Mumbai Court August 1985 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.
Kaloomal Shorimal Sachdev Vs. First Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-1985
Reported in: (1985)14ITD248(Mum.)
1. The first two appeals were fixed as the Special Bench hearings having been referred to the Special Bench by the President. The other appeals involving the same point have come up as interveners. The point at issue is considered on the facts of the first assessee.2. The assessee-company paid interest of Rs. 68,290 to directors and their relatives. In the computation of income while filing the return, the asses-see disallowed interest of 15 per cent on the net amount of Rs. 61,101. The disallowance amounted to Rs. 9,165. At the time of the assessment, however, the assessee's learned counsel contended before the ITO that the provisions of Section 40A(8) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), on the basis of which the above disallowance was made, were not applicable to the assessee's case. The assessee had not invited public deposit, not even deposits from the directors. All the accounts were current accounts to which, according to the learned counsel, the provisions of Section 40A(8...
Hargovind Gangabisan Bajaj Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-1985
Reported in: 1985(2)BomCR759; 1986MhLJ395
S.W. Puranik, J.1. This revision application is directed against the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Wardha, in Criminal Case No. 213 of 1981, rejecting the application of the present applicant Accused No. 1 for dropping the proceedings initiated against him as barred by limitation under section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bombay, lodged a First Information Report on 22nd December, 1976 against the present applicant and other co-accused. It was alleged that the applicant accused and other co-accused, in their capacity as Directors of Pulgaon Cotton Mills Ltd., have deducted the amounts from the salaries/wages of the employees towards the contribution to the provident fund, but have defaulted to deposit the same to the Board of Trustees as required under the notification issued by the Central Government from time to time.3. After the investigation was completed, the charge-sheet was filed before the trial Court on 27-7-1...
Anil J. Solanke Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-1985
Reported in: 1985(2)BomCR778
S.W. Puranik, J.1. This petition invokes the extraordinary powers of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and also invokes the inherent powers of this Court under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to prevent an apparent miscarriage of justice and gross abuse of the process of the Court. The order of the Sessions Judge, Yeotmal in Criminal Revision Application No. 104/84 dated 6-4-1985 confirming the order passed by judicial Magistrate, First Class, in Criminal Case No. 10/83 dated 11-9-1984 passed below Exts. 21 and 22 is impugned in this petition. Ex. 21 is the application filed by the petitioner as accused No. 1 before the trial court and Ex. 22 is another application filed by the other accused Nos. 2 to 5, who are not parties in this petition, before the trial Court contending that they cannot be prosecuted in the complaint case without obtaining prior sanction under section 197, Criminal Procedure Code. The trial Court allowed the application Ex. ...
Shri Changadeo Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Belapur Sugar and Allied Industrie ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Bom112; 1986(3)BomCR332
Kania, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of Bharucha, J. dated 9th October 1979 recording the agreement or compromise set out in the said order to which we shall refer in some detail a little later and passing an order in terms thereof. The appellant before us is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and was the defendant in the aforesaid Summary Suit No. 1003 of 1972. The respondent is another Company registered under the same Act and was the plaintiff in the said suit. For the sake of convenience, we propose to refer to the parties by their description in their description in the suit.2. In order to appreciate the controversy raised before us, it is necessary to set out the relevant facts. On 6th December 1972, the plaintiff Company filed the aforesaid Summary Suit No. 1003 of 1972 against the defendant praying for a decree in the sum of Rs. 22,42,500/- of which the principal amount was Rs. 15,00,000 /- being the amount deposited by the plaintiff with the defendant, a...
Gautamchand B. Dige Vs. Dhondiram D. Gurav
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-1985
Reported in: (1986)88BOMLR5
K. Madhava Reddy, C.J.1. The short question that arises for consideration in these two revision petitions is, whether the respondent who is admittedly a tenant should be directed to deposit the arrears of rent and future rent or mesne profit during the pendency of the suits for eviction and recovery of rent.2. These two revision petitions arise out of two civil suits. Civil Suit No. 104 of 1984 in respect of one room admeasuring 40 ft. X 6 ft. on the eastern side of CTS No. 55 situated in Vadagaon forms the subject-matter of Civil Revision Application No. 208 of 1985, Suit No. 105 of 1984 in respect of one room on the northern side of C.T.S. No. 55 and two rooms on the eastern side of CTS No. 55 situated in Vadagaon forms the subject-matter of the Civil Revision Application No. 209 of 1985. For appreciating the contentions suffice it to mention the facts of Civil Suit No. 104 of 1984 out of which Civil Revision Application No. 208 of 1985 arises.3. The suit premises were let out to the...
Prashaw Automobile Co. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-1985
Reported in: (1986)(8)LC605Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal against the order of the Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay, No. S/10-251-82 G dated 16-6-1982.2. Shri N.R. Kantawala, Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellants and Shri G.D. Pal, Sr. Dept. Representative on behalf of the Respondents.3. The Appellants stated that they had imported 50 cartons - Wiper Motors valued at Rs. 1,77,679/- C1F". As per the Bill of Entry clearance was sought against Export House Additional Import Licence No.0353038 dated 27-1-1982 issued in favour of M/s. Muthuswamy Gunder & Co. with letter of authority in favour of the appellants. In this Bill of Entry the goods were sought to be classified under CTA 85.02. Later on, however, the appellants took the stand that though the imported goods were described as wiper motors these were not electric motors covered by heading 85.01 CTA but these were wiper systems which were parts of wind screen wipers covered by heading 85.09 CTA. It was also submitted that the goods were covered by the...
Jagdish Amritlal Karia Vs. Madhusudan Nagindas Hundiwala and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-1985
Reported in: (1987)ILLJ294Bom; 1986MhLJ677
1. This Criminal Application has been filed by the petitioner Jagdish Amritlal Karia praying that the proceedings in case No. 294 of 1984 pending in the Miscellaneous Court of the learned Special Metropolitan Magistrate, Mazgaon, Bombay, be quashed.2. A few relevant facts may be stated here below :-On 8th March 1984 at about 2.30 p.m. one Madhusudan Nagindas Hundiwala, an Inspector appointed under section 48 of the Bombay Shops and Establishment Act (Bombay Act No. LXXIX of 1948) visited the office of the petitioner Jagdish A. Karia and his wife Anuradha J. Karia at the J.K. Industrial Estate. Moosa Killedar Street, Bombay. In the office Hundiwala found the Rent Collector Louis E. D'Souza, who was employed by the petitioner Jagdish A. Karia since the last about 3 1/2 years on a salary of Rs. 600/- per month. The Inspector found that no records or registers were maintained in respect of the said Rent Collector Louis E. D'Souza and the Rent Collector had attended the office although it w...
Chintaman Balkrishna Godbole Vs. Damodar Hari Dixit and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-1985
Reported in: 1986(1)BomCR364; (1985)87BOMLR473
K. Madhava Reddy, J.1-The short question that arises for consideration in this Civil Revision Application filed by defendant No. 13 in Regular Civil Suit No. 1264 of 1967 on the file of the Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Pune is whether the trial Court is justified in rejecting his application for filing supplementary written statement.2. The plaintiff had filed a suit for partition of joint family properties belonging to Dixit family. Though that family possesses lands in Khed Village, in addition to land bearing Survey No. 723, Hissa No. 2 situate at Parvati and House No. 112, Shaniwar Peth, Pune, the plaintiff claimed partition of only Survey No. 723, Hissa No. 2 of Parvati and did not claim any share in the other properties. To that suit were joined the other co-parceners. None of them initially claimed that the lands at Khed were joint family properties liable for partition. Defendant No. 13, therefore, averred in the written statement filed by him that 'the members of the Dixit ...
Shantaram Keshav Bhirodkar Vs. Popatlal Bharmal Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-1985
Reported in: 1986(1)BomCR398
S.K. Desai, J.1. The subject matter of this writ petition is an open plot of land admeasuring 277 sq.feet and designated as open Plot No. 91 forming part of a larger piece of land of about 577 sq. feet, which is situated at Ranade Road, Bombay. The respondent is the owner of the said plot of land. He had let out the suit plot to one Purshottam Atmaram Chitre as a monthly tenant. The said Chitre has assigned tenancy rights in respect of the suit plot in favour of the petitioner. After the assignment, the petitioner entered into possession and started doing his business in the suit plot.2. The owner landlord filed R.A.E. Suit No. 2149 of 1962 against the tenant Chitre. The petitioner was also joined as the 2nd defendant in the said suit. Ultimately consent terms were arrived at between the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant. Under terms consent terms, the petitioner who was the 2nd defendant, was recognised by the plaintiff-landlord as a lawful assignee of the tenancy rights in respect of t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›