Mumbai Court April 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.
K.M. Sheth Vs. Commissioner of Gift-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-1987
Reported in: (1987)89BOMLR647; (1987)66CTR(Bom)129; [1988]170ITR406(Bom)
Sugla, J.1. Three questions of law have been referred to this court by the Tribunal in this reference at the instance of the assessee. The questions read as under :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim of the applicant that the settlement dated March 30, 1960, executed by the applicant in favour of his minor son, Bharat, in discharge of his legal obligation under section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, to maintain his son was not a gift under section 2(xii) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, was rightly rejected ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim of the applicant that the settlement executed by the applicant in favour of his son was a transfer for adequate consideration and, therefore, not a gift within the meaning of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, was rightly rejected ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim of the applicant that the gift, if any, of 1,500 shares of C...
Bombay Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. Employees of B.M.T. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-1987
Reported in: (1988)ILLJ281Bom
1. This petition for winding-up is by the Company itself on the grounds set out in Section 433(a), (e) and (f) of the Companies Act, i.e. on the footing that a special resolution to that effect has been passed and also on the ground that the Company is not able to carry on any business or any of its objects and that it was unable to pay its debts and that on the facts and circumstances it is just and equitable that the Company be would-up by this Court.2. This petition has been opposed by the Maharashtra General Kamgar Union (hereinafter referred to as 'the Union') and by one Pandurang Hari Mhatre who represents 1700 workers, some of whom admittedly are members of the Maharashtra General Kamgar Union.3. It is necessary to set out the history relating to the incorporation of this Company and the facts leading up to this petition.4. The Government of Maharashtra with the avowed object of relieving the congestion in the City of Bombay and developing its suburbs and out-skirts, established...
Kanak Industries Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-1987
Reported in: (1994)IIILLJ410Bom
S.M. Daud, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution takes exception to Notification bearing No. MWA 3277/1742/Lab-7 of the Industries, Energy and Labour Department, Government of Maharashtra, dated 12th November, 1982 (Notification) fixing the minimum wages payable unto employees in establishments engaged in manufacture of readymade garments or its accessories (excluding hosiery articles) and tailoring establishments in the State of Maharashtra.2. The Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (Act) is designed to fix minimum rates of wages in certain employments. These employments are referred to as a 'scheduled employment' because they are listed as such in the schedule appended to the Act. On 11.1.1977, the following was added to the schedule being item No. 46 therein:-'Employment in any establishment engaged in manufacturing readymade garments or its accessories (excluding hosiery articles) and tailoring establishments'.About 11 months later, to be precise on December 6, 1977, the fir...
Chandrakant Vassudev Lotikar and Others Vs. Vaman Mahadev Lotikar and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-1987
Reported in: AIR1989Bom17
1. This appeal by the plaintiffs in the suit is directed against the order dated 5th April, 1983, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa, whereby he rejected the plaint under O. 7, R.11(b) read with (c), C.P.C.2. The appellants have filed a suit for the following reliefs:(a) That it be declared that the plaintiffs are the exclusive owners of the property A. B. and C together with the suit house thereon: (b) The plaintiffs may be restored back to the southern portion of the suit house and the defendants be evicted therefrom. (c) Permanent injunction restraining the defendants from causing any obstructions to the plaintiffs or their tenants to exercise of the lawful possession, use and occupation of the property A. B. and C and o f the suit house; (d) alternatively the plaintiffs be restored back to the rustic part with the trees of the property A,B and C; (e) properties A. B. and Con one side and D on the other according to the measurements be demarcated so that the ...
Subhadrabai W/O Babalalji Raut Vs. Rambhau Narayan Dhok
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)BomCR247
H.W. Dhabe, J.1. This is a letter patent appeal arising out of the proceedings under the provisions of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (for short, ''The Tenancy Act''). Briefly the facts are that the field survey No. 98 admeasuring 20.00 acres of village Donak belongs Bk. to the appellant. The respondent was admittedly the tenant of the suit field. It appears that the lease of the suit field was since the time of his father and was created in 1958. The appellant gave a notice dated 10-1-73 to the respondent for resumption of the suit field for personal cultivation. A second notice dated 26-12-74 for resumption of land for personal cultivation was served by her regd. Post upon the respondent. The appellant thereafter filed an application under section 36(2) read with a section 38 of the Tenancy Act claiming possession of the suit filed. The said application was filed on 29-1-75. The respondent resisted the said application by filing the written statemen...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Parle Products Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-1987
Reported in: (1988)LC227Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an application filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-I in terms of Section 35-G of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 requiring the Tribunal to refer to the Hon'ble Bombay High Court the point of law which is reported to have arisen out of the Tribunals decision in the Order No. 935/86 WRB dated 8th August, 1986 on the appeal No. 210/84 filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-I.Under this application, two points of law were framed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-1. But during the course of the arguments on behalf of the Collector, the learned S.D.R. submitted that the only point, which arose out of the Tribunal's order and which required reference, would be reframed as follows : Whether the specific provisions of Rule 173-G(2)(vii) should not have been availed of by the assessee M/s. Parle Products Ltd. in preference to the general provisions of Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 as in force at the relevant time.2. In support of the...
Kuldip Singh Vs. First Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-1987
Reported in: (1987)22ITD217(Mum.)
1. These three appeals relating to the assessment years 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83 filed by the assessee against the orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, B-Range, Bombay, deal with the same issue and are, therefore, for the sake of convenience disposed of by a consolidated order.2. The assessee is an individual who is non-resident. For each of the three assessment years 1980-81, 1901-82 and 1982-83 under consideration in the present appeals, the assessee was residing in Dubai, U.A.E., where he was doing his business. The assessee made gifts to his wife, Smt. Sarabjit Kaur Grewal, and to his minor son, Sonu K. Grewal. It was claimed before the Income-tax Officer in the course of the assessment proceedings that the spouse as well as the minor child were both living with the assessee in Dubai, this gifts were made to them in Dubai and the amounts gifted to them were remitted to India and invested and in these circumstances the income arising from these investme...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Associated Cement Companies Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-1987
Reported in: [1987]169ITR294(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. This reference is made at instance of the Revenue and raises the following two questions :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the introduction of new kilns in the existing factories creates a new industrial undertaking entitled to relief under section 5(1)(xxi) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in allowing relief under section 5(1)(xxi) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, on the ground that in the assessee's case the words 'after the commencement of the Act occurring in the said section 5(1)(xxi) can only mean after the commencement of the operation of the said Act in respect of the assessee-company, namely, July 31, 1956, being the first valuation date, and not after April 1, 1957, when the said Act came into force ?'2. So far as first question is concerned, counsel are agreed that in view of the judgment of this court in the assessee's own case, CIT v. Associated Ce...
income-tax Officer Vs. Chemicon Engg. Consultants (P.)
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-08-1987
Reported in: (1987)22ITD223(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal by the revenue objecting to the cancellation of the order passed by the ITO rectifying the assessment acting under s.2. The assessee is a private limited company. The original assessment for the year 1980-81 had been completed wherein deduction under s. 80J had been granted to the tune of Rs. 23,279. There were unabsorbed losses of 1978-79 and 1979-80 aggregating to Rs. 1,28,846. In the regular assessment, the deduction under Section 80MM had been granted before setting off the unabsorbed losses. The ITO was of the view that this was a mistake apparent from the record and that relief under Section 80MM could be granted only after setting off the carried forward of the unabsorbed losses from the total inoome of this year.He, therefore, noticed the assessee, extended an opportunity of being heard and passed the impugned order whereby he held that the unabsorbed losses for 1978-79 and 1979-80 should be first set off from the current year's income. After such set off,...
international Marine Engineering Co. and Another Vs. United Western Ba ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-08-1987
Reported in: [1990]69CompCas632(Bom)
Kamat, J.1. This first civil appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated January 24, 1985, made in Special Civil Suit No. 54 of 1980-A by the Civil Judge S.D., Panaji, whereby the suit instituted by the first respondent for recovery of money on three bills of exchange has been decreed.2. The first appellant is a partnership firm of which the second appellant is a partner. Two major contentions have been canvassed in support of the appeal by the present appellants. To appreciate these contentions, it may be necessary to set out the nature of the suit filed by the bank and the defence raised by the present appellants resisting that suit and denying their liability to pay anything towards the three bills of exchange in respect of which they were the acceptors.3. Special Civil Suit No. 54 of 1980, filed by the first respondent bank is to the effect that defendant No. 3, now respondent No. 2 in the appeal, in the month of September, 1978, drew three bills of exchange payable at...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »