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.
Ramrao Parashuram Ghogle and anr. Vs. Mukund Govind Kini and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-1984
Reported in: 1986(1)BomCR361
B.C. Gadgil, J.1. The petitioner who owns Survey No. 21 situated at Eksar, Taluka Borivli, filed an application under section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Court Act (unamended) for getting possession of a part of that land with an allegation that this part was let out to the respondents and that the said tenancy has been terminated. This proceeding was numbered as E.A. No. 97E of 1976. The learned Judge of the Small Causes Court passed an order dated 22-2-1983 for the return of the application for presentation of the property. The order is passed on a hypothesis that as the land is an agricultural land, the courts constituted under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, (hereinafter referred to as the `Tenancy Act') alone has jurisdiction. The petitioner filed appeal No. 304 of 1983 against this order. The appeal was dismissed as not maintainable. However, the merits of the earlier order (directing the return of the application) were discussed by the Appellate Court ...
Liberty Oil Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-1984
Reported in: 1991LC110(Bombay); 1990(45)ELT392(Bom)
1. This petition arises out of proceedings under the Central Excises and Salt Act (hereinafter, the Act).2. The 1st petitioner, Liberty Oil Mills, is a private limited company (hereinafter 'the Company') carrying on business, inter alia, of manufacturing and marketing refined oil and vanaspati. The Company took over a partnership firm M/s. Liberty Oil Mills which firm till its take-over was carrying on the same aforesaid business. This petition was originally filed by the said firm. By amendment, the Company has come on record.3. At all material times, the Company manufactured and marketed vanaspati under the brand name 'CHANDA'. According to the Company, this product is manufactured in bulk and thereafter filled in tin containers labelled with the brand name 'CHANDA'. These containers are then sealed and packed and are then transported to wholesale buyers who, in their turn, sell them in retail to consumers. According to the Company, the product is sold in the course of wholesale trad...
J. D. Cooper Vs. First Income-tax Officer.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-1984
Reported in: [1986]17ITD890(Mum)
ORDERPer Shri R. L. Sangani, Judicial Member - In the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1978-79, the assessee, Mr. J. D. Cooper, acquired two cars which had been manufactured outside India. He gave these two cars on hire to Brown & Root International Ltd., and received hire charges of Rs. 54,655.66. He offered this amount for taxation. Brown & root International Ltd. was a foreign company and was not maintaining a regular office in India. The said company had opened a temporary office in India in a hotel and that office was closed after the business activities of the said company were over. The said company was engaged in the business as engineers and constructors and the cars given by the assessee had been used by them for their business.2. The assessee claimed depreciation of the value of these cars. The ITO disallowed the claim relying on the proviso to section 32(1) (ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act), which is as follows :'Provided further that no deduction sh...
Jyoti Traders and ors. Vs. S.M. Gore, Income Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-1984
Reported in: 1986(1)BomCR289
V.S. Kotwal, J.1. An entry in the accounts is responsible for initiating two proceedings on the parallel track, one before the Income Tax Official while the other on the forum of Criminal Court. The other peculiarity of the proceedings is that the concerned party was visited not only with the discarding of his explanation vis-a-vis that entry but also with imposition of penalty on the ground that there has been willful suppression or concealment of income whereafter, a criminal prosecution is launched on the basis of the same entry and more or less on the same platform with the existence of another. The texture of the litigation gets a further turn due to the peculiar development occurring during the pendency of the criminal proceedings wherein the highest authority in the hierarchy of the structure of income tax Department construed the same entry in favour of the party under which not only the penalty was quashed but the said party has been completely exornerated. These are some of t...
Ramkali Rambharaose Katiyar (Smt.) and ors. Vs. Ramdulare Shivprasad K ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-1984
Reported in: 1985(1)BomCR709
Sharad Manohar, J.1. Though this is a second appeal filed by the plaintiff against the concurrent decrees passed by both the courts below, the appeal has got to be allowed firstly because the main question that fell for determination of the Court has not been addressed to by either of them and secondly because the view taken by both the courts below is unsupportable in law.2. Normally, facts can be and are stated in a judgement in Second Appeal on the basis of the facts that are either found or admitted. But in the instant case, many of the facts have been properly adjudicated upon at all and there is a dispute about practically every factual position. Hence, I will set out the facts by referring, mostly to the contentions of each of the parties, the plaintiffs and the defendant, in their pleadings.(a) The four appellants, who are the original plaintiffs (who will be referred to hereinafter as the 'plaintiffs') are the heirs of one Rambharose Katiyar. Plaintiff No. 1 is the widow and p...
Modern Dekor Painting Contracts P. Ltd. Vs. Jenson and Nicholson (Indi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-1984
Reported in: 1983MhLJ485
Rege, J.1. Since these two appeals arise out of the same Company Petition No. 221 of 1977, they are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. Appeal No. 84 of 1983 raises a short question whether a winding-up petition against a company which was maintainable when filed, being for a debt not barred at the date of the petition, ceases to be so maintainable if at the hearing of the petition the said debt was barred by limitation.3. This is an appeal against the judgment and order of Desai J. dated January 14, 1983, on a preliminary issue raised in a winding-up petition filed by the respondents, Jenson and Nicholson (India) Ltd. (hereinafter called 'the petitioner company'), against a company called Modern Dekor Painting Contracts P. Ltd. (hereinafter called ' the company ').4. The preliminary issue raised was ;' Whether the debt or claim of the petitioner on the basis of which a winding-up order is sought, should be a subsisting debt at the date of the hearing of the petition or is it eno...
Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd. and anr. Vs. Pimpri-chinc ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-1984
Reported in: 1984(2)BomCR761; 1985MhLJ520
P.B. Sawant, J.1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners seek a writ of mandamus against the respondents requiring them to withdraw their demand for Rs. 23,08,075.70 towards the octroi duty as contained in the respondents' letters dated the 18th January, 1st March, 9th April and 26th April, 1984.2. The first petitioner is a Company engaged in manufacturing commercial vehicles, excavators, spare parts. etc. and has its works at Pimpri and Chinchwad within the jurisdiction of the first respondent, Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation. The second petitioner is the Director of the first petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 are the Administrator and the Octroi Superintendent of the first Respondent Corporation. The articles on which the Respondent-Corporation seeks to levy octroi duty are listed in Ex. '2' to the affidavit in reply filed by Respondent No. 3 - the Octroi Superintendent, on behalf of he respondents. According to the petitioners, all the ...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Hamirbhai B. Munshaw
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-1984
Reported in: (1985)11ITD184(Mum.)
1. This appeal by the department arises out of the proceeding for assessment of estate duty. The deceased, Shri Nalinbhai B. Munshaw, died on 16-2-1976. At the time of his death, he was a member of HUF governed by the Mitakshara law. Section 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 ('the Act'), lays down that for the purpose of determining the rate of the estate duty to be paid on any property passing on the death of the deceased, in the case of property so passing which consists of a coparcenary interest in the joint family property of a Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, interest in the joint family property of all the lineal descendants of the deceased member shall be aggregated so as to form one estate and estate duty shall be levied thereon at the rate or rates applicable in respect of the principal value thereof. The Assistant Controller aggregated the interests of all the lineal descendants of the deceased under this provision. In the appeal filed by the accountable pers...
Leukoplast (India) Private Ltd. and Others Vs. Union of India and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-1984
Reported in: (1984)86BOMLR450; 1986(9)ECC188; 1985(20)ELT70(Bom)
Couto, J.1. The petitioners challenge, in this Writ Petition, the Orders dates 25th October, 1980 and 19th August, 1981 passed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, as well as the show cause notices issued by the same Board on 25th February, 1981 and 20th March, 1981.2. The first petitioner is a Company registered under the Companies Act of 1956 and the second petitioner is shareholder of the same Company. The first petitioner manufacturers strips of Surgical Dressings containing a pad medicated with Nitrofurozone (0.125%) called Handyplast. On 12th October, 1962, a Tariff Advice was issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs clarifying that products similar to Handyplast were not classed under Item 14E. Petitioners started the manufacture of Handyplast and on account of the said Advice, no duty was levied on the said product. However, on 16th March, 1974, a show cause notice was issued to them by the Assistant Collector of Excise and Customs, whereby he proposed to classi...
Murlidhar Pusaram Vs. 7th Asst. Controller of Estate Duty and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-1984
Reported in: [1985]154ITR814(Bom); [1984]19TAXMAN315(Bom)
Pratap, J.1. This petition under art. 226 of the Constitution arises out of proceedingsunder the E.D. Act, 1953 (hereinafter 'the Act'), and the question relates to the legality and validity of the noticedated March 18, 1980, issued by the 1st respondent to the petitioner seeking to reopen the assessment in question.2. The petitioner is the accountable person of deceased Pusaram Ramchandra (hereinafter 'the deceased'), who died on September 18, 1969. The deceased was a partner in two firms, viz., (a) M/s. Jawarmal Ramkaran, and (b) M/s. Radhakishan Ramchandra. On April 4, 1970, the petitioner field estate duty return disclosing the total chargeable estate of the deceased at Rs. 3,46,040. In the said return was also categorically disclosed the interest of the deceased in the above two partnership firms. Interest of the deceased in M/s. Jawarmal Ramkaran was valued at Rs. 2,54,548 and his interest in M/s. Radhakishan Ramchandra was valued at Rs. 56,536. In the course of the assessment pr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›