Mumbai Court August 1985 Judgments
Himatlal N. Jhaveri Vs. Seventh Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-1985
Reported in: (1986)15ITD409(Mum.)
1. These two appeals were heard together with the consent of the parties and are being disposed of by this common order. The assessees are brothers and they resided together at Akhand Jyoti, Santacruz (East), Bombay. Shantilal Zavery is the elder of these two brothers.There are other two brothers also one of whom is Kirti Zaveri while the other is Suresh Zaveri. Shri Kirti Zaveri carried on business in London and was a non-resident. Suresh Zaveri, at the relevant time, was residing at Bangkok. It is alleged that he was subsequently absconding.The assessment year with which we are concerned is 1975-76 and the relevant accounting years of the two assessees ended on 31-3-1975.2. A foreigner by name Vincente M. Cunnanan landed at Santacruz Air Port, Bombay on 6-5-1975. He was Third Secretary and Vice Counsel at Phillippines Embassy, Rangoon, His baggage was detained and examined on 7-5-1975. It contained wrist watches valued at Rs. 2,70,000. The investigations in that case by the customs ...
Tag this Judgment!K.M.A. Ltd. Vs. K.S. Thailambal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-1985
Reported in: (1986)88BOMLR89
M.H. Kania, J.1. This appeal raises an interesting question regarding adjustments permitted in winding up in respect of dividends under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956.2. The respondent No. 3, the Official Liquidator of Kamani Brothers Pvt. Ltd. (in liquidation), took out a Judge's Summons by way of Company Application No. 122 of 1983 praying mainly that the appellants (Kamani Metals & Alloys Ltd.), who were the respondents to the Judge's Summons should be ordered and decreed to pay to the Official Liquidator the sum of Rs. 8,40,147/- together with interest as set out in prayer (a) of the Judge's Summons as well as further dividends as set out in prayer (b) of the Judge's Summons. The contributories who were appearing before us had appeared before the learned Trial Judge also at the hearing of the Judge's Summons. The appeal is directed against the order of Mehta, J. making the said Judge's Summons absolute and directing Kamani Metals & Alloys Ltd. to pay to the respondent No...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmidas N. Madhvani Vs. Madhvani Private Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-1985
Reported in: (1986)88BOMLR308
R.A. Jahagirdar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated September 24, 1979 passed by a Judge of the City Civil Court at Bombay returning the plaint in Suit No. 6769 of 1978. The suit had been filed by the appellants, hereinafter referred to as the 'plaintiffs'. The first respondent in this appeal was the first defendant in the suit. It is a private limited company of which the plaintiffs are admittedly the shareholders. Authorised capital of the company is Rs. 5 lakhs divided into 5,000 shares of Rs. 100 each. At the relevant time, however, subscribed capital of the company was only Rs. 10,200 consisting of 102 shares of Rs. 100 each. The plaintiffs hold 74 shares while defendants Nos. 2 to 4 together hold the balance of shares.2. On September 11, 1978, the first defendant issued further 1,020 shares and allotted all of them to defendants Nos. 2 to 4 in equal shares. The plaintiffs say that this action of the first defendant in issuing additional shares to defendants Nos....
Tag this Judgment!Shah Jagannath Shivlal and Another Vs. Income-tax Officer and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-1985
Reported in: 1986(1)BomCR117; (1987)62CTR(Bom)177; [1987]165ITR245(Bom); 1986MhLJ292
Puranik, J.1. This revision by the accused is directed against the order passed on November 8, 1984, by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class 6th Court, Nagpur, in Criminal Case No. 839 of 1982.2. The facts leading to the present revision are as under. The non-applicant No. 1 the Income-tax Officer, filed Criminal Case No. 839 of 1982 against the present applicants for an offence punishable under section 277 of the Income-tax Act 1961. After registration of the complaint, process was issued to the accused and the case was adjourned from time to time. On February 2, 1984, neither the complainant nor his pleader was present and the trial court passed the following order :'Complainant is absent though repeatedly called out till 1.45 p.m. The council is also absent though repeatedly called out till 1.45 p.m. Accused No. 2 with his counsel Accused No. 3 had filed an application for exemption and it is allowed as no say is given. Case is dismissed.'3. After the dismissal of the complaint case...
Tag this Judgment!L.M. D'Costa Vs. Water Pinto and Ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-1985
Reported in: 1986(2)BomCR403
D.N. Mehta, J.1. The petitioner L. M. D'Costa has filed this criminal revision application impugning the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 23rd Court, Esplanade, Bombay dated 21-4-1984. By the said order the learned Metropolitan Magistrate was pleased to dismiss the complaint filed against the three accused in Criminal Case No. 20/Misc./84.2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the present revision application are the following :---The petitioner herein, who will hereinafter be referred to as 'the complainant', entered into a partnership agreement with respondent No. 1, who will hereinafter be referred to as 'accused No. 1, to carry on business of recruiting employees for posts in the Gulf countries. On 10-5-1982 the complainant served a Notice of Dissolution on accused No. 1. The partnership was dissolved as from 31-5-1982.3. On 11-3-1983 the 2nd Income-tax Officer, BSD (South), Bombay issued, a notice under section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act to the Manager, Bank of Ame...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh S/O. Budharmal Kallani and Madan Tikamdas Raheja Vs. State of M ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-1985
Reported in: 1985(2)BomCR601
C.S. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Since both these writ petitions and Civil Applications involve common questions of law and fact, they were heard together and are being disposed of, by this common judgment.2. After the interim order was passed by this Court on 26th April, 1985 we have heard the learned Counsel appearing for both sides, including Shri Naik who is appearing for Shri T.N. Kisnani. In the order of this Court dated 26th April, 1985 a reference is made to the earlier order which reads as under :'It is agreed between the parties that the supplementary lists dated 3rd April, 1985, though signed by the Chief Officer, which are not authenticated by him, shall not be acted upon by the Election Officers and shall be ignored. Order accordingly.'The result of this order was that whatever deletions and additions had taken place in the supplementary lists of all wards in Ulhasnagar Municipal Council dated 3rd April, 1985 were to be of no consequence and elections could only proceed by ignorin...
Tag this Judgment!Shahnaz Bano D/O Aslam Khan (Smt.) Vs. Babbu Khan S/O Nanhekhan Pathan ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-1985
Reported in: 1985(2)BomCR765; 1985MhLJ853
S.W. Puranik, J.1. The applicant wife had instituted proceedings against her husband non-applicant No. 1 Babbu Khan under section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code claiming maintenance from him on the ground that he has refused and neglected to maintain her after divorce and that she was unable to earn her own livelihood.2. Non-applicant husband contested the proceedings on the ground that there was no ill-treatment meted out to her, that she had voluntarily deserted the husband and that on going to her parent's house she had sent a letter dated 30th October, 1981 whereby she herself demanded a divorce in the form of Khullanama after waiving her claim for dower money and for future maintenance. The non-applicant, therefore, contended that it was in response to her demand that he issued talaqnama dated 3-11-1981 giving her irrevocable divorce. According to the non-applicant therefore, the applicant wife was living separate of her own accord and had waived her right to mehar amount and main...
Tag this Judgment!Khorshed B. Mody Vs. Third Assistant Controller of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-1985
Reported in: (1986)15ITD272(Mum.)
1. This appeal has been filed by the accountable person. The name of the deceased is Shri Bomi N. Mody. He died on 15-1-1976. The first ground relates to the inclusion of Rs. 1,48,500 in the principal value of the estate. This amount was paid by the employer of the deceased to the accountable person who is the widow of the deceased. The amount was paid under the Employees' Superannuation Scheme ('the scheme'). The contention on behalf of the accountable person was that the said amount did not fall under any of the charging Sections of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 ('the Act') and as such, it was not liable to be included in the principal value of the estate passing on death of the deceased. This contention has been negatived by the authorities below and the accountable person has reiterated the same plea before us.2. The employer-company had created a pension scheme for making provision for the employees on retirement or for their dependants in the event of their death by way of assurance...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Investment Corporation of India Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-1985
Reported in: [1987]61CompCas92(Bom)
Parekh, J.1. This is a petition under section 101 and section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956.2. The facts that give rise to this petition are that the petitioner-company was incorporated on March 5, 1957. Its authorised share capital stood divided into ordinary shares, preference shares and unclassified capital. The preference shares are of one category, viz. 5,000, 7 3/4% preference shares of Rs. 1,000 each. The bank rate having risen considerably, the preference shareholders made requests to the company to remedy the situation by increasing the rate of the dividend payable and more particularly as the terms of the issue of the said preference shares did not provide for the redemption thereof. The board of directors of the petitioner-company thereupon decided to cancel the said preference shares and instead issue to the members of the petitioner-company holding preference shares, secured non-convertible debentures of Rs. 100 each bearing interest at the rate of 12% per annum payable h...
Tag this Judgment!P. Ripalkumar and Co. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-1985
Reported in: 1992(38)LC625(Bombay)
S.C. Pratap, J.1. The petitioners are registered exporters and at the relevant lime held a valid export house certificate. On the basis of the Import Export Policy April-March 1982-83 (for short, the AM 83 Policy), they applied for an imprest licence. The same was issued for the c.i.f. value of Rs. 28,17,321/- for the import of diamonds, unset and uncut, against which the petitioners had to effect exports of a total f.o.b. value of Rs. 43,34,340/-. Pursuant thereto, they imported diamonds, unset and uncut, and also fulfilled their export obligation imposed on the imprest licence. In proof or recognition thereof, they applied for and were given redemption certificate.2. The petitioners then, in accordance with the express terms of paragraph 185(4) (reproduced below) of the AM 83 Policy, applied for revalidation of the licence and O.G.L. endorsement thereon:185(4)The facility for import of OGL items available in sub-para (3) above, may also be allowed, on merits, to Export Houses against...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »