Mumbai Court September 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.
Godawari Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-1984
Reported in: 1985MhLJ395
1. The is an appeal by the complainant wife against the acquittal of the accused by the learned Sessions Judge. The complainant wife claims that she was the first wife of the accused No. 1 (respondent No. 3 in this appeal), legally wedded to him about 8 years back before the date of the complaint However, she was not living with her husband at Amdapur, Tahsil Mehekar, District Buldana. According to her, the accused No. 1 had married the accused No. 8 (the respondent No. 8 in this appeal) on 1-6-1974 as per the customary rights of the Hindus. The two witnesses viz. Trimbak S/o Ramchandra P.W. No. 2 and Sakharam S/o Tukaram Tupekar P.W. No. 3 had attended the said marriage. It is not in dispute that the complainant has no personal knowledge of the second marriage. However, she learnt about the same through P.W. No. 3 Sakharam Tupekar. Since the second marriage was conducted during the subsistence of the first marriage with her she filed a complaint charging the accused Nos. 1 and 8 of ha...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. N.P. Khedkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-1984
Reported in: (1985)47CTR(Bom)178; [1986]157ITR276(Bom); [1985]22TAXMAN112(Bom)
Desai, J.1. The questions referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal are as under :' (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in treating the assessee as Hindu undivided family and not as an individual ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal ought to have held that the assessee should have been assessed in the status of an individual and the income of the minor should have been included in the income of the assessee under section 64 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. This matter was before us on August 31, 1984, and subsequently on September 10, 1984. On August 31, 1984, we had remanded the matter to the Tribunal for a fresh statement of case, as we were of the opinion that the reference could not be proceeded with without the two deeds of partition being on record, both dated March 22, 1968. After August 31, 1984, the Department had produced copies of the two partition deeds which were i...
Tukaram Nathuji Sonkusare Vs. Dayalnath Dudhanath Mishra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-1984
Reported in: AIR1986Bom109; 1985MhLJ38
ORDER1. What principally falls for determination in this writ petition is the width of power of 'review' under Cl. 21(2)(a) of the C.P. & Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order. 10949 ('The HRC' Order for short).2. This is how the point arises. The respondent, Dayalnath Mishra, the original landlord filed an application under Cl. 13(3)(i) and (ii) of the HRC Order against the petitioner Tukkaram Sonkusare, original tenant, a rickshaw puller. The landlord claimed the arrears of rent at Rs. 21/- per month for the period Sept. 1973 to Jan. 1974. The tenant contested the application contending inter alia that not he but his elder brother Pandurang a Karta of the family is the tenant, the premises were taken on rent since 1968 and there rent last paid was at the rate of Rs. 11/- per month and not Rs. 21/- as alleged. Both parties entered into witness box. Documentary evidence such as copy of one receipt, notice given by the landlord, copy of assessment register etc. was also filed. ...
Godawari Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-1984
Reported in: 1985CriLJ1472
Dhabe, J.1. This is an appeal by the complainant wife against the acquittal of the accused by the learned Sessions Judge. The complainant wife claims that she was the first wife of the accused No. 1 (respondent No. 3 in this appeal), legally wedded to him about 8 years back before the date of the complaint However, she was not living with her husband at Amdapur, Tahsil Mehekar, District Buldana. According to her, the accused No. 1 had married the accused No. 8 (the respondent No. 8 in this appeal) on 1-6-1974 as per the customary rights of the Hindus. The two witnesses viz. Trimbak S/o Ramchandra P.W. No. 2 and Sakharam S/o Tukaram Tupekar P. W. No. 3 had attended the said marriage. It is not in dispute that the complainant has no personal knowledge of the second marriage. However, she learnt about the same through P.W. No. 3 Sakharam Tupekar. Since the second marriage was conducted during the subsistence of the first marriage with her she * filed a complaint charging the accused Nos. ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Reliance Textile Industries Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1984
Reported in: (1985)LC476Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Thane Collectorate which is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. E-2339/TH-20/83 in file V. 2(18) 2238/83/59385 dated 24-12-1983 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. The facts of the case, briefly, are as follows : 2. The respondents M/s. Reliance Polyester (a Division of Reliance Textile Industries Ltd., Bombay) situated at Patalganga, are manufacturers of Partially Oriented Polyester Filament Yarn (P.O.Y) falling under Tariff Item No. 18-11 (i) (a) of the Central Excise Tariff. They have another unit situated at Naroda, Ahemdabad where they have necessary facilities and equipments for carrying out the processes such as further orientation and texturisation of the P.O.Y., the resultant product being known as 'textured yarn' falling under Tariff Item No. 18-11 (i) (b) of the Central Excise Tariff. In November, 1982, the respondents had requested the Assistant Collector of Central Exci...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Victoria Mills Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1984
Reported in: (1985)46CTR(Bom)180; [1985]153ITR733(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. An interesting point concerning the carry forward of development rebate is raised in this reference, at the instance of the Revenue, under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The question posed reads as follows :'Whether the finding of the Tribunal that unabsorbed development rebate is not to be set off against capital gains but is to be carried forward is, in law, justified ?'2. The assessee runs a cotton mill. The relevant assessment year is 1967-68. An assessment was made. The assessee went in appeal and in further appeal. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal allowed it some deductions, as a consequence of which its income from business, after allowing depreciation, was computed at Rs. 2,34,992. The development rebate was allowable to the assessee in the sum of Rs. 3,54,802. The assessee also had income from property and dividends, aggregating to Rs. 1,03,093, and long-term capital gains in the amount of Rs. 40,750. The ITO set off the assessee's income from business in the...
income-tax Officer Vs. S. Trilochan Singh Sahney
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1984
Reported in: (1985)11ITD472(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal by the ITO against the order of the AAC dated 2-10-1982 in the 1977-78 income-tax assessment proceedings.2. For the assessment year 1977-78, previous year ending 31-3-1977, on 5-10-1977, the assessee filed a return declaring total income of Rs. 29,870. Among the income so declared, the assessee returned income of Rs. 1,047 from the self-occupied flat being Flat No. 71, Chitrakut, Altamount Road, Bombay. The net income from house property at Rs. 1,047 was returned thus:Municipal rateable value as per certificate 4,285Add: One-ninth 476 4,761Less: Municipal taxes at the rate of Rs. 176.58 per month 2,119Less: Half for self-occupation of Rs. 1,800, 2,642 whichever is less--under Section 23(1) 1,321Less: (1) One-sixth repairs 220 1,321 (2) Insurance--Rs. 4.53 per month 54 274Net chargeable income from house property: 1,047 Dealing with this issue, it is seen that the ITO accepted the municipal rateable value at Rs. 4,840 (as disclosed by the assessment order) even tho...
Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City-ii Vs. Minerva Maritime Corpor ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1984
Reported in: [1985]58CompCas255(Bom); [1985]155ITR258(Bom)
Desai, J.1. A very short question has been posed for consideration of this High Court in this reference. The said question reads as under :'Whether the interpretation placed by the Tribunal on rule 5(2) of the Income-tax Rules. 1962, is correct ?'2. The assessee is a non-resident shipping company which is assessed to tax on 'Voyage basis' in respect of its earnings at the Indian ports. We are concerned with the assessment year 1970-71. During the previous year relevant to this assessment year, one of its ships 'S.S. Dimitrios' touched the Port of Mangalore and for the cargo which it carried from that port, it had received freight earnings. In computing its income assessable to Indian income-tax for that year, the assessee claimed proportionate depreciation of pound 17,143. This claim was negatived by the ITO and in his order, the said ITO made the following observation :The ship 'S. S. Dimitrios' was built in 1944 and purchased by the assessee in 1962. At the time of purchase, as per I...
Godavari Sugar Mills Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay Ci ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1984
Reported in: (1985)46CTR(Bom)197; [1985]155ITR306(Bom); [1985]20TAXMAN280(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. The question to be answered in this reference at the instance of the assessee reads thus :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in not allowing the full consideration money of Rs. 4,97,308 paid to the firm of Somaiya Farms, Lakh and Khanapur, for purchase of sugarcane because the assessee happened to be a partner in the said firm ?'2. The assessee carries on the business of manufacture and sale of sugar. It has factories at Sakarwadi and Lakshmiwadi. It owns a sugarcane farm. It s a partner with a 25% share in profits in two firms, Somaiya Farms, Lakh, and Somaiya Farms, Khanapur. It purchases sugarcane from these two firms as also from outsiders, bagaitdars. It also uses sugarcane grown at its own farm.3. Sugarcane was procured by the assessee in this manner during the assessment year with which we are here concerned namely, 1962-23. The previous year ended on May 31, 1961. The State of Maharashtra fixes a minimum price a...
Ahmednagar Zilla Shet Majoor Union and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1984
Reported in: 1985(2)BomCR18; (1986)ILLJ370Bom; 1985MhLJ318
Dharmadhikari, J.1. Petitioner No. 1 is a Trade Union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. The Union has as its members agricultural workers employed in the District of Ahmednagar. Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are agricultural labourers in Shrirampur Tahsil of Ahmednagar District and they work on Employment Guarantee Scheme works since last many years. In this petition, the petitioners have mainly challenged the provisions of S. 7(2)(vii) of the Maharashtra Employment Guarantee Act, 1977 and have prayed for a declaration that the provision in S. 7(2)(vii) to the extent it provides for payment of total wages for EGS work equal to the minimum wage for the agricultural labourer in the Lowest Zone fixed by the State Government from time to time is ultra vires of Arts. 14 and 23 of the Constitution of India. That the task rates which are fixed for EGS works for Government Resolution, dated 18th March, 1983 are not fixed as per the provisions in S. 7(2)(vii) of the Act, and therefore, th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »