Mumbai Court March 1986 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.
Brijlal Ramji Das (Huf) Vs. Third Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1986
Reported in: (1986)18ITD140(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal by the assessee and the only issue is whether the assessee has the right to carry forward certain losses allocated to it in the earlier assessment years when it was a partner in a firm.2. The assessee is a HUF. This family was a partner in firm, Mahavir Badridas. This firm was having business in share dealing, speculation, etc. The firm had incurred losses and the assessee's share of loss for the assessment years 1969-70 to 1974-75 are as follows :---------------------------------------------------------------Accounting Assessment Speculative Available up to year year Ready loss loss assessment year---------------------------------------------------------------Diwali 1968 1969-70 1,65,821 22,662 1977-78Diwali 1969 1970-71 2,21,318 - 1978-79Diwali 1970 1971-72 56,948 14,578 1979-80Diwali 1971 1972-73 1,26,831 5,097 1980-81Diwali 1972 1973-74 - 1,744 1981-82Diwali 1973 1974-75 3,44,306 - 1982-83--------------------------------------------------------------- This fir...
The Premier Automobiles Limited Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1986
Reported in: [1986]63STC456(Bom)
Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. The applicants are registered dealer under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. For the period 1st July, 1967, to 30th June, 1968, the applicants were required to file quarterly returns under the provisions of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, read with rule 22(2)(c) of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules. The applicants were thus required to file quarterly returns for the period ending 30th September, 1967, 31st December, 1967, 31st March, 1968, and 30th June, 1968. Under section 38(2) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 a registered dealer furnishing returns shall first pay into the Government treasury the whole of the amount of tax due from him according to such returns. The applicants were required to pay in respect of the quarter ending 30th September, 1967, a sum of about Rs. 19 lakhs for payment of tax under the Bombay Sales Tax Act on or before 7th November, 1967. They were also liable to pay for this period Central sales tax of approximately Rs. 14 lakhs on or before the...
Pandian Kandsway Nadar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1986
Reported in: 1986(1)BomCR610
C.S. Dharmadhikari, J.1. In this case the detenu has challenged the order of detention dated 23rd of December, 1985 detaining him under the provisions of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers and Drug Offenders Act, 1981.2. It is an admitted position that after the detenu was detained under the said order the grounds of detention as well as copies of the documents, referred to and relied; upon in the said grounds, were supplied to the detenu. The detenu was actually detained on 1st of November, 1985. His detention was approved by the State Government on 7-11-1985. His case was referred to the Advisory Board on 20-11-1985. The Advisory Board gave him personal hearing on 13-12-1985 and submitted its report accompanied by the proceedings on 17-12-1985. Thereafter the Government confirmed the detention on 23-12-1985. Even the report of the Detaining Authority under section 3(3) of the Act dated 4-11-1985 was received in the Home Department on 5-11-198...
Belapur Sugar and Allied Industries Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1986
Reported in: (1987)63CTR(Bom)264; [1987]165ITR27(Bom)
M.H. Kania, A.C.J.1. This is a reference under section 39(1) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1962, made at the instance of the assessee. It has been wrongly numbered as a sales tax reference.2. The assessee-company owns certain lands on which it used to raise sugarcane crop and manufacture sugar. The Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (referred to hereinafter as 'the said Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act'), came into force on January 26, 1962. A declaration was made under the provisions of section 21 of that Act on February 28, 1963, under which surplus land held by the assessee was declared to have vested in the State of Maharashtra. The assessee challenged the validity of the provisions of the said Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act by way of a writ petition filed in this court. At the hearing of that writ petition, the provisions of section 28 of that Act were declared ultra vires, but the challenge to the rest of the provisions fail...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Malak Sultan A.H. Shivaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)BomCR573; (1993)IIILLJ36Bom; 1987MhLJ131
Tated, J.1. These four Criminal Revision Applications directed against the common judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Criminal Revision Application Nos. 324, 325, 372 and 407 of 1982 decided on 20-4-1983 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the Applications and quashed the order of issuance of process passed by the learned trial Magistrate in Criminal Cases Nos. 3306/82, 2954/82, 3307/82 and 2953/82. In those four cases separate complaints were filed against the Respondents by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour for certain offences alleged to have been committed under the provisions of Section 25-R and Section 30-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter it will be referred to as an Act). The learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance and issued process in those four Criminal cases against the Respondents. The Respondents preferred Criminal Revision Applications in the Sessions Court, Pune against the order of the le...
Mrugesh Jaykrishna Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)BomCR262; (1986)88BOMLR182; 1986(10)ECC303
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. This petition seeks a writ to quash the order of detention dated 18th December, 1985 (now called 'the impugned order') issued against the petitioner under the provisions of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, (hereinafter called the 'the Act').2. On 19th March, 1985 the petitioner was arrested by the Customs authorities in connection with the seizure of foreign exchange from one Amin and one Nanavati at the Sahara Airport at Bombay. On 20th March, 1985 he was produced before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade Court, Bombay, and remanded to judicial custody. On 9th April, 1985 an order of detention (now called the earlier order) bearing the same date was issued by the State of Maharashtra (the respondent) under the Act and was served on the petitioner while he was in judicial custody. On 13th April, 1985 the grounds of detention and the documents in support thereof were served upon the petitioner. Th...
Vijay Laxman Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)BomCR713
B.A. Masodkar, J.1. By the side of Poona-Bangalore Highway within the limits of Satara City Police Station is road that goes to Godoli Village. Near that road, Balu (P.W. 11) with his family was residing in a hut. His family consisted of his wife Shalan, two sons and one daughter. Ashok, the victim of the offence was of 16 years of age, while the other son, Hambirrao (P.W. 3) was about 8 years of age when the incident occurred. The daughter was by name Chhaya. It has been the case of the prosecution that upon information given by Shalan, the mother of Ashok, the offence was registered. However, Shalan was not available, she having died admittedly some time in July 1984.2. The present appellant-original accused stood charged for having committed the murder of Ashok during the night of 30th May, 1983 while Ashok was sleeping outside the hut of Balu. It has been the prosecution case that during the course of that day, the brother of the accused by name Rambhau had visited Balu and both Ba...
Roop Kumar Son of Dayaram Gursahani Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1986
Reported in: 1986(3)BomCR617
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. This petition concerns the appointment of a Registrar in the super-speciality of Neurology at the J.J. Group of Hospitals, Bombay, to which is attached the teaching college, the Grant Medical College.2. The petitioner passed the MBBS examination in January 1981 and the MD examination in December 1984 from the Nagpur University. He then served as Registrar in Medicine in Tirath Ram Shah Charitable Hospital in Delhi. In July 1985 he applied for and obtained registration in the Grant Medical College in the super-speciality of Neurology.3. On 20th August, 1985 an advertisement was issued by the Dean of the Grant Medical College for the appointment of a Registrar in Neurology. The petitioner and the 4th respondent applied. On 2nd September, 1985 the 4th respondent was appointed. On the same date the petitioner made a representation against the appointment of the 4th respondent. There being no reply he filed this petition on 10th September, 1985 to quash the appointment o...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Saroja Nagappa Mudaliar and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)BomCR451
ORDER1. This revision application is directed against the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate, 30th Court, Kurla, Bombay (Shri S. A. Merchant,) discharging the respondents-accused Nos. 1 and 2 of the offences punishable under Ss. 363, 366, 366A, 372 and 373 read with S. 34, I.P.C. and further directing the appellant-State to put up a separate charge-sheet against the accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Ss. 5 and 6 of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as 'the Act').2. The Antop Hill Sub-Police-Station filed a charge-sheet against the accused Nos. 1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Ss. 363, 366, 366A, 372 and 373 read with S. 34, I.P.C. and under Ss. 5 and 6 of the Act. The accused No. 5 was shown in the charge-sheet as an unknown person and absconding. The accused Nos. 1 and 2 are the respondents in this revision application.3. The prosecution alleged that two minor girls, namely, Mu...
Vasudeo Vithal Shanbhag Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1986
Reported in: [1986(52)FLR571]; (1994)IIILLJ144Bom
S.P. Bharucha, J. 1. The petitioner was employed by the 3rd respondent on 4th December, 1967. It is the petitioner's case that his services were terminated orally on 8th December 1980, and that no payment was made to him of retrenchment compensation and notice pay as required by Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The petitioner preferred an application under Section 33-C(2) of the said Act for payment of notice pay, retrenchment compensation, full leave wages and earned wages. The 3rd respondent contested the claim. Three issues were raised before the Labour Court viz., 1.'Whether the applicant is a 'workman' under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947' 2. 'Whether the application for notice pay and retrenchment compensation is maintainable under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947' 3. 'Whether the applicant is entitled to full leave wages and earned wages as claimed in the application ?' The Labour ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »