Mumbai Court September 1955 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.
Borough Municipality, Chalisgaon Vs. Chalisgaon Shree Laxminarayan Mil ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom646
1. The Borough Municipality of Chalisgaon issued a bill for Rs. 1493-6-0 against the Challsgaon Shri Laxminarayan Mills Company, Limited for recovery of consolidated property tax. Instead of paying the amount, the Mills filed suit No. 308 of 1951 in the Court of the Civil Judge Junior Division. Chalisgaon for a declaration that the bill sent by the defendant to the plaintiff was not legal and for a declaration that the defendant Municipality had no right to recover the amount of the bill and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant Municipality from recovering the amount of the bill.Alternatively, it was prayed that if it was held that the rules framed by the Municipality were legal, the plaintiff claimed a declaration that the Municipality had no right to levy such part ot the taxes as had been increased and for a permanent injunction restraining them from recovering such increased part of the taxes'.2. The defendant Municipality resisted the suit and contended inter alia ...
Elphinstone Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of In ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-1955
Reported in: (1956)58BOMLR32; [1955]28ITR811(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. The working of the assessee company for the accounting year 1950 resulted in a loss and therefore for the assessment year 1951-52 the assessee company was not liable to pay any tax. In that very year the assessee company declared dividends amounting to Rs. 3,29,062 in respect of the year 1950, and the contention of the Department was that this sum constituted excess dividend and was liable to pay tax, and the two questions that have been raised by the Tribunal which we have to consider are (1) whether the assessee company was liable to pay additional income-tax, and (2) if the answer to question (1) is in the affirmative, whether the levy of the additional tax was ultra vires. 2. In order to understand the contention of the assessee it is necessary as it sometimes is, to go back to the first principles of the Income-tax Act. Section 3 is the charging section and that section provides : 'Where any Central Act enacts that income-tax shall be charged for any year at any rat...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Vs. Jalgaon Electric Supply Co ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-1955
Reported in: (1956)58BOMLR42; [1955]28ITR826(Bom)
Chagla, C.J. 1. This reference also raises a question with regard to the payment of additional income-tax assessed on the basis of excess dividend paid by the assessee company. The facts of this reference are different from the facts of the two references which we have just decided : (I.T.R. 31 of 1954 and R.A. No. 56 of 1954). In this case the assessment years are 1949-50 and 1950-51, and the company had a total income with regard to each of these two years. In the first year the income was Rs. 3,423, and for the next year Rs. 3,312 and in the two years the company declared dividends in 1949-50 Rs. 46,084 and in 1950-51 Rs. 56,326 : and therefore according to the computation under the proviso to Part B of the Finance Act there was a declaration of excess dividend to the extent of Rs. 45,600 in the case of the assessment year 1949-50 and Rs. 53,360 in the assessment year 1950-51, and the taxing authorities wanted to impose an additional tax at the rate of five annas a rupee on both the...
State of M.P. Vs. Shanker Gangaram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-1955
Reported in: 1956CriLJ908
ORDER1. This is a reference under Section 307, Criminal P.C. by the Sessions Judge, Amravati, against the verdict of the Jury. The Jury have unanimously found the accused (non-applicant) guilty under Section 308 Penal Code. The Sessions Judge is of the view that the conviction ought to be under Section 307, Penal Code.2. The accused was committed to the Court of Session for trial under Section 307, Penal Code, for making a murderous assault on Kashiram (P.W. 1) on 22-1-1955 with the dagger, Article F, which he recovered from his house. The injuries caused to Kashiram were the following:(1) Incised wound 2' x 3/4' x 3/4' situated on the left side of back just 4' below the interior angle of the left scapula and 2' away from the middle line of back.(2) Incised wound 1' x 3/4' x 3/4' on the left side of back just 1' below the 1st injury.(3) Abrasion 1/2' x 1/2' on the palmer aspect of the left hand in the middle portion.Dr. Bende (P. W. 13), who stitched the wounds, found that the pulse of...
Dhibi Shankarji Shamalji Vs. Patel Ratilal Rambhal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom443
Dixit, J.1. This appeal arises from a suit filed by the plaintiff to obtain specific performance of an agreement of sale and, in the alternative, for damages for its breach. The facts leading up to the suit may have to be stated in some detail. 2. One Bai Kesar, widow of Kishore Muljibhai Patel, was the owner of a land bearing s. No. 384, admeasuring 9 acres and 36 gunthas of which 3 Gunthas were Kharab. On 11-6-1931, Bai Kesar sold a portion of Survey No. 384 admeasuring 3 acres and 18 gunthas to one Jesaji Chhotaji. On 21-1-1932 Bai Kesar sold to the defendant a portion of that survey number admeasuring 6 acres and 12 gunthas for Rs. 13,479-4-0. In 1940, Bai Kesar sold a portion of that very land admeasuring 6 gunthas to one Hargovind for Rs. 2,000/-. Then on 5-1-1946, Jesaji Chhotaji sold the land purchased by him in 1931 to one Chandulal and one Amrutlal. 3. The defendant who has become the owner of a portion of S. No. 384 admeasuring 6 acres and 12 gunthas, entered into two transa...
The Ahmedabad Manufacturing and Calico Printing Co. Ltd. Vs. Municipal ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-08-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom117
Chagla, C.J. 1. This is a most unfortunate controversy between the petitioner company and the Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad. It is really a matter of regret that the matter should have come to Court and the matter should have been contested by both the petitioner company and the Municipality. It appears that the petitioner company submitted plans for construction of nine buildings. The buildings were sheds near Weigh Bridge, extension to Drawing in Department, R. C. C. Slab and Bobbin Room, Loft over Grey and Sin-gening Beam Store attached to Winding and Warping, Dining Shed attached to 'B' Spinning, Cloth Godown Extension, Humidity Ducts and Fan Room for Spinning, and Cheese Dyeing Department Extension, and various requisitions which were made by the Ahmedabad Municipality were complied with. But notwithstanding the compliance by the petitioners of these requisitions, the Municipality refused sanction to the petitioners to construct these buildings and the petitioners...
State of Bombay Vs. R.S. Phadtare
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-08-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom496; [1956]7STC495(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. This is a reference under the Sales Tax Act and the short question that arises for our determination is whether sugarcane is a fresh vegetable which is exempted from the provisions of the Sales Tax Act. We are concerned with the Act V. of 1946. and under Section 7 goods which were specified in the first column of Schedule II were exempted from the Sales Tax, and when we turn to this Schedule, item 8 is 'Fresh vegetables' and item 9 is 'Fresh fruits', and the contention ofthe assessee was that 'sugarcane' was a 'fresh vegetable' and therefore exempted from the tax. The Sales Tax Tribunal has accepted this contention, and the State has come on this reference.2. 'Vegetable' is not defined in the Act and therefore it is possible to put upon that expression one of two constructions, either we might put upon 'vegetable' a construction which is consistent with the plain and natural meaning in the English language or we might put a construction which would give to that, expressi...
Godavaribai Vs. Kashiram Kautik Falak and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom752; (1955)57BOMLR1111; ILR1956Bom148
Gajendragadkar, J.1. This is an application for the issue of a writ under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and it raises an interesting question as to the effect of the provisions contained in Section 37, Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The land in question is survey No. 332/1. It originally belonged to Shankar Bhavsar. Shankar Bhavsar gave notice to his tenant under Section 34 of the Act.Subsequent to the notice he obtained possession of the land from the tenant on the ground that he required the said land bona fide for his personal cultivation. The order in favour of the landlord was passed on 30-7-1951. Thereafter the landlord exchanged this land for another land.Godavaribai w/o Jayaram Zope gave a land of her own to the landlord and obtained the present land in lien of it for herself The tenant then moved the Mamlatdar under Section 37 of the Act. He alleged that since the landlord had ceased to cultivate the land personally an order should be passed agains...
Ratanlal Acharatlalshet Vs. Nanabhai Miyabhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom175
Dixit, J. 1. This appeal arises from a suit to recover the amount of earnest money paid under an agreement of sate. The facts leading up to the suit are shortly these.2. The property in suit is Final Plot No. 516/1 with a storied bungalow therein. This property was at one time, described as Plot No. 1 of City Survey No. 125 A. It was part of a bigger property owned by a Mahomedan family and there was on 17-3-1933, a partition between the members of the family and the partition is evidenced by a document.Under the partition property now known as Final Plot No. 516/1 fell to the share of one Atekabai & property now known as Final Plot No. 516/2 fell to the share of one Alihussein. On 26-7-1937 Atekabai executed a deed of gift of her property in favour of the defendant Nanabhai and the deed is Ex. 65 in the case. On 14-6-1944 Alihussein executed in favour of one Narandas a deed of sale in respect of Final Plot No. 516/2.3. On 9-12-1947 the defendant executed in favour of the plaintiff an ...
Bai Dahi Vs. Ghanashyam Haridas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-01-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom102
1. These two revision applications arise out of two proceedings which were originally filed in the Court of Small Causes at Baroda. Civil Revision Application No. 1564 of 1953 arises out of Small Cause Suit No. 1425 of 1950 filed by the plaintiff on 1-12-1950 for an order against the defendant Bai Dahi in ejectment on the allegations that the defendant was a tenant, that she was in arrears of rent, and that her conduct amounted to a nuisance to the neighbourhood. 2. Small Cause Suit No. 1210 of 1950 out of which Civil Revision Application No. 1565 of 1953 arises was filed by the plaintiff on 5-10-1950, for a decree for recovery of rent which had fallen in arrears. The claim of the plaintiff in suit No. 1425 of 1950 was for recovery of Rs. 2836-9-3 from the defendant. The two suits were resisted by the defendant Bai Dahi in the trial Court. The defendant contended that she was not in arrears, that in any event the plaintiff was not entitled to file a suit forpossession of property again...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »