Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-06-1984
Reported in : 1985(1)BomCR443; (1984)86BOMLR596; [1986]59CompCas417(Bom)
..... p.ltd. v. life insurance corporation (1981) bom cr 590. in that case, a single judge of this court held that the public premises (eviction of unauthorised occupants) act, 1971, was outside the legislative competence of parliament. he held that the word 'land' appearing in entry 18 in list ii - state list of the seventh schedule to the constitution - included houses and buildings and that it was the state legislature alone which was competent to legislate in that respect , and, therefore, it was the bombay rents, hotel and lodging house rates control act, 1947, which was applicable to the premises occupied by the petitioner ..... from this, the decision in that case and the passages relied on by the learned counsel and reproduced above are of no help for deciding the point for consideration in this case. in that case, the vires of the public premises (eviction of unauthorised occupants) act, 1971, were challenged. in the present case, the challenge is to the provisions of section 630 of the companies act, 1956, as far as they apply to immovable property. it was not disputed that parliament is competent to legislate in the matter of companies under entries 43 and 44 appearing in list i - union list of the seventh schedule to the constitution. as per entry 95 of the said list, parliament can legislate in respect of the offences .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-23-1984
Reported in : 1985(1)BomCR319; [1987(54)FLR723]
S.P. Bharucha J.1. The petitioner was employed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India, the 1st respondent, as an Assistant Engineer at Calcutta. On 30th October, 1970 he was promoted to the pose of Assistant Executive Engineer at Bombay. On 15th February, 1977 he was served with a charge sheet which alleged that he had recommended 2 interim bills dated 17th June and 20th July, 1974 and a final bill dated 30th September, 1974 of the L.I.C.'s contractors, M/s. National Painting Works, for the work of cleaning doors and windows 'without actually verifying whether the work had been done or not which has resulted in payments being made to the contractors for work not done by them'. The petitioner denied the charges. The Managing Director of the L.I.C., as the disciplinary authority, appointed one S. Balachandran, enquiry officer to enquire into the charges. The enquiry was held and the enquiry officer submitted his report. On 3rd July, 1980 the disciplinary authority passed an order whi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-02-1984
Reported in : 1985(1)BomCR454; [1984]55CompCas695(Bom); [1984]147ITR405(Bom)
Kania, J.1. This is a reference on a case stated under s. 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (referred to hereinafter as 'the said Act').2. The facts giving rise to this reference are as follows :3. In 1951 the assessee-respondent, the Jupiter General Insurance Company Limited, Bombay, carried on the business, inter alia, of life insurance. Although the Life Insurance Corporation has been brought on record as the respondent in the circumstances set out hereinafter for the sake of convenience per propose to refer to the said Jupiter General Insurance. Co. Ltd., as the assessee. In 1951 the Central Govt. appointed an administrator to manage the affairs of the assessee under the direction and control of the Controller of Insurance under s. 52A of the Insurance Act, 1938. Till October 5, 1956, the administrator of the assessee carried on life insurance business as well as general insurance business. In 1956 the Central Govt. nationalised the business of life insurance, but it did not take ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-02-1984
Reported in : (1984)86BOMLR691; 1984MhLJ778
Vaze, J.1. Pursuant to the provisions of the Bombay Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board Act, 1969, repair cess became payable from November 1, 1970. The landlords of various buildings recovered the repair cess from their tenants and the Bombay Municipal Corporation took into consideration the amount of the repair cess while arriving at the rateable value of the -building under Section 154(7} of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act. This was challenged before the Small Causes Court at Bombay, which modified the rateable value by omitting the quantum of the repair cess added by the Corporation to the rent while computing the rateable value. Hence this appeal.2. The Supreme Court, in a decision in Bombay Municipal Corporation v. Life Insurance Corporation of India (1970) 73 Bom. L.R. 900, held:The educational cess levied under Section 40 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act can be included for the purpose of valuation under Section 154(1) of the Act in the annual rent.The Court r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-18-1984
Reported in : (1984)43CTR(Bom)329; [1986]159ITR756(Bom); [1984]18TAXMAN119(Bom)
Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the following questions of law have been referred to us for determination :Re : Assessment year 1963-64.'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to relief/rebate under sections 85, 99(1)(iv), 101(2) and 235 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on gross dividends, that is, without reducing them by proportionate management or other expenses ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to relief on the entire portion of tax-free dividend from the State Financial Corporation, that is, without reducing it by proportionate management or other expenses ?'Re : Assessment Year 1964-65 :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to relief under sections 85, 99(1)(iv), 101(2) and 235 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the gross dividends, that is, without reducing them...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-21-1984
Reported in : II(1984)ACC420; AIR1984Bom335; 1984(2)BomCR82; 1984MhLJ456
1. A car owner hands over a car for repairs to a garage. The mechanic of the garage who does not have and never had a driving licence drives the vehicle negligently and knocks down a man. Should the owner of the vehicle be held liable for damages arising out of the accident?2. Dr. Acharya was proceeding from Gamdevi to British council Library on the morning of 18-1-1969 when his car MRC 7456 failed and got stalled just beyond the Life Insurance Corporation building near traffic control department. Acharya pushed the car near the curb, made unsuccessful attempts to start the same and finally after locking the car went to Kaypee garage near Bhatia hospital where he used to usually give his car for repairs. Prawin Udeshi, the owner of the garage, received Acharya and after hearing the nature of the complaint, asked his mechanic Salim to accompany the customer. Acharya and Salim came to the spot where the car was parked. Salim fiddled with the engine for a considerable time but the motor w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-21-1984
Reported in : 1(1985)ACC186
V.V. Vaze, J.1. A car owner hands over a car for repairs to a garage. The mechanic of the garage who does not have and never had a driving licence drives the vehicle negligently and knocks down a man. Should the owner of the vehicle be held liable for damages arising out of the accident 72. Dr. Acharya was proceeding from Gamdevi to British Council Library on the morning of 18-1-1969 when his car MRC 7456 failed and got stalled just beyond the Life Insurance Corporation building near traffic control department. Acharya pushed the car near the curb, made unsuccessful attempts to start the same and finally after locking the car went to Kaypee garage near Bhatia Hospital where he used to usually give his car for repairs. Pravin Udeshi, the owner of the garage, received Acharya and after hearing the nature of the complaint, asked his mechanic Salim to accompany the customer. Acharya and Salim came to the spot where the car was parked. Salim fiddled with the engine for a considerable time b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-24-1984
Reported in : [1986]60CompCas1001(Bom)
Vaze, J.1. The City of Nagpur is bisected by an overhead railway bridge running north-south and the road under the bridge forms a conduit through which old and new Nagpur are joined. To ease the resultant traffic congestion, vehicular traffic coming from eastern Nagpur is not permitted to take the straight road to Sitabuldi, which has been declared a one way catering to the traffic coming from Sitabuldi and proceeding towards the railway station.2. Thanks to the anathema of civic authorities towards shifting of temples howsoever ill-located, a temple situated towards west of the bridge serves as a traffic island. Further north, one comes across Manas Chowk wherein meet three roads, one coming from Sitabuldi, another from Morris College and the third from the railway station. A statue of Netaji Subhashchandra Bose overlooks the Chowk being situated at the intersection of the roads coming from Morris College and the railway station. An old Bhonsala fort on an adjoining hill feature overs...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-20-1984
Reported in : AIR1985Bom48; ILR1985Bom1514
Bharucha, J.1. This writ petition, which has been referred for hearing and final disposal to a Division Bench, concerns the compulsory purchase by the Maharashtra State Electricity Board, respondent 1, of the undertaking of the Thana Electric Supply Company Ltd., petitioner 1. Principally the petition challenges the constitutionality of the Electricity (Maharashtra Amendment)Act, 44 of 1976.2. To appreciate the rival contentions a chronology of events needs to be set out.3. On 14th September 1927 the Government of Bombay by notification issued a licence under the provisions of the Electricity Act, 1910, known as the Thana Electric Licence, 1927 to Messrs Phiroze Erachshaw, Behramji Muncherji and Rustomji Pestonji carrying on business in partnership in the name of M/s P. Patel and Company. Clause 11 of the said licence (which was later renumbered clause 12) read thus: 'Purchase of undertaking 11. (1) the option of purchase given by S. 7 of the Act shall first be exercisable on the expir...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-24-1984
Reported in : (1984)86BOMLR527; (1985)44CTR(Bom)103; [1985]155ITR413(Bom); [1984]19TAXMAN485(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. Three questions are posed in this reference under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The first question is referred at the instance of the Revenue and the second and third questions at the instance of the assessee. The questions read as under :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the expenses incurred by the assessee in the E.D.C. Plant and Pulp Pilot Plant were scientific research expenses related to a business of the assessee so as to be allowed under section 35(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 17,800 spent in the defence of Shri Mahant could be allowed as expenditure incurred for the purpose of its business ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 48,947 incurred by the assessee on foreign tours of the managing director, Shri R. J. Chinai, and the works manager, Shri J. J. Mehta, was allowable as revenue expenditure ?'2. In s...
Tag this Judgment!