Mumbai Court November 1994 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.
Somnath Krishnaji Gangal Vs. Moreshwar Krishnaji Kale and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-10-1994
Reported in: 1995(3)BomCR327
A.V. Savant, J.1. This petition is by the original defendant No. 1 - tenant against whom the Appeal Court has passed a decree for eviction solely on the ground that the tenant has erected on the premises a permanent structure in the sense that a window on the western wall of the premises was closed after it was damaged due to theft resulting in the removal of the window frame itself. The few facts necessary for the disposal of the petition are as under :--2. The first respondent-Moreshwar Kale is the landlord of the premises which consist of gala No. 3 on the ground floor of House No. 107, a chawl at Karjat, Dist. Raigad. The petitioner is a tenant since 1942. The rent of the premises is barely Rs. 6/- p.m. plus educational-cases of Rs. 1.34p.m. The tenant, therefore, pays to the landlord Rs. 7.34 p.m. The premises are used as residential house. On the night between 19th and 20th July, 1976, there was a theft and this resulted in the removal of the window on the western wall of the pre...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Amritlal and Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-1994
Reported in: (1995)125CTR(Bom)323; [1995]212ITR540(Bom)
Dr. B.P. Saraf, J.1. By this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has refereed the following question of law to this court for opinion at the instance of the Revenue : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case in considering whether the provisions of section 104(1) apply in the case of the company as an investment company, the Tribunal was right in law in taking an overall view of the functioning of the company instead of confining its attention to the definition of investment company as contained in section 109(ii) for the assessment year 1972-73 ?' 2. The assessee is a company in which the public are not substantially interested. During the assessment year 1972-73 relevant to the previous year ending March 31, 1972, the assessee-company was dealing in dyes and chemicals manufactured by others. Apart from the business income from this source, it had also income from dividends, income from subletting of premises...
Laherchand Dhanji Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-1994
Reported in: [1995]213ITR145(Bom)
Dr. B.P. Saraf, J.1. By this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, made at the instance of the assessee, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ('the Tribunal') has referred the following question of law to this court for opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income-tax authorities were precluded from examining the genuineness of deposit of Rs. 25,000 in the firm's books because the partners, Dhanji Bhavanji, had made the declaration under the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme, 1976 ?' 2. The assessee is a partnership-firm. It has two partners, namely, Dhanji Bhavanji, with 60 per cent, share and Girshchandra Dhanji with 40 per cent. share. The relevant assessment year is 1972-73. The corresponding accounting year ended on August 3, 1971. The subject-matter of controversy is the addition of a sum of Rs. 25,000 in the assessment of the assessee-firm under the head 'Income from other sources' by rejecting the explanation of the assessee in ...
Keshavlal Mulchand Mody Vs. National Textile Corporation and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-1994
Reported in: [1995(70)FLR588]
Smt. K.K. Baam, J.1. The petitioner was in the permanent employment of the Kohinoor Mills Company Limited as a Sales Assistant from 1-1-1962 in the Retail Marketing Department and thereafter he continued working till 18th October, 1983 when the Kohinoor Mills Company Limited, was declared as a Sick Textile Mill and the management of which was taken over by the National Textile Corporation Limited, that is to say, the 1st Respondent Company herein. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking a writ and a direction to the Respondents to reinstate and/or to continue a employ the petitioner in their Mills known as Kohinoor Mills at Dadar with full back wages from 19-10-1983 till the date of his reinstatement and all other consequential benefits. 3. So far as the petitioner is concerned, it is the case of the petitioner that he was in the service of the said Mills till 18-10-1983 when the management was taken over by the 2nd Respondent under the Textile Undertaking (Taking over of Man...
Menino Peixote Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-1994
Reported in: 1996(2)BomCR617
E.S. Da Silva, J.1. The appellant is the accused in Sessions Case No. 5/93, who has been convicted for an offence of murder of one Caetano Fernandes on 15th November, 1992 and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.2. It appears that on 15th November, 1992, at about 20.10 hours, at Dicarpale, the appellant stabbed the said Caetano with the help of a knife, when he had been near his house for enrolling the names of illiterates in an Adult Literacy Drive as a result of which Caetano sustained grievous injuries which were the necessary cause of his death.3. The prosecution case is that on the aforesaid day of 15th November, 1992, at about 7.30 p.m. the deceased alongwith one Carmino Carvalho, Rumaldo Carvalho and Agnelo Carvalho, had gone to the village of Dicarpale to register the name of the illiterates. At about 8 p.m. they reached near the house of the appellant. On seeing them, the appellant started abusing the group calling them 'chor, chor' (thief, thief). In spite of this provocat...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. New Shorrock Spg. and Mfg. Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-08-1994
Reported in: (1995)123CTR(Bom)297; [1995]212ITR355(Bom)
DR. B.P. Saraf, J.1. By this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law at the instance of the Revenue to this court for opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the limits prescribed under section 80G(4) should be applied only after computation of the deduction allowable under section 80G(1) so that the assessee would be entitled to deduction of 50 per cent. of the donation as restricted by the ceiling limit of ten per cent. of the total income ?' 2. The assessee is a limited company. This reference pertains to the assessment year 1973-74. In its assessment for this assessment year, the assessee-company claimed deduction under section 80G(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). The aggregate of the amounts referred to in sub-clauses (iv) and (v) of clause (a) of sub-section (2) exceeded the sum of Rs. 2 lakhs. The assess...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M.P. Ponchaj
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-08-1994
Reported in: (1995)125CTR(Bom)274; [1995]211ITR1005(Bom)
Dr. B.P. Saraf, J.1. By this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, made at the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this court for opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in accepting the claim of the assessee that his salary income could be computed only after excluding the amount paid to his ex-wife by way of alimony to her and maintenance expenses to their minor son?' 2. The assessee is an individual. The reference relates to the assessment year 1969-70, the corresponding previous year being the previous year ended on March 31, 1969. In the return for the assessment year 1969-70, the assessee claimed deduction from his income from salary of a sum of Rs. 7,800 paid by him to his ex-wife by way of alimony to her and maintenance expenses to their minor son. The above amount was paid to her by the employers under instructions from the ...
Indian Express Newspapers (Bom) Employees Union Vs. K.M. Desai and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-08-1994
Reported in: [1995(71)FLR54]
Ashok Agarwal, J.1. Maintainability of an application filed by Respondent No. 2 - Union, under section 11 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter reference to as 'the MRTU & PULP Act'), is questioned in the present petition. Similarly the order passed by respondent No. 1, who is a Member of the Industrial Court, holding that the application is maintainable is also impugned in the present petition. 2. The matter pertains to respondent No. 3, Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Limited. It is a Newspaper establishment, publishing the Indian Express and the Financial Express which are English dailies, Loksatta, which is a Marathi daily and Samakalin, a Gujarati daily. It also publishes English Weekly screen and Marathi weekly Lokprabha. 3. The petitioners are a trade union registered under The Trade Union Act, 1926 and have been representing the working journalists and non-journalists employed with respondent N...
Khatau Makanji Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Incom ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-08-1994
Reported in: [1996]222ITR472(Bom)
B.P. Saraf, J.1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, following three questions have been referred by the Tribunal at the instance of the assessee to this court for opinion :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in refusing to admit the additional ground, namely, whether the remuneration paid to the directors was covered by Section 37 of the Income-tax Act and not by the provisions of Section 40(c), in view of the fact, the Income-tax Officer had not given the requisite finding under Section 40(c) of the Income-tax Act ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that 'remuneration' included commission for the purposes of the application of Section 40(c) of the Income-tax Act ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was not eligible forinvestment allowance unde...
Shravan Rikabchand Bhandari Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-08-1994
Reported in: 1995(2)BomCR654; (1995)97BOMLR352
G.D. Kamat, J.1. A writ of Habeas corpus or any other appropriate writ is sought to get the order of detention dated 4th of January, 1994 made under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short 'COFEPOSA') made by respondent No. 2, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi and pursuant to which, the petitioner has been taken under detention quashed and set aside.2. The story of the matter is that the order of detention dated 4th January, 1994 was served on Shailesh Rikabchand Bhandari, hereinafter called as 'the detenu' on 4th of March, 1994. Grounds of detention were pari pasu served on the detenu and he was taken in dentention on the same date. The petitioner made a representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India addressed to respondent No.2-detaining authority to revoke the order of detention. The petitioner was informed sometime...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »