Mumbai Court February 1987 Judgments
Rishad S. Moloobhoy Vs. First Wealth-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1987
Reported in: (1987)21ITD373(Mum.)
1. This appeal by the assesses raises the question whether Mehr payable by a husband is a debt owed to be entitled to deduction in the computation of net wealth.2. The assessee is a Shia Muslim. He married one Shehnabegum on 27-4-1977 in accordance with Shia faith at Northwood, England. Rs. 1,50,000 was the amount fixed as dower or Mehr for the marriage. In the wealth-tax assessment for 1979-80 (the valuation date being 31-12-1978), the assessee claimed this amount as an allowable liability in the return. The WTO treated this as a contingent liability and, therefore, he did not allow it. The assessee appealed and the AAC held that it was a deferred Mehr and the liability was not allowable.Aggrieved by the same, the assessee is in appeal.3. The learned counsel for the assessee contended that the amount of Rs. 1,50,000 payable by the assessee in this case is a prompt dower and as such allowable. The authorities below have reached the conclusion that it is a deferred Mehr. This is challe...
Tag this Judgment!Shailesh Prabhudas Mehta and Others Vs. Calico Dyeing and Printing Mil ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1987
Reported in: [1990]67CompCas533(Bom)
ORDERS.N. Variava, J.1. This petition is for rectification of the Bregister of members of the respondent - company by deleting the names of the Prabhudas V. Mehta and substituting in it place and stead the names of the petitioners herein in respect of 100 shares of Rs. 100 each in the respondent-company being distinctive numbers 9101 to 9200. The said Prabhudas V. Mehta died intestate on August 26, 1974. Prior to his death, the said deceased P. V. Mehta was holding the abovementioned shares and was working as an employee of the respondent - company. There were certain disputes between the said P. V. Mehta, and the directors of the respondent-company and efforts were made by the director to purchase the shares held by him. Some negotiations had taken place, but they could not be completed in view of the sudden death of P. V. Mehta. It appears that subsequent to the death of P.V.Mehta, the petitioner also entered into negotiations for sale of shares in favour of the directors of the comp...
Tag this Judgment!Bhasir Oil Mills Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1987
Reported in: 1989(24)LC513(Bombay); 1990(47)ELT305(Bom)
Dhabe, J.1. These two petitions can conveniently be disposed of by this common judgment as common questions of law and fact arise therein for consideration.2. Briefly the facts are that in Writ Petition No. 2049 of 1985, the petitioners Nos. 1 to 6 are Owner's of Oil Mills, who according to them extract oil from washed cotton seeds after subjecting them to the process of bleaching and deodourisation. The petitioner No. 7 which is a public limited company registered under the Companies Act owns a solvent extraction plant and is engaged in extracting oil from oil cakes by the solvent extraction process. As regards Writ Petition No. 133 of 1986, the petitioner therein is a private limited Company Registered under the Companies Act and is engaged in extracting oil from oil bearing materials like rice bran, pulse cake, Mohova cake, Soyabeen cake etc. by the solvent extraction process in its solvent extraction plant at Khamari-Amgaon, district Bhandara.3. The respondent No. 2 issued show cau...
Tag this Judgment!Ramprasad Ramchandra Rathod Vs. Manik Radhakisan Misal and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1987
Reported in: 1987(3)BomCR36
Sharad Manohar, J.1. Apart from the various factual questions involved in this Appeal, an interesting question under the Hindu Law as to the power of a Hindu father to enter into an Agreement of Sale of immovable property belonging to his sons for the payment of antecedent debt and/or legal necessity and as to the power of the Court to grant specific performance of such agreement arises in this appeal.2. The appeal arises out of the suit for specific performance filed by the present appellant (who will be referred to hereinafter as the plaintiff) against the respondents (original defendants). The suit has been dismissed by the trial Court by taking a somewhat peculiar view as regards the relevant principles of the Hindu Law and hence this appeal.I am stating the facts of the case, in some details, at this stage it selfs. Most of them are admitted facts. Whenever there is any dispute about a particular fact, I will indicate the nature of the dispute in the course of the statement. All t...
Tag this Judgment!Mehta Gems and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1987
Reported in: 1987(13)ECC109
S.M. Daud, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is to obtain a mandamus in terms of prayer (b).2. The points arising for determination are to be considered in the following background:--Pursuant to the order of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1048 of 1983, petitioner No. 1 was issued an Export House Certificate and a REP licence. The said licence was endorsed thus:--Not-transferable. Endorsed as per Hon'ble High Court order dated 21-6-1985 in Notice of Motion No. 2679 of 1984 in Writ Petition No. 1048 of 1983. The licence is endorsed as per provisions of para. 174 of 1978-79 Policy for import of items covered by valid open general licence.After the above order was passed, petitioner No. 1 issued a letter of authority in favour of petitioner No. 2 for the import of goods, for and on its behalf, from the foreign suppliers. Petitioner No. 2, in pursuance of the letter of authority, placed an order with the foreign suppliers for the goods to be despatched in consignment...
Tag this Judgment!Jaihind Vidyalaya, Nagpur Vs. Ghanshyam Girdharilal Khinchi and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1987
Reported in: AIR1989Bom99; 1987(3)BomCR474
ORDER1. An order passed by the learned Judge of the Small Cause Court on 16-12-1986 directing the defendants 1 and 2 to deposit Rs. 31, 500/- (arrears of rent for 35 months) by 15-1-1987 and further order passed by the said Court on 15-1-1987 striking out the defence of the defendants are challenged in this revision. Both these orders came to be passed in Civil Suit NO. 1205/1985 pending before the Court of small Causes at Nagpur.2. The plaintiff (present respondents 1 and 2) instituted a suit for arrears of rent. During the pendency of suit an application came to be filed under O.XV-A Sub-Rule (I) of the Civil PC. and on hearing the parties the Court directed the defendants to deposit Rs. 31,500/- within a month i.e. by 15-1-1987. On 15-1-1987 the defendants filed an application for adjournment on the ground that they were thinking of going in revision against the order passed by the trial court. this application came to be opposed. On hearing the parties the Court passed an order bel...
Tag this Judgment!Vali Mohamed Jamal Mansuri Vs. Vali Mohamed Suleman
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Bom64; 1987MhLJ415
ORDER1. Short question, though of considerable importance, that has arisen for my determination is whether a suit for a declaration that an order of eviction obtained under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act is null and void on the ground that the same has been obtained by practising fraud, is maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 49 of that Act as it stood prior to its amendment by Maharashtra Act No. 19 of 1976.2. The petitioner filed the present Rent Act Declaratory Suit against the respondent for a declaration that he was the tenant in respect of the suit premises entitled to protection of the Bombay Rent Act, and for a further declaration that the order of eviction obtained by the respondent in ejectment application under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) was a nullity as the samehad been obtained by practising fraud. The petitioner inter alia averred that the respondent in the aforesaid ejec...
Tag this Judgment!Retired Employees of Non-government College Association and ors. Vs. S ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1987
Reported in: 1987(2)BomCR348; 1987MhLJ326
C.S. Dharmadhikari, J.1. This writ petition is filed by the retired employees of the Non-Government College Association, Nagpur, praying for writ of mandamus that the date prescribed by the Government in the Government Resolution dated 21-7-1983 extending the pension-cum-gratuity scheme to the teaching and non-teaching staff of the non-agricultural Universities and affiliated non-Government colleges to the persons who retire or retired on or after 1-10-1982, be declared as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. According to the petitioners, the date prescribed viz. 1-10-1982, is not only arbitrary but also makes a hostile discrimination between the persons similarly situated but who retired prior to 1-10-1982 and the persons who retired thereafter. According to the petitioners, this prescription of the date is void ab initio since it violates the petitioners' fundamental right guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.2. The petitioner No. 1 is an association of th...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Dnyandeo Khumkar and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1987
Reported in: 1987(3)BomCR211; 1987MhLJ474
H.W. Dhabe, J.1. These two writ petitions can be conveniently disposed of by this common judgment as they arise out of the same order passed in the appeal by the Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies. A reference to the parties, for the sake of convenience, would be with reference to the Writ Petition No. 2380 of 1986. The petitioners 1 to 8 were elected as members of the Managing Committee of the petitioner No. 9 Society, registrar under the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short the Act). They were elected on 8-7-84 and entered the office when the first meeting of the Managing Committee was held on 22-7-1984. It is non in dispute that according to the bye-laws of the petitioner No. 9 society, the tenure of the Managing Committee is five years and as such they would have been entitled to continue in office until 22-7-1989.2. A show-cause notice dated 25-4-1986 containing five charges was issued under section 78 of the Act to the Managing Commi...
Tag this Judgment!Mandavkar Narendra Shankar and ors. Vs. the Maharashtra State Board of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Bom234; 1987(3)BomCR663; 1987MhLJ294
ORDER1. Article 226 of the Constitution is invoked by 30 students and the Headmaster of Y.B. Chavan High School of Bhandup (West) to get a mandate against respondent No. 1 to declare the result of the student petitioners, who being repeaters were permitted under a Court direction to appear for Oct. 1986 S.S.C. examination.2. The Y.B. Chavan High School is a recognised educational institution for the purposes of sending up candidates for examinations conducted by the first respondent, which is a Board constituted under the Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Boards Act, 1965 (Act). The 31st petitioner is the Headmaster of that School. The student-petitioners had appeared for the S.S.C. examination held by the Board in Mar. 1986. Having failed at that examination, they had to take a repeat examination. Under directions given by the Board, the School had to receive the application forms together with the prescribed fees by 21-7-1986. There was an enabling clause in the sc...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »