Mumbai Court December 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.
Eknath Vithal Ogale Vs. Mansukhlal Dhanraj Jain
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-07-1987
Reported in: 1988(2)BomCR9; (1988)90BOMLR22
M.L. Pendse, J.1. This Revision application is placed before me in accordance with the directions given by the learned Chief Justice on August 31, 1987 in view of the difference between Mr. Justice Sawant and Mr. Justice Guttal on the questions as to whether the suit instituted by the respondents in the City Civil Court, Bombay was maintainable.2. The plaintiffs instituted Suit No. 1290 of 1984 in the City Civil Court on February 28, 1984 claiming that since December 1974 the plaintiffs are in possession of shop No. 4, Meghji Vallabhdas Trust Building, Dadar, Bombay. The defendant is tenant of shop premises. The plaintiffs claim that plaintiff No. 1 paid to defendant Rs. 18,500/- and the defendant handed over the premises under an irrevocable leave and licence. The plaintiffs asserted that it was agreed that plaintiffs No. 1 would pay to the defendant or the landlords of the premises the amount of monthly rent. According to the plaintiffs, the rent payable by the defendant to the landl...
Parmanand T. Patel Vs. First Wealth-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-1987
Reported in: (1991)38ITD514(Mum.)
1. These are appeals for the assessment year 1977-78 and are against the orders of the CWT(Appeals) confirming the penalties levied Under Section. 18(1)(c) of the W.T. Act, 1957 amounting to Rs. 15,000 in the case of Sri Parmanand T. Patel and Rs. 12,000 in the case of Sri Ramanlal T. Patel. These appeals were heard together and are disposed of by a consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2. The appellants herein were, on the relevant valuation date, partners in a firm called M/s. Tulsidas V. Patel. They filed their wealth-tax returns for the A.Y. 1977-78 on 12-2-1982. Sri Parmanand T. Patel, disclosed a net wealth of Rs. 3,45,300 and Sri Ramanlal T. Patel disclosed a net wealth of Rs. 4,73,300. They filed statements showing computation of net wealth along with the returns of net wealth. In such statement, under the head "Immovable property", they declared their interest in the firm of M/s. Tulsidas V. Patel as nil. It would appear that the said firm of M/s. Tulsidas V. Patel p...
K.S.K. Aiyangar and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-1987
Reported in: 1988(2)BomCR92; 1988MhLJ500
S.W. Puranik, J.1. The petition and the revision application are both disposed of by this common order.2. The petitioners are husband and wife, who have stood sureties for the accused by name Menon in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- each. The said Menon was released on bail in April 1983. He was charged with offences under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act.3. After his release on bail the accused did appear on various dates before trial Court when the remand proceedings were pending. 4. In the month of December 1953 the accused applied to the trial Magistrate for leave to proceed abroad for two months. The trial Judge accorded the permission only for a period of two months subject to furnishing additional sureties. The petitioners complied with the said condition and the accused went abroad. After two months the accused returned to India and also was produced before the trial Magistrate. The perusal of the record shows his appearance on subsequent dates particularly in the months of November...
Vinay D. Valia Vs. Addl. Second Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-1987
Reported in: (1988)27ITD109(Mum.)
1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner under Section 263 of the IT Act. In the original assessment, the ITO accepted the short-term and long-term capital gains declared by the assessee for the year under consideration. Accordingly, the ITO completed the assessment on a total income of Rs. 27,495 after taking into account long-term capital gains of Rs. 2,011 and short-term capital gains from Valia Foundation, subject to verification, at Rs. 8,891 as shown by the assessee.2. In the meanwhile the Commissioner perused the assessment record of the assessee and it was found that the assessment as made by the ITO was erroneous insofar as it was prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. He, accordingly, issued notice dated 16-2-1985 under Section 263. According to the Commissioner, it appears that the assessee claimed to have purchased 3,814 grams worth of National Defence Gold Bonds in 1980 at the rate of Rs. 750 per ten grams on 4-1-1980 and the sam...
Associated Bearing Co. Ltd., Bombay Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-1987
Reported in: 1988(15)ECC436; 1988(33)ELT285(Bom)
1. This petition is placed before me in accordance with the direction of the learned Chief Justice in view of the difference between Mr. Justice Shah and Mr. Justice Kolse-Patil on the question whether the Excise authorities are liable to refund excess excise duty collected without authority of law or whether the claim can be refused on the doctrine of unjust enrichment. Rule 15 of Chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 provides that in case of difference of opinion between the Judges composing the Division Court, the point of difference shall be decided in accordance with the procedure laid down in Section 98 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.2. Only few facts are required to be set out to appreciate the claim made by the petitioners in the petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on March 2, 1979. The petitioners are a Company incorporated under the Provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and manufacture ball and roller bearings and tex...
Madhukar S/O Abaji Kalbande and ors. Vs. Mangalchand S/O Mannalal Agra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-1987
Reported in: 1988(2)BomCR303; 1988MhLJ558
V.A. Mohta, J.1. This revision arises out of an order passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Yavatmal, directing the applicants (plaintiffs) to pay Court-fee as per section 6(iv)(d) of the Bombay Court-fees Act, 1959 (the Act). Plaintiffs had paid Court-fee of Rs. 30/- under section 6(iv)(j) of the Act.2. In order to ascertain which of the two provisions are attracted, it is necessary to set out what in substance is the claim made: The plaintiffs are tenants of a block in a Chawl in Peshve plot, Yavatmal. The property was taken on lease from Dongaonkars who executed a sale-deed dated 28-12-1981, in favour of non applicants Nos. 2 to 4 (defendants Nos. 2 to 4). The house is let out for residential purposes and is governed by the local Rent Control Order, Non-applicant No. 1 (defendant No. 1) was serving as a Civil Surgeon, Yavatmal. He was staying in a Government Bungalow. Defendant No. 2 is his wife, defendant No. 3 is his son and defendant No. 4 is his brother-in-law. The p...
Associated Bearing Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-1987
Reported in: 1988(14)LC5(Bombay)
Pendse, J.1. This petition is placed before me in accordance with the direction of the learned Chief Justice in view of the difference between Mr. Justice Shah and Mr. Justice Kolse-Patil on the question whether the Excise authorities are liable to refund excess excise duty collected without authority of law or whether the claim can be refused on the doctrine of unjust enrichment. Rule IS of Chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 provides that in case of difference of opinion between the Judges composing the Division Court, the point of difference shall be decided in accordance with the procedure laid down in Section 98 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.2. Only few facts are required to be set out to appreciate the claim made by the petitioners in the petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on March 2, 1979. The petitioners are a Company incorporated under the Provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and manufacture ball and roller bearin...
Union of India Vs. Praveen D. Desai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-1987
Reported in: (1988)72CTR(Bom)212; [1988]173ITR303(Bom)
Pendse J.1. The principal point involved in this appeal preferred against the judgment dated February 1, 1984, delivered by the learned single judge in Writ Petition No. 982 of 1980 Praveen D. Desai v. ITO : [1984]149ITR187(Bom) stands concluded in view of our decision dated November 11, 1987, in Appeal No. 909 of 1983 Union of India v. Manik Dattatreya Lotlikar : [1988]172ITR1(Bom) . In view of that decision, Mr. Jetly, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, the Income-tax Department, submitted that this appeal also must succeed.2. Mr. Dwarkadas, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee, submitted that though the principal question about the liability of the director of a private company for discharging liabilities of the company under section 179(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter 'the Act'), is not open for agitation in view of our earlier decision, the order passed under section 179 by the Income-tax Officer on April 12, 1979, cannot be sustain...
Union of India Vs. Babubhai Nylchand Mehta, Bombay Overruled
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-1987
Reported in: 1988(15)ECC137; 1988(33)ELT292(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. The respondent is a sole proprietor of a concern known as Neptune Water-proof Manufacturing Company and carries on business of making water-proof kraft paper. The respondent manufactures following products known as 'waterproof kraft paper' :(i) Bitumenised Waterproof packing paper. (ii) Polythene-lined kraft packing paper (iii) Waxed kraft packing paper (iv) Jute-lined bitumenised waterproof packing paper (v) Waxed kraft packing paper (vi) Hessian-lined kraft paperThe respondent purchases kraft paper from the open market and also other agents as bitumen, polythene, jute fibre and wax and thereafter combines these agents with kraft paper in his factor. Till October 30, 1980 the respondent classified his products under Item 17(2) of the Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and paid duty accordingly. It is the claim of the respondent that on October 30, 1980 the respondent discovered that none of the products manufactured ...
Echjay Industries (P.) Ltd. Vs. Second Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-1987
Reported in: (1988)26ITD259(Mum.)
1. The above three appeals relate to assessment years 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1981-82. The main arguments were addressed by the assessee's counsel, Shri D.M. Harish, in respect of ITA No. 7106 (Bom.)/84 for the assessment year 1981-82. We will therefore deal with this appeal first.2. The assesses is a limited company which is running an industry at Kanjur Marg, Bhandup. It had at the relevant time business of forgings and in automobile spare parts. For the assessment year 1981-82, the accounting period ended on 31-12-1980. The first and the most important ground raised in this appeal is that the CIT (Appeals) erred in holding that there was no accrued labour liability in the year under appeal and that the claim by the appellant for an amount of Rs. 2,20,87,000 was legally inadmissible. It is also the assessee's further ground that the CIT (Appeals) erred that the IAC had wrongly allowed a deduction of Rs. 38,56,828 in his directions Under Section 144B and consequently erred in enhancing ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »