Khas Mohamad Basalataill Vs. Prabhatkumar Sha ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-1984
Reported in: 1985(1)BomCR609
V.S. Kotwal, J.1. A sinner gets a prick to his conscience, becomes restless and even prays to the Almighty to forgive him for committing sin of falsely involving someone and then knocks the doors of the Court though after along period of two years to case the burden taking a complete summersault vis-a-vis his previous conduct and statements solemnly made on the earlier occasion. At the other terminus the Court equally in a receptive mood to assist a retentive person, not only readily allowed the said move and accepted the same but admitted it treating as if it is evidence, which is really in the shape of an affidavit and ultimately relied on it so much that it has been made the foundation of throwing the prosecution case over board at the threshold. In that process the learned Magistrate has to undergo a very unusual exercise wherein there is an apparent endeavour almost to re-write the Code of Criminal Procedure, adopting such a stance which makes the existing procedure topsy turvy an...
Nivrutti Dhondiba Shinde Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-1984
Reported in: 1984(2)BomCR722; (1984)86BOMLR462
Kantharia, J.1. The Accused-appellant, Nivrutti alias Limba Dhondiba Shinde (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused'), by this appeal has challenged his conviction for an offence of murder punishable under S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence to suffer imprisonment for life recorded against him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune on 16th August, 1983 in Sessions Case No. 136 of 1983.2. The facts, as they are relevant for the disposal of this appeal, shortly stated are as under :-The accused is a resident of village Urse, Taluka Vedgaon Maval, District Pune. He resided there with his wife, two children and mother at the relevant time. He was employed in a private company viz. Eagle Flask at Talegaon and had to work in different shifts. On the night of 23rd November, 1982 and 24th November, 1982 he was working in the night shift from 8.00 p.m. to 2.00 a.m. He came back home from work at about 8.00 a.m. on 24th November, 1982. Soon after he came home, he told his wife ...
Vinayakrao Mahadeo Rao Kaore and ors. Etc. Vs. State of Maharashtra an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Bom94; 1984MhLJ910
Ginwala, J.1. The petitioners in these three petitions, who are members of various Agricultural Produce Market Committees constituted under the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), challenge the validity of cl. (k) of sub-rule (1) of R.41 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Rules, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') as they stand disqualified under that clause. These three petitions, therefore, can be disposed of by a common judgment.2. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in these petitions, it would be convenient at this stage to refer to relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules. The preamble of the Act states that it has been enacted 'to regulate the marketing of agriculture and certain other produce in market areas and markets to be established therefor in the State and to confer powers upon Market Committees to be constituted in connection with or acting for pur...
Rana Electrical Industries Vs. Jyoti Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Bom446; 1984(2)BomCR648; 1984MhLJ851
ORDER1. The only question which requires consideration in these writ petitions is to find out as to whether the Registrar of the Small Cause Court had jurisdiction to grant leave to sue under S. 18(a) of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 in the suits which are not triable by him under S. 14 of the Act.2. It is contended by the petitioners defendants that the Registrar of the Small Cause Court had no jurisdiction to grant leave to sue under S. 18(a) of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882. It is an admitted position that the suits are covered by cl. (a) of the said section and, therefore, leave of the Court was necessary before the institution of the suit itself. It is also an admitted position that such a leave was granted by the Registrar of the Small Cause Court, who was authorised to do so, by a circular dated 3rd July 1975 issued by the Chief Judge of the Court of Small Cause at Bombay. It is apparent that the said circular was issued under S. 9(1)(aa) of the Presi...
Rambhan Raghobaji Rewatkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-1984
Reported in: (1986)ILLJ107Bom
Ginwala, J.1. The petitioner, who was then working as Sales-tax Officer, Class I at Nagpur, has been placed under suspension under Government Resolution dated 31st March, 1983 pending investigation in respect of the charge of demanding and accepting illegal gratification. The said order of suspension continued till 11th June, 1984 when this petition was filed, and is still continuing. Relying on the circular issued by the State Government on 18th September, 1974, the petitioner contends that the suspension cannot continue beyond a period of six months and that if it had to be continued beyond that period, it could be done so only for a further period of three months under the orders of the Chief Secretary to the Government. He contends that in view of the clear directions given in the circular, the order placing him under suspension should have been revoked and he should have been permitted to resume his duties. It is with this grievance that he has come to this Court for appropriate r...
Laxminarayan Pathak and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-1984
Reported in: AIR1986Bom60
1. This is a writ petition arising out of the proceedings under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (for short 'the Ceiling Act'). The S.L.D.T. held that the family unit of the petitioners held 28.06 acres of land as surplus land. The total holding of the petitioners is 85.28 acres. The pot kharab land belonging to the family unit of the petitioners was determined as 4 acres 02 gunthas. Being aggrieved the petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The State also preferred its cross objection. The learned M.R.T. held that the total pot kharab land belonging to the family unit of the petitioners was 10 acres 4 gunthas and not 4 acres 02 gunthas as determined by the S.L.D.T. The M.R.T., therefore, accordingly modified the surplus land belonging to the petitioners. It held that the surplus land belonging to the petitioners would be 22 acres and 18 gunthas. There was also modification in regard to the delimitation of surp...
Anmedali Brothers Vs. Hami and Co. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Bom306
ORDER1. This petition has been filed for rectification of registered trade mark No. 221462 registered in the year 1964 in favour of respondent 1 and the proceedings are instituted under S. 56(1) of the Trade Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The registered mark consists of a composite letter with three features - a flower design, the numeral 96 and the word 'Majmua'. The register sets out the disclaimer providing that the registration of the mark shall given no right to the exclusive use of the device of flowers and the word 'Majmua' either separately or together.2A. Respondent 1 is a partnership concern and carry on business as manufacturers and traders of Attars and perfumes. Respondent 1 are carrying on business in Attars and perfumes since the year 1945 and since the year 1956 have been using a composite mark containing the flower design and the expression 'Majmua' with numeral 196 as its leading distinctive feature for an in respect of perfumes ...
Birla Consultants Limited Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-1984
Reported in: [1986]157ITR98(Bom)
S.C. Pratap, J.1. This petition under article 226 of the Constitution arises out of proceedings for approval under section 80MM of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter 'the Act'), by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (hereinafter 'the Board') of an agreement for supply of technical know-how.2. The petitioner - Birla Consultants Limited - is a public limited company duly recognised by the Government of India as a consulting engineering company specialised in various fields. According to the petitioner, it has acquired considerable technical know-how in setting up plants for which purpose, it utilises the services of highly qualified technical persons like engineers, technologists, architects, chemists, etc. The petitioner also renders services as consulting engineers to various concerns and even foreign technical consultants have recognised the services of the petitioner and have collaborated with it to submit technical proposals to various private and Government undertakings. Some joi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »