Mumbai Court April 1951 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.
In Re All India Industrial Tribunal (Bank Disputes)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-1951
Reported in: (1951)53BOMLR958
Kania, C.J.1. [Mahajan J., Das J., and Bose J., concurring.] In these appeals the question whether the Industrial Tribunal (Bank Disputes) had jurisdiction to make the awards has been directed by the Court to be tried as a preliminary issue. The decision depends on the true construction of Sections 7, 8, 15 and 16 of the Industrial Disputes Act. On this question, the agreed statement of facts shows that by a notification of the Government of India dated June 13, 1949, the Central Government constituted an Industrial Tribunal for the adjudication of industrial disputes in banking companies consisting of Mr. K.C. Sen, Chairman, Mr. S.P. Varma and Mr. J.N. Mazumdar. A second notification dated August 24, 1949, was thereafter issued as follows :-In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Central Government was pleased to appoint Mr. N. Chandrasekhara Aiyar as a member of the Industrial Tribunal constituted by the notifications of...
indur Dayaldas Advani Vs. the State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-06-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Bom58; (1951)53BOMLR699; ILR1952Bom169
Bavdekar, J.[1] [His Lordship, after considering the facts and holding that the appellant obtained Rs. 100 from the complainant as bribe, proceeded:] The learned counsel who appears on behalf of the appellant saya however that in this case even so, the prosecution must fail because the appellant had nothing to do with the case of the complainant after 14th January 1950. Now, it is true that Mr. Khoja, the superior of the appellant, gave evidence that he had entrusted the case to the appellant, but we do not think that that evidence can be accepted. The complainant's case was that it was Thadani who was dealing with this case. The order of Mr. Khoja which was referred to above has an obvious reference as to what was to be done in case the complainant: did not appear. There is nothing from which we can come to the conclusion that the appellant had, at the time when the bribe is alleged to have been taken, anything to do with the complainant's case. It may be that subsequently the case ma...
Murlidhar Narayan and ors. Vs. Dattajirao Gangaram and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Bom170; (1951)53BOMLR877; ILR1952Bom123
Dixit, J.[1] This second appeal raises a question under S 14, Bombay Court of Wards Act, 1905, and the facts giving rise to the suit out of which the appeal arises are briefly these.[2] The property in auit in a house No. 30, situate in Khadki Juna Bazar in the Poona District. This property belonged to one Mabarudra Balwant Pandav. He died in 1900 leaving him surviving two sons, Ramkrishna and Gopal. Gopal died in 1902 leaving him surviving hia elder brother Ramkrishna and a widow by name Saraswatibai. Ramknahna himself died in 1908 leaving him surviving a, widow by name Laxmi-bai and a son by name Laxman, Laxmibai and Laxman died in the year 1913 but on the same day, Laxman having survived his mother. After the death of Laxman the property in suit was inherited by Saraawatibai, the widow of Gopal,[3] On 19th June 1920, Saraawatibai sold the Suit property to one Dr. Gangaram Hariba Shinde for Rs. 1225. Dr. Shinds was the father of defendants 1 to 3. During the lifetime of Dr. Shinde, t...
Bombay Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-t ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-1951
Reported in: [1951]20ITR189(Bom)
Chagla, C.J. 1. The assessee in this reference is the Bombay Mutual Life assurance Co. Ltd. It is an incorporated company limited by guarantee and all the policy-holders are member of this company. Some policy-holders participate in the profits and some do not, and the very important question that arises on this reference is, whether the profits made by the participating members is income liable to tax at all. Shri Jamshedji contends that the participating policy-holders make contributions in order to meet certain contingent liabilities. It turns out that the liabilities are less than what they contemplate and although the word 'profits' is used, in substance and in reality what the participating members receive is not profits but the return of their own contributions which were more than sufficient to meet the liabilities contemplated. I think Sir Jamshedji's definition of the profits received by the participating members is perfectly correct. But the question that we have to determin...
Ambalal Himatlal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and Excess Profits Tax ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-1951
Reported in: [1951]20ITR280(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. This reference has given an opportunity to Sir Jamshedji Kanga to advance before us a very interesting and ingenious argument based on the construction of Section 25(4) of the Income-tax Act. The facts are that the assessee before us who is an undivided Hindu family of one Himatlal was assessed for the first time to tax for the assessment year 1921-22. This joint family was disrupted on the 26th of October 1943. It has been found as fact that at the time of disruption the joint family was carrying on three separate business, one of money-lending secondly of running a ginning factory and lastly a share business. It is also found as a fact that only the money-lending business had paid tax under the Income-tax Act of 1918. On these facts the assessee claims the concessions laid down is Section 25(4) on the ground that his business had been succeeded to by other and therefore he was entitled to the benefits mentioned in that sub-section. 2. Now the contention of the Commissi...
Bombay Mutual Life Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Bom63; (1951)53BOMLR613; ILR1952Bom364
FACTS[1] In order to understand the ground of appeal it is necessary to reproduce below how the assessment for the year 1939-40, for example, was made by the Income-tax Officer.Income under R, 2 (b)Surplus as per valuation Report at at December 31, 1937: Rs.Rs.Rs. for 4 years (from 1934 to 1037)............ 22,96068, Add for interim bouna paid............ 87,816 23,83,884Less surplus of previous valuation: brought forward ... ... ............... 1,70,139 22,13,745Add appreciation of seen titles not credited to Revenue accounts ... ... ............... 2,72,966Surplus... 24,86,711Add Disallowables: Income-tax deducted at source ... ... ............... 96,496 Depreciation debited: Building ... ... ...............36,937 Furniture ... ... ...............14,922 51,859 Provision for INcome tax ... ... ............... 77,799Souvenir and building expenses: 1935 ... ... ...............6,273 1936 ... ... ...............6,000 1937 ... ... ...............6,000 18,273 2,44,427 Actuarial charges ... ...
Himatlal Motilal Vs. Commr. of Income-tax and E.P. Tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Bom428; (1951)53BOMLR610; ILR1952Bom373
Chagla, C.J. 1. This reference has given an opportunity to Sir Jamshedji Kanga to advance before us a very interesting & ingenious argument based on the construction of Section 25(4), Income-tax Act. The facts are that the assesses before us who is an undivided Hindu family of one Himatlal was assessed for the first time to tax for the assessment year 1921-22. This joint family was disrupted on 26-10-1943. It has been found as a fact that at the time of disruption the joint family was carrying on three separate businesses, one of money-lending secondly, of running a ginning factory &, lastly, a share business. It is also found as a fact that only the money lending business had paid tax under the Income tax Act of 1918. On these facts the asses-see claims the concessions laid down in Section 25 (4) on the ground that his business had been succeeded to by others &, therefore, he was entitled to the benefits mentioned in that sub-section. 2. Now the contention of the Commissioner is that ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›