Mumbai Court October 1985 Judgments
Crompton Greaves Limited Vs. Ram Cement Company Limited and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-25-1985
Reported in: 1986(2)BomCR165; (1985)87BOMLR693
S.C. Pratap, J.1. This is plaintiffs' motion for interim injunction restraining the second defendant---Bank from making any payment to the first defendant in respect of or upon the suit Bank guarantee as also interim injunction restraining the first defendant not to encash the said guarantee or receive any payment thereunder.2. One would have thought that Bank guarantees including performance guarantees are intended inter alia to obviate---and not foster---litigation. These guarantees have considerable significance of their own playing a vital role particularly in the field of commerce and industry. These speed up making and the implementation of commercial transactions and contracts. The in-built assurances of payment has a special sanctity of its own. The same are rightly likened to letters of credit and demand promissory notes. Actual experience, however, shows that notwithstanding all this, suits continue to be filed and injunctions continue to be claimed against the enforcement of...
Tag this Judgment!Krushna Pandurang Wankhede Vs. Sitaram Punjaji Wankhede
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-25-1985
Reported in: 1986(3)BomCR28; 1986MhLJ865
M.S. Deshpande, J.1. Appeal from Order No. 14 of 1985 and Civil Revision Application No. 753 of 1985 (now converted as Appeal from Order No. 38 of 1985) have been filed respectively by the original plaintiff and the first defendant against the order passed by the learned Additional Distinct Judge, Akola, restraining the defendants from ousting the plaintiff from the joint possession and enjoyment of the suit property.2. The original suit was brought by the plaintiff for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit land. The plaintiff's case was that Survey No. 26/1,7 acres 23 gunthas and Survey No. 25/7 acres 13 gunthas of Morgaon had been taken by him on lease and to Revenue Case No. 1418 of 1963, decided on 30-9-1967 he was declared to be a statutory owner of Survey No. 25. By the order dated 30th July, 1965 in Tenancy Case No. 1/59 of 1964-65 he was declared to be statutory owner of Survey No. 26/1. These two lands ...
Tag this Judgment!Tri-sure India Ltd. Vs. A.F. Ferguson and Co. and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-24-1985
Reported in: [1987]61CompCas548(Bom)
M.L. Pendse, J.1. The plaintiffs, Tri-Sure India Ltd., have instituted this suit on September 20, 1978, for recovery of sum of Rs. 63,84,792 with interest thereon at the rate of 16.25% per annum from the date of the suit till recovery and costs of the suit from the defendants.2. The plaintiffs were incorporated as a private limited company in West Bengal under the name of Indian Flange Mfg. Co. Ltd. on February 10, 1960. The name was changed to Tri-Sure India (Pvt.) Ltd. on April 22, 1960, and the registered office was transferred to Bombay in the middle of the year 1962. The company was a wholly-owned subsidiary of American Flange Mfg. Co., United States of America. On February 24, 1975, the plaintiffs became a public limited company. The financial year of the plaintiffs is from September 1, to August 31.3. Defendant No. 1 is a partnership firm of chartered accountants and is carrying on business for last over 85 years and has acquired reputation all over the country. Defendants Nos. ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Harit Synthetic Fabrics Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-24-1985
Reported in: (1986)53CTR(Bom)303; [1986]162ITR640(Bom); [1986]26TAXMAN540(Bom)
Bharucha, J.H.1. The question which we have to consider in this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, reads thus :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to relief under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, even though ten or more workers were employed only from August, 1969, up to the end of the previous year and not during the entire previous year ?'2. We are concerned with the assessment year 1970-71, the previous year being the calendar year 1969. The assessee was incorporated on January 15, 1968, to carry on the manufacture of synthetic fabrics. Its factory was commissioned in 1968 and it commenced manufacture but did not employ more than ten employees. From August, 1969, till the end of that year, more than ten workers were employed by the assessee. The assessee, therefore claimed relief under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, available in respect of the profits or gains earned by a newly established ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Phalton Sugar Works Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-24-1985
Reported in: (1986)52CTR(Bom)158; [1986]162ITR622(Bom); [1986]24TAXMAN444(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. Four questions are put to us in this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the first two at the instance of the Revenue and the latter two at the instance of the assessee. They read thus :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to allowance for extra shifts in the same manner as in the years up to 1965-66 ?(2) Whether, on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the interest attributable to borrowings of the overdraft utilised for payment of dividends is an allowable revenue expenditure ?(3) Whether,on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the interest attributable to borrowings of the overdraft utilised for payment of advance tax and/or other taxes is an allowable revenue expenditure ?(4) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 67,299.90 is an allowable revenue expenditure in the assessment of the assessee for the assessment year 1968-69 ?'2. Counsel a...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Simac Group (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-24-1985
Reported in: (1986)51CTR(Bom)11; [1987]163ITR867(Bom); [1986]24TAXMAN389(Bom)
Kania, Actg. C.J.1. This is a reference on a case stated by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The question referred to us for our determination is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the machinery for the manufacture of hand-knitting machines was entitled to higher development rebate of 35% ?'2. We are concerned in this reference with the assessment year 1970-71 for which the corresponding previous year was the financial year ending March 31, 1970. The assessee mainly carries on business in the manufacture and sale of hand-knitting machines and water-filters. During the relevant previous year, it had installed and brought into use some new machinery for the manufacture of hand-knitting machines, and the dispute is as to whether development rebate admissible in respect of the said new machinery installed as aforesaid should be at the rate of 35% as claimed by the...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Narandas and Sons
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-23-1985
Reported in: (1986)88BOMLR415; (1986)51CTR(Bom)91; [1986]162ITR599(Bom); [1986]24TAXMAN67(Bom)
Kania, Actg. C.J.1. These are three references on a case stated under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessment years with which we are concerned are the assessment years 1963-64, 1964-65 andj1965-66. As the references arise on a consolidated statement of case and as the disputes are common judgment.2. The respondent-assessee is a firm carrying of business in Bombay. The said firm consists of two partners and was duly registered under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The said firm was a dealer in Government securities which formed its stock-in-trade. It appears that as pointed out by the assessee to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, 90% of the securities held by it stood in the names of banks which collected the interest on these securities from the Government as the holders of these securities and passed on the amounts collected to it after deducting collection charges. The statement of the case shows that these securities were pledged by the assessee to banks under ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-21-1985
Reported in: (1986)52CTR(Bom)293; [1986]162ITR556(Bom); [1986]26TAXMAN664(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. In this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, three questions are raised. They read thus :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to depreciation on the interest and the foreign tour expenses, bank charges, etc., amount to Rs. 4,72,744 capitalised in earlier years, as reduced by the depreciation already allowed ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to relief under section 91 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of dividends from United Kingdom ?(3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 8,65,208, being excise duty arising from the Government's notification could be allowed as deduction in the assessment year 1965-66 ?'2. Counsel are agreed that the first question must be answered in the affirmative in favour of the assessee in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Challapalli Sugars Ltd. v. CIT : [1975...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Tata Engineering Locomotive Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-21-1985
Reported in: (1986)53CTR(Bom)379; [1987]163ITR327(Bom)
Kania, Actg.C.J.1. This is a reference on the case stated under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with section 18 of the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963. The assessment year with which we are concerned is the assessment year 1963-64. The question relates to the computation of capital of the assessee-company for the calculation of standard deduction permissible to it under the Super Profits Tax Act. The questions referred to us for our opinion are as follows :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the excess amount of depreciation debited in the books of account over the figure allowed for assessment to income-tax is includible in the computation of capital under rule 1 of the Second Schedule to the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963 ?(2) Whether the figure for provision for taxation is includible in the computation of capital under rule 1 of the Second Schedule to the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963 ?(3) Whether provision for proposed dividends is includible i...
Tag this Judgment!YasIn Imambhai Shaikh (deceased by L.R.'s) Vs. Hajarabi and Ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-21-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Bom357; 1986(1)BomCR557
Parekh, J.1. The Appellants herein are the heirs of one Yasin Imambhai Shaikh, who was the original Plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No. 188 of 1971 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, at Kopergaon. The said suit having been decreed, (dismissed?) an appeal came to be preferred being Regular Civil Appeal No. 250 of 1975 on the file of the Extra Assistant Judge, Ahmednagar. The appeal was prosecuted by the heirs of the said Yasin Imambhai Shaikh, who are the present Appellants. The said Appeal was however dismissed on 15th of March, 1978. Being aggrieved by the said order and judgment the appellants have filed the present appeal.2. The facts that give rise to this appeal are that one Yasin Imambhai Shaikh filed a suit against the Respondents being Regular Civil Suit No. 188 of 1971 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kopargaon. In this suit the said Yasin Imambhai Shaikh alleged that one Mariyambi died leaving behind her a Will. That under the Will ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »