Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-10-1980
Reported in : AIR1981Bom299; (1981)83BOMLR173; 1981MhLJ855
Bhonsale, J.1. This appeal is preferred by original defendants challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge. Senior Division, Sangli, decreeing the plaintiff's suit for recovery of the amount of Rs. 16,252.06/- together with, interest at 6% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of realisation and also awarding the costs of the suit from the defendants.2. The facts leading to the filing of the suit by the plaintiffs in the trial court are as under:Plaintiff No. 1 is a well known manufacturer of farm machinery and pumps in India and plaintiff No. 2 is an Insurance Company registered under the Indian Companies Act. The defendants inter alia carry on business of transporting for hire, goods in their vehicles from one place to another all over the country and are common carriers within the meaning of Carriers Act III of 1865.One National Pipes and Tubes Co. Ltd., at Calcutta was instructed by Plaintiff No. 1 to supply high tensile brass rods of various d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jun-18-1980
Reported in : (1981)22CTR(Bom)41; [1981]128ITR87(Bom); [1980]4TAXMAN381(Bom)
Madon, J.1. This group of eight petitions under art. 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the constitutionality of sub-cl. (iii) of cl. (14) of s. 2 of the I.T. Act, 1961, as substituted by the Finance Act, 1970 (Act 19 of 1970), which read with s. 45 of that Act operates to levy capital gains tax on transfer of certain agricultural lands. According to the petitioners, all of them owned agricultural lands situate within the limits of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, and all these lands were at the relevant time subject to payment of land revenue to the Government. In some of the petitions, it is averred that at first cultivation of para grass and later of rice and vegetables was carried on on the lands. In the affidavits in reply these facts are either not admitted or the petitioners are put to the strict proof of these facts. Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the respondents, however, stated before us that for the purpose of these petitions the lands in question in all...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-14-1980
Reported in : [1980(41)FLR199]; (1981)ILLJ462Bom
Mohta, J.1. Point of some importance regarding the applicability of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, ('Bonus Act' for short) to the Maharashtra State Electricity Board, is involved in the present petition.2. To discuss the core question, it will be necessary to notice some basic facts and so also the background, which is as under :3. Two trade unions, viz., Maharashtra Veej Mandal Nokar Sangh and the Maharashtra Veej Mandal Kamgar Sangh demanded bonus for the years 1965-66 to 1969-70 at 20% of the annual earnings in terms of the Bonus Act and this led to a reference under S. 10(1)(d) read with S. 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by the State Government for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal. The Petitioner-Board took the stand that the Bonus Act does not apply to it in view of the exemption granted under S. 32 of the Bonus Act. On quantum of the claim, the stand was that there was no 'available surplus' and nothing beyond the minimum prescribed could be given After ransa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-01-1980
Reported in : 1991(34)LC406(Bombay)
R.L. Aggarwal, J.1. The petitioners in this writ petition are seeking a writ of mandamus, directing the Union of India and the Collector of Customs, Bombay, to forbear from levying and collecting any cess in the form of customs duty under the Mica Mines Labour Welfare Fund Act, 1946 read with the Customs Act, 1962 and secondly for a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to refund to the petitioners Rs. 89,801.33, which have been illegally collected as cess in the form of duty from the petitioners in respect of the export of mica-nite products.2. The petitioners are a manufacturing company and are licensed, amongst others, to manufacture micanite products under an Industrial Licence dated 4th March, 1972 issued by the Ministry of Industrial Development, Government of India.3. From August, 1975, the petitioners commenced manufacturing of micanite products which, according to the petitioners, are highly capital intensive and technologically oriented products and are engineered produ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-14-1980
Reported in : AIR1981Bom446
ORDER1. These two petitions arise out of the judgment of the Bench of the Court of Small Causes in Appeal No. 343 of 1973 and Appeal No. 316 of 1973. These two appeals in their turn arose out of the R.A.R. Suit No. 510/4293 of 1963 filed by the Trustees of the Lotus Trust, Bombay. The suit was filed by the Trust for eviction of the various defendants. The suit was decreed by the trial Court against all the relevant defendants. Appeal No. 316 of 1973 was, therefore, filed by the original defendant No. 2 and Appeal No. 343 of 1973 is filed by the original defendant No. 3. The appeal of original defendant No. 2 was dismissed by the Bench of the Small Causes Court (hereinafter, the 'Bench'); whereas Appeal No. 343 of 1973 was allowed by the Bench. Hence Spl. C. A. No. 537 of 1975 has been filed by the Trust against the decree in Appeal No. 343 of 1973; whereas Civil Revision Application No. 62 of 1975 has been filed by the original defendant No. 2 against the decree in Appeal No. 316 of 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-15-1980
Reported in : AIR1981Bom190
ORDER1. This is an unfortunatepiece of litigation. The petitioner before me was the plaintiff in the trial Court. He got a decree for possession in his favour. The decree was set aside by the appellate Court. As will be seen from the final order, the petitioner is succeeding so far as the present petition is concerned. However, as to when the present petitioner will reap the fruits of this decree is anybody's guess.2. The facts of the case are as follows :--(a) This litigation arises out of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act 1947, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rent Act'). The property in question is part of final plot Nos. 606/A and 606/B, numbered as C.I.5. Nos. 1225/A-l 1225/1/B2. The property in dispute originally admeasured 11,000 sq. feet situated at a very prestigious road called Ferguson Road in Poona. The property originally belonged to one Trimbak Hari Awate. On 28-4-1947, the said Awate executed a simple mortgage in respect of the entire property...
Tag this Judgment!