Mumbai Court January 1987 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.
Girdharilal R. Soni Vs. Sixth Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-1987
Reported in: (1987)21ITD1a(Mum.)
1. Assessee has moved miscellaneous application dated 26-8-1985 asking for opportunity to produce fresh evidence before the Tribunal or, in the alternative, for the Tribunal to remand the matter to the ITO for making further enquiries in the matter.2. We have heard the learned counsel for the assessee in support of the said application and the learned departmental representative's objections to the said application.3. Assessee-individual was carrying on business as manufacturer of jewellery at Bombay and in the relevant account year ending 31-3-1977, he claimed to have received Rs. 6,67,452 from four parties Of Middle East as advances for purchase of jewellery from assessee. The ITO had disbelieved the assessee's claim on the ground, that though advances were received in or around 19-1-1977, no export of jewellery had been made till the completion of assessment in 1980 nor had the advances been repaid. The Commissioner (Appeals) had accepted assessee's claim in respect of all the four...
Ninth Wealth-tax Officer Vs. Bhagubhai Chandulal Family Trust
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-1987
Reported in: (1987)22ITD229(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal by the revenue against the order of the A.A.C.dated 20-1-1986. Assessment year involved is 1980-81. The only issue for our consideration in this appeal is whether the A.A.C. has erred in directing the W.T.O. to allow the deduction Under Section 5(1)/5(1A) of the W.T. Act, 1957, before invoking the provisions of Section 21(1A) of the W.T. Act, 1957.2. The relevant facts are that the return of wealth was filed on 25-10-1980. Before the W.T.O. the assessee claimed that deduction Under Section. 5(1A) should be allowed in view of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shalini Trust No. 1. As the decision has not been accepted by the Department, the W.T.O. did not allow the deduction as allowed by the Tribunal in the case of Shalini Trust No. 1. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the A.A.C. The AAC had followed the said decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shalini Trust No. 1 [WT Appeal No. 1094 (Bom.) of 1983] and allowed the claim of the a...
Abdul Habib Khan Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)BomCR230; [1989(59)FLR268]; (1993)IIILLJ869Bom
Dhabe, J. 1. This is a writ petition preferred by the employee of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation who was working as a Driver in its Service. His services were terminated under Regulation 61 of the Bombay State Transport Employees Service Regulations, by paying him two months' pay in lieu of two months' notice as required by the said regulation. The petitioner challenged the said order of termination by preferring a complaint case under Sections 28 and 30 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act'') on various grounds. The respondent justified the order of termination on the ground that it was passed for loss of confidence in the petitioner who had assaulted his co-employee, viz., the Traffic Controller of the respondent.2. The parties led evidence before Labour Court. The respondent led evidence in regard to the reasons for loss of confidence in the petitioner. The learned Labour Court on the...
Sabirullakhan S/O Safakatullakhan Vs. Pramod Son of Shankar Bhagat and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-1987
Reported in: 1987(2)BomCR702
H.W. Dhabe, J.1. This is a writ petition preferred by the landlord against the concurrent orders of the Rent Control authorities against him.2. Briefly the facts are that the petitioner filed an application under Items (i), (ii), (vi) and (vii) of Clause 13(3) of the C.P. & Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (for short, 'Rent Control Order'), seeking permission of the Rent Controller to give quit notice to the respondent/tenant. The learned Rent Controller dismissed the said application. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed by the learned Appellate Court. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition in this Court.3. At the outset it must be seen that there is little scope for interference in this writ petition because there are concurrent findings of fact of the courts below upon the grounds under Items (i), (ii), (vi) and (vii) of Clause 13(2) of the Rent Control Order. As regards Clause 13(3)(i) the case of the petitio...
Gupta Engineering Co., (India) and Others Vs. State Bank of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-1987
Reported in: [1989]66CompCas116(Bom)
Desai, J.1. Although the order appealed from, viz., appointment of the court receiver in a mortgage suit is the proper order to be made in the motion, it is to be accepted that it is an incomplete order inasmuch as no direction has been given to the court receiver as to what is to be done in respect of the items of which he is to take charge. If proper directions are not given, the court receiver's office does nothing and the appointment of the court receiver, instead of protecting the security, adds to the waste thereof. To that extent, certain directions will have to be given to the court receiver and when these directions are given, the order will be complete and no substance will be left in the appellants' complaint.2. Accordingly, the court receiver is directed to take possession of the properties forthwith and in the first instance offer to the defendants the facility of running the factory, as the court receiver's agents, on suitable terms an on compensation which shall not be l...
Chemiequip Ltd. and Another Vs. Bank of Baroda and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)BomCR547
Pendse J.1. By this petition filed under article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners are seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Bank of Baroda, respondent No. 1, to take petitioner No. 1 company into the nursing/rehabilitation programme for viable sick units in accordance with the guide,lines and directions contained in the circular dated November 5, 1985, issued by the Reserve Bank of India. To appreciate the claim of the petitioners, it is necessary to set out the relevant facts which led to the filing of the present petition.2. Petitioner No.1 is a public limited company and carries on the business of manufacturing dyes, dye intermediates and auxiliaries at its two plants situated at Ambarnath and Tarapore. Petitioner No. 2 is the managing director of the company. Respondent No.1, Bank of Baroda, respondent No. 7, Andhra Bank, and respondent No. 8, Corporation Bank, are nationalised banks and had advanced large amounts to the petitioner-company from time to time. Petitioner N...
Latadevi Vs. Ramnath and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-1987
Reported in: AIR1987Bom364; 1987(2)BomCR268; (1987)2BOMLR1302
ORDER1. The petitioner who was the defendant before the Civil Judge Junior Division, Nagpur, in Regular Civil Suit NO. 594 of 1984 is challenging the order passed by that Court on 19-10-1985 holding that the plaintiff was diligently prosectuting his remedy before the Small Sause suit from 12-9-1979 and returning the plaint for presentation to the proper court on 18-4-1984.2. The following facts will be necessary fopr appreciating the real controversy. Small Cause Suit No. 1219/79 was instituted by the plaintiff/respondent No.1. on 10-7-1979 for eviction, mesne profits, notice charges etc. etc. The suit proceeded before the Small Causes Court. A defence was raised that the Small Causes Court has no jurisdiction. This point was decided on merits by the Small Causes Court at Nagpur on 17-7-1983. It was held that the Small Causes Court had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit. This order came to be challenged before the High Court in revision. The High Court decided this revision ...
Chemiequip Ltd. and anr. Vs. Bank of Baroda and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Bom29; [1990]69CompCas568(Bom)
ORDER1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Bank of Baroda -- the respondent No. 1 -- to take petitioner No. I Company into the nursing/rehabilitation programme for viable sick units in accordance with the guidelines and directions contained in the Circular dated Nov. 5, 1985 issued by the Reserve Bank of India. To appreciate the claim of the petitioners, it is necessary to set out the relevant facts which led to the filing of the present petition.The petitioner No. 1 is a Public Limited company and carries on business of manufacturing dyes, dyes intermediates and auxiliaries at its two plants situated at Ambarnath and Tarapore. Petitioner No. 2 is the Managing Director of the Company. The respondent No. 1 -- Bank of Baroda, respondent No. 7 Andhra Bank and respondent No. 8 Corporation Bank are Nationalised Banks and had advanced large amounts to the petitioner Company from time to time. The...
Latadevi (Smt.) W/O Amiya Kumar Bhattacharya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-1987
Reported in: 1987(2)BomCR268a
M.S. Ratnaparkhi, J.1. The petitioner who was the defendant before the civil judge (Junior Division) Nagpur, in Regular Civil Suit No. 594 of 1984 is challenging the order passed by that Court on 19-10-1985 holding that the plaintiff was diligently prosecuting his remedy before the Small Cause Court in between the institution of small cause suit from 12-9-1979 and returning the plaint for presentation to the proper Court on 18-4-1984.2. The following facts will be necessary for appreciating the real controversy. Small Cause Suit No. 1219/79 was instituted by the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 on 10-7-1979 for eviction, mesne profits charges etc. etc. The suit proceeded before the Small Causes Court. A defence was raised that the Small Causes Court has no jurisdiction. This point was decided on merits by the Small Causes Court at Nagpur on 17-7-1983. It was held that the Small Causes had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit. This order came to be challenged before the High Court in...
Navinchandra H. Somaiya Vs. Ninth Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-05-1987
Reported in: (1987)21ITD410(Mum.)
2. The assessee was partner of the firm Somayya Construction Company.This firm was carrying on business as builders and contractors. The said firm had agreed to purchase a plot of land at Andheri from Nanalal Haridas (HUF) vide Agreement dated 9-11-1963. A public notice reserving the said plot for bus depot was published on 9-1-1964. In pursuance of the said notice the said plot of land was to be acquired from the vendor under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.3. The firm raised objections against proposed acquisition. It filed Writ Petition (No. 313 of 1966) in the High Court challenging the proposed acquisition. The High Court directed the Divisional Commissioner to hold fresh inquiry under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act. This was in 1970.4. The firm then filed suit No. 624 of 1973 in the Bombay High Court for specific performance of the contract dated 9-11-1963 against the vendor. During the pendency of this suit, the firm was dissolved in May 1978. Thereafter, the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »