Mumbai Court December 1955 Judgments
Eastern Engineers Vs. the State of Bombay
Court: Sales Tax Tribunal STT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-31-1955
Reported in: 19567STC229Tribunal
1. The applicants who are a firm of engineers known as Messrs. Eastern Engineers, Bombay, were assessed to special tax under Section 6 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act of 1946 in respect of the period 1st January, 1950, to 31st March, 1951, on account of certain passenger lifts installed by them at a number of premises at Bombay. The entry in Schedule I to the said Act under which they were so assessed is entry 21, which reads thus : "Domestic electrical appliances other than torches, torch cells, filament lighting bulbs and fans." 20 per cent of the total costs incurred on the said installation was deducted as representing the labour charges, etc. In the appeal from the order of assessment made by the Sales Tax Officer it was argued on behalf of the applicants that passenger lifts not being specifically mentioned in entry 21 and lifts not being domestic electrical appliances, the assessing officer had wrongly applied the said entry 21. The Assistant Collector dismissed the appeal, holding...
Tag this Judgment!Thana Borough Municipality Vs. Akbaralli Hassanally
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-23-1955
Reported in: AIR1957Bom34; (1956)58BOMLR636
1. The respondent in the present appeal had applied for permission to construct a new building in his Tika No. 11 C. S. Nos. 57, 58, 60 and 61 of Thana, and the permission was granted to him subject to certain conditions on 27-3-1948. On 24-8-1948 the respondent applied for permission to build one more floor on the entire chawl and to provide the building with privies.On 13-10-1948 the Chief Officer granted permission to the defendant to construct the first floor, but told the defendant that he must construct privies on the site sanctioned on 27-3-1948 and not at any other place. Then on 10-11-1948 the respondent applied for permission to add one more floor, that is, a second floor to the above chawl and for permission to build 12 new privies at a place different from that sanctioned on the 25-11-1948.The Chief Officer refused to give the respondent permission to do either of these things. His reason so far as the first request was concerned was that bye-law No. 20 prevented the Chief ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramchandra Vithal Vs. Borough Municipality Bhusawal and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-23-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom408
Chagla, C.J. 1. The petitioner, who at present is the President of the Borough Municipality, Bhusawal, obtained from the Municipality in 1938 a plot of land; on which a temporary structure was constructed by the Municipality. A lease was executed in favour of the petitioner by the Municipality for four years. This lease was renewed in 1942 for a further period of five years and in 1947 there was a further lease for seven, years, the rent being increased by 30 per cent.The petitioner wanted on the expiry of thelease in 1954, to apply for a further renewal ofthe lease, and the Municipality had to considerthe application of the petitioner and the applications of four other applicants who also wanted tolease this particular plot of land. Two of these applicants subsequently withdrew their applications, but the applications of the other two applicants remained, and it appears from the record that these two applicants were prepared to pay much higher rent than the petitioner was prepared to ...
Tag this Judgment!Parappa Ningappa Khaded and anr. Vs. Mallappa Kallappa and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-22-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom332; (1956)58BOMLR404; ILR1956Bom546
Chagla, C.J.1. This Pull Bench has been constituted to decide the vexed question of the interest that an alienee takes in joint family property unauthorisedly alienated by the father, and the few facts which are necessary to state in order to decide that Question are that there was an alienation by the father, who is defendant 1, in favour of defendant 2, and the alienation was challenged by his son plaintiff 1 and by his step mother plaintiff 2 who was the second wife of defendant 1.The suit that was filed by the two plaintiffs was for partition and they claimed in the suit two-thirds share in the properties alienated by defendant 1.2. The question that we have to consider is, what is the share to which the plaintiffs are entitled in the property which was alienated by de. fendant 1? An earlier Pull Bench was constituted, the Judgment of which is reported in -- 'Sakarehand Satidas v. Narayan Savla', : AIR1951Bom10 , and there it was held that under Hindu law the share of the alienee o...
Tag this Judgment!Anant Bhagoji Vs. CaptaIn Superintendent Indian Naval Dockyard, Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-22-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom391
Shah, J. 1. This is an application filed by one Anant Bhagoji against an order passed by the Court of Small Causes at Bombay in Appeal No. 16 of 1953 challenging the order dismissing his application passed by the Payment of Wages Authority.2. The facts which give rise to this revision application are few and simple. In the year 1940, the petitioner was employed as a painter in the Indian Naval Dockyard on a daily wage of Re. 1-12-0. Prior to the introduction of the prescribed scales laid down in the Ministry of Defence Notification No. 2972 dated 31-12-1947, the petitioner was earning Rs. 2-10-0 per day.In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 241(2), Government of India Act, 1935, the Government of India published the Civilians in the Defence Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 1947, by Notification No. 2972 dated 31-12-1917 and the petitioner was asked compulsorily to elect to be governed by those rules. The petitioner elected to be governed by those rules.As a result of the elec...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnaji Anant Joshi Vs. Bhalchandra Anant Patwardhan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-22-1955
Reported in: (1956)58BOMLR624
Bavdekar, J.1. This is a second appeal arising from execution of a decree upon an award passed on April 9, 1935, and the question which falls for determination is whether the application for execution from which it arises was in time2. The decree was a decree for money, but three survey Nos. had been charged, for the decretal amount. In order to save limitation, the decree-holders relied upon two endorsements signed by the judgment-debtors. The first endorsement was with regard to payment of Rs. 5 on January 19, 1939, and the second endorsement was similarly for the payment of Rs. 5 on August 9, 1941. It is not in dispute that the first endorsement amounted to an acknowledgment of liability and saved limitation. That endorsement also bears the proper stamp. The second endorsement does not however bear one. An objection to its admissibility into evidence on the ground that it is not stamped does not appear to have been taken in the trial Court, nor was it taken in the first appellate Co...
Tag this Judgment!Bhaskar Manilal and ors. Vs. Narandas Chunilal Soni and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-22-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom608
ORDER1. This is a revisional application by the defendants against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge. Senior Division, Ahmedabad, directing that certain additional issues should be raised on condition, that the defendants deposited in Court within a week Rs. 1,000/- towards the costs of the suit of the plaintiffs to be paid to them in case they succeeded. It is the latter part of the order to which exception is taken by Mr. Thakor on behalf of the defendants.2. It is well settled that in its revisional jurisdiction this Court does not usually interfere with interlocutory orders. The framing of issues or the refusal to frame issues, granting a request for amendment of the pleadings or refusing to allow amendment of the pleadings, are matters which are in the discretion of the learned trial Judge, and the decision of the learned trial Judge in such discretionary matters is not usually open to be revised by this Court. But where, in exercising his discretionary powers, the learn...
Tag this Judgment!Durgaben Manibhai Makanji Vs. Moria Bavia
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-22-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom706; (1956)58BOMLR451; ILR1956Bom468
Chagla, C.J. 1. This petition raises an important question as to the powers of a Collector under Section 84, Tenancy Act. It would appear that the first opponent is the tenant of the petitioner and according to the petitioner, the name of the first opponent's father appeared as a protected tenant in the record of rights. The father died some time in May 1952, and it is the case of the petitioner that opponent 1 surrendered the lease.The petitioner approached the Mamlatdar and obtained an order under Section 29(2). According to the petitioner he had already obtained possession of the land from opponent 1 and he got the possession confirmed by the order of the Mamlatdar. The case of the tenant was that notwithstanding the order of the Mamlatdar he in fact continued to be in possession and he was only dispossessed 6y the landlord sometime in 1954. Thereupon he approached the Collector and the Collector passed an order under Section 34 summarily evicting the petitioner. The petitioner appr...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Ishwarlal Chhaganlal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-21-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom690; (1956)58BOMLR358; 1956CriLJ1295; ILR1956Bom535
Chagla, C.J. 1. The question referred to this Full Bench is whether Rule 6(B) (i) framed by the Government under the Bombay Prevention Of Adulteration Act, 1925, is ultra vires. 2. The accused in the case which gives rise to this Pull Bench was charged under Section 4(1)(a) & (b) of the Bombay Prevention of Adulteration Act and he was convicted by the Special Judicial Magistrate, Surat. On appeal he was acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge and Government came here In appeal against the decision of the learned Sessions Judge, and the Bench dealing with this appeal found it necessary that in view of a certain judgment of this Court the question as to the vires of this rule should be considered by a Pull Bench. 3. The commodity in respect of which the accused was charged is ghee and when we turn to 8. 4 the offence is constituted by selling or causing to be sold or offering for sale to the prejudice of the purchaser any article of food which is not of the nature, substance or quality d...
Tag this Judgment!Ambalal Harjivandas Vs. Jani Chandulal Vidyaram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom347; (1956)58BOMLR399; ILR1956Bom458b
ORDER1. This Revisional application raised a short point of limitation winch is of some importance for similar claims in the district of Baroda, The petitioner filed a suit in tile Court, of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kadi, to recover Rs. 449/- on a promissory note.The promissory note had been executed in favour of the petitioner on 18-5-1918. On 23-6-1951 there was an acknowledgment by part-payment or the principal amount and so the petitioner's case was that the suit filed by him on 18-6-1954 was within time. The learned trial Judge has held that the suit is barred by limitation and so the petitioner's claim has been dismissed. Mr. Shastri for the petitioner contends that, in coming to the conclusion that the suit was barred by limitation, the learned Judge has misconstrued the effect of the provisions contained in Clause 12 of the Baroda State (Application of Laws) Order, 1949.2. It is common ground that a suit on a promissory note under the law of limitation prevailing in Ba...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »