Mumbai Court September 1954 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.
Shantikumar Narottam Morarji Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Ci ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Bom234; (1955)57BOMLR121; ILR1955Bom366
Chagla, C.J.1. The assessee is a partner in the firm of Messrs. Narottam Morarji & Co. The firm is a registered firm and his share of the profits in this firm for the assessment year 1942-43, which corresponds with the year of account. Samvat Year 1997, amounted to Rs. 2,28,706. This share was shown by the assessee in his return of total income. The assessee claimed that he had paid a certain amount as interest on moneys borrowed and he claimed that amount of interest as a permissible deduction against the profits shown by him in respect of his share in the firm of Messrs. Narottam Morarji & Co., and the question that arises is, first, whether it is open to a partner in a registered firm to claim any deduction whatsoever against the amount of profit determined by the Income-tax Authorities as the profits of the firm, and the other question that arises is whether, if it is so permissible to the assessee to claim those deductions, whether the deductions claimed in this case are permissib...
Associated Cement Companies Ltd., Dwarka Cement Works and ors. Vs. P.D ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1954
Reported in: (1955)ILLJ8Bom
Coyajee, J.1. The petitioners are a limited company carrying on business as Dwarka Cement Works at Dwarka and Sevalia Cement Works at Sevalia in the district of Khaira. Respondent 1 is a member of the industrial court, respondent 2 is the Commissioner of Labour and respondent 3 is the general secretary of Dwarka Cement Works Employees' Union. Respondent 4 is sued on behalf of all the other workmen employed by Dwarka Cement Works.2. In this petition company complains of a certain order made under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, together with the Bombay Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1948, The orders are made by the certifying officer under the said Act and the orders were confirmed by the appellate authority under the Act. The petitioners complain that in accordance with the provisions of this Act they had forwarded their standing orders for the approval of the certifying authority and the certifying authority have altered the said orders contrary ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Vs. Ahmuty and Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1954
Reported in: [1955]25CompCas14(Bom); [1955]27ITR63(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. The question that arises on this reference is a very simple one and really not capable of much elaboration. The assessee is a dealer in shares and shares held by it in the business are the stock-in-trade of the business. In the assessment year 1950-51 the assessee company suffered a loss of Rs. 45,911 from its business in shares. That loss was carried forward to the assessment year 1951-52 which is the year under reference. In the assessment year 1951-52 the Income-tax Officer ascertained the assessee's business loss at Rs. 87,042. The assessee received a gross dividend income in respect of the shares which were its stock-in-trade amounting to Rs. 1,42,884. Therefore the result was that after setting off the loss of business against dividend income under section 24 (1) there remained a balance of Rs. 55,842. The assessee contended that the loss from business in shares in the preceding year, viz., Rs. 45,911, which, as already pointed out, was carried forward should be se...
The Municipality of Ankleshwar Vs. Chhotalal Ghelabhai Gandhi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1954
Reported in: (1955)57BOMLR547
Rajadhyaksha J.1. These four applications raise a short but important point with regard to the interpretation of Section 86 of the Bombay District Municipal Act (III of 1901). The applicant in all these applications is the Municipality of Anklesh-war. It had levied a rate on buildings and lands situated within the Municipal District and also a general sanitary cess. It presented bills to the opponents for the recovery of tax on lands as also the sanitary cess for the year 1951-52 as provided for in Section 82 of the Act. The opponents preferred appeals against the claim included in the bills to the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ankleshwar, who was the Magistrate authorised to receive such appeals under Section 86 of the Act. It was contended that the bills were illegal, that the imposition of the levy and the assessment of the taxes were illegal, invalid and ultra vires of the powers of the municipality, that the municipality had not complied with the provisions of law in respect o...
Rasiklal Manilal Bhatt and ors. Vs. Savailal Hargovindas Sur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Bom285; (1955)57BOMLR239
1. This is an appeal by defendant No. 1 and it raises a short question as to the plaintiff's right to receive lateral support to the wall on his land from the adjoining land of the defendant. Both the Courts below have granted a mandatory injunction to the plaintiff because they came to the conclusion that the wall belonging to the plaintiff was entitled to receive lateral support from the defendant's adjoining wall and that the ditch which had been recently dug by defendant No. 1 on his land had materially affected this lateral support. 2. The property in question is situated at Rajpipla. The plaintiff owns a 'wada' to the south of which is a public gutter and to the south of the gutter is another residential house of the plaintiff. The defendant owns his 'wada' to the north of the plaintiff's 'wada' and he too owns a residential house. In about 1945, the plaintiff built the house in question with its northern wall constructed on the extreme northern limit of his 'wada.' In the presen...
The State Vs. Alisaheb Kashim Tamboli
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Bom209; (1955)57BOMLR135; 1955CriLJ932; ILR1955Bom624; (1955)IILLJ182Bom
Dixit, J.1. This is a group of four appeals, each of which arises from a distinct set of facts but all of which raise common questions under the Factories Act, 1948. Before setting out the questions raised, it may be convenient first to refer to the facts in each appeal.2. In Criminal Appeal No. 805, the facts are these. The respondent is the manager of a factory called 'Pistol Bidi Factory', situated at 943-E Ward. 6th Line, Shahnpuri, Kolhapur. One V. M. Mardhekar, Junior Inspector of Factories, visited this factory on 13-9-1952, at 2-30 p.m. along with one M. V. Ponkshe, Government Labour Officer and Additional Inspector of Factories, Kolhapur. It was alleged that 110 workers wore working in the factory at the time of the visit, but the register of leave with wages (Form No. 18) in respect of a worker named Airavan Subrao Ghugre was not maintained in the factory and the worker was not provided with a leave book (Form No. 19). Ghugrewas working in the factory for about five years. Th...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Vs. Asiatic Textile Co. Ltd., ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Bom198; (1955)57BOMLR105; [1955]27ITR315(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. The question that arises on this reference is whether a receipt of Rs. 25 lacs was a capital or a revenue receipt. This question has vexed and troubled many Judges and many Courts and in Barr, Crombie & Co. Ltd. v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue Lord President Normand at page 60 points out : 'It has been truly said that every case must be considered on its own facts, and that no legal criterion for distinguishing between capital payments and income payments is readily applicable. Therefore, though we have had a considerable citation of cases, I do not propose to refer to more than a few of them.' 2. Notwithstanding this warning counsel go on citing cases and it is the duty of the Court to consider them although the Court has to observe that each case must be decided on its own facts. 3. Now, the facts here are an illustration of high finance, in this case at its highest, and one must confess that the manipulations which high finance requires leave one completely bewilde...
The State Vs. Ismailkhan Ahmedkhan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-1954
Reported in: (1955)57BOMLR48
Chainani, J.1. This appeal involves a question as to the interpretation of Section 390 of the City of Bombay Municipal Act, 1888. The opponent was granted permission under Sub-section (2) of Section 390 to work a flour mill at 155, Bapty Road. On March 7, 1953, the Municipal Commissioner wrote to him a letter exh. B in which he informed the opponent that the permission granted to him to conduct the flour mill had been revoked 'as his mill was a nuisance to the locality.' The Municipal Commissioner also asked the opponent to stop the working of the flour mill forthwith. The opponent ignored this letter and continued to work the mill. On April 2, 1953, a complaint was therefore filed against the opponent under Section 471 of the City of Bombay Municipal Act for working the mill on March 28, 1953, after the permission granted to him had been revoked, in contravention of the provisions of Sub-section (J) of Section 390.2. The opponent denied that this mill constituted a nuisance. He admitt...
Govind Kesheo Powar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-1954
Reported in: 1955CriLJ1275
ORDER1. The point raised in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is whether respondent 4 Shankar who has been declared elected .as a councillor of the Janapada Sabha, Pusad, at the election held on 14-12-1953 was disqualified from offering his candidature in view of Section 10 (m) C. P. and Berar Local Government Act which runs thus:10, No person shall be eligible for election or selection or appointment as a councillor of a Sabha, if such person x x x(m) has been sentenced by any Court to imprisonment or whipping for an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding six months, or to transportation;It is said on behalf of the petitioner that Shankar was convicted under Rule 72(4), Defence of Hyderabad Rules by a Magistrate in the Hyderabad State-sometime in the year 1943 and sentenced to payl a fine of Rs. 10/- and to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the Court. It is Further said that the offence under the aforesaid provision is punishable with impriso...
Basalingappa Sangappa Nesargi Vs. the Province of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-15-1954
Reported in: (1955)57BOMLR235
Gajendragadkar, J.1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiff and it raises a short and interesting question of law. The land in suit is survey No. 46. It measures 6 acres and 17 gunthas and was assessed at Rs. 7-12-0 as land held for agricultural purposes. It came to the notice of the Revenue authorities that the whole of this land was being used for the purpose of holding a cattle market for 6 months on every Wednesday. That is why an enquiry was made and it was found that the land was being used for non-agricultural purposes. On that finding, the Prant Officer passed an order on September 27, 1943, directing that the holder should pay non-agricultural assessment on this land at the rate of Rs. 40-8-0 for 10 years past. This came to Ra. 405. The Prant Officer further directed that the holder should pay a fine of Rs. 202-8-0. This order was challenged by the holder by an appeal to the Collector, but the Collector confirmed the order passed by the Prant Officer and dismissed the appeal...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »