Mumbai Court February 1956 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.
Baroda Borough Municipality Vs. their Workmen (Bhangi Kamdars)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1956
Reported in: (1956)IILLJ548Bom
Acts/Rules/Orders: Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 12(5); Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925 - Section 58AWARD1. This industrial dispute between the Baroda Borough Municipality, Baroda, and the workmen (Bhangi Kamdars) employed under it, was referred under Sub-section (5) of S. 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by the Government of Bombay, Development Department Order No. AJB. 2555, dated 19 April, 1955, for adjudication to the tribunal consisting of Sri Salim M. Merchant. As the services of Sri Merchant have ceased to be available the Government, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (2) of S. 8 of the Act, was pleased to appoint me in his place. The demand of the workmen is stated in the schedule annexed to the said order of reference and it is as follows :- Schedule Provident fund should be deducted on the basis 1/12 of yearly wages. 2. After the usual notices were issued the statement of claim on behalf of the workmen concerned was filed on 27 May 1955 ...
Shrinivas Ganesh Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Bom455; (1956)58BOMLR673; ILR1956Bom767; (1957)IILLJ189Bom
Chagla, C.J.1. This is an appeal by an employee of the Military Accounts Department whose services were dispensed with, and he filed a suit from which this appeal arises contending that the order discharging him was not a valid order and that he continued to be in service of the Department. The appellant passed the entrance examination in June 1941, obtained a medical certificate of fitness on 24-10-1941 and he was appointed a clerk on the same date in the Military Accounts Department.In January 1948 he was transferred to Bombay and he served in the office of the Controller of Naval Accounts. He continued to serve in this Department till 8-12-1948 when he was dis-charged. The order of discharge states :'Mr. S. G. Chandorkar temporary U. D. Clerk of this office, having been declared medically unfit for further service in the Military Accounts Department by the Naval Medical Board, is discharged from service with effect from 6th December 1948.'It is this order which is being challenged b...
S.D. Kulkarni and ors. Vs. Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Bom704; [1956]7STC385(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. By the petition which came up for hearing before Coyajee J. the petitioners challenged the validity of a notice issued by the Sales Tax Officer on the 28-2-1955 under Section 11A, Bombay Sales Tax Act of 1945 calling upon the petitioners to make a return in connection with escaped assessment for the period 1-4-1949 to 31-10-1952.Act 3 of 1933 which is the present Act came into force on 25-3-1953 and during the relevant period with which we are concerned the Act in force was Act 5 of 1946, and the question which the learned Judge had to consider and decide was whether the notice of re-assessment with regard to escaped assessment should have been served under the old Act or under the new Act.2. The Act of 1953 by Section 48(1) deals with the repeal of the old Act, and Sub-section (2) of that section provides:'Notwithstanding the repeal of the said Act and the said entries, the said repeal shall not affect or be deemed to affect-- (i) any right, title, obligation or liabili...
Vasantrao Shankerrao Vs. State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Bom483
ORDERCoyajee, J.1. This petition is presented against an order of the Government of Bombay dated 11-3-1955 directing removal of the petitioner who was a Superintendent of Excise on suspension, from Government service with effect from that date. With that order was appended the approval of the Public Service Commission.The petitioner joined the Excise Department in 1934 and he had served with a certain amount of efficiency and had risen to the rank of a Superintendent by 1948. On 4-2-1948 he was served with an order suspending him from service until further orders. There is no doubt that no preliminary enquiry was held prior to his suspension. But it has been held that no serious challenge can be made to the order suspending him pending further enquiry.It appears however that apart altogether from this suspension on 11-3-1948, that is when he wag under suspension, he was arrested by the Police and investigations were ordered against him. After nearly 14 months of investigation the petit...
The State Vs. Ibrahim Adam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Bom593; (1956)58BOMLR477; 1956CriLJ1063; ILR1956Bom635
Gajendragadkar, J.1. Does the over-stay in India of the respondent who is a Pakistani national, after the period prescribed in his visa has expired, amount to a contravention punishable under Rule 6(a) of the Indian Passport Rules 1950. This is the short point of law which arises in this appeal. 2. The facts giving rise to this point are not in dispute. The respondent is a Pakistani national and he holds a Pakistani passport No. 124981 issued at Karachi on 7-7-1953. He entered India on 24-2-1954 with Category 'C' visa No. 8809 dated 17-2-54 issued at the Indian High Commission at Karachi. This visa was valid only during the period ending 16-5-1954. Having entered India with this visa, the respondent obtained permission to continue his stay in India up to 6-6-1954 from the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Special Branch, C. I. D., Bombay. Two further extensions were also granted to him at his request by the Passport Officer to the Government of Bombay. The last extension granted to the re...
Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. Ltd Vs. LewellIn (inspector of Taxes)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-1956
Reported in: [1957]31ITR338(Bom)
Lord Evershed M.R., J.1. It may be truly said as a general proposition that the bulk of those who are liable to pay income-tax are the subjects of Her Majesty resident in the United Kingdom. But there are some few cases in which persons not subjects of Her Majesty, and not indeed resident in the United Kingdom, may pay the tax. Thus, to refer to the Income-Tax Act which is appropriate to this case, the Income-Tax Act, 1918, Schedule D, paragraph 1, of that Act provides : 'Tax under this Schedule shall be charged in respect of - (a) The annual profits or gains arising or accruing - ... (iii) to any person, whether a British subject or not, although not resident in the United Kingdom....... from any trade, profession, employment, or vocation exercised within the United Kingdom.' 2. That tax liability of foreign non-residents is qualified and governed as regards assessment by certain of the General Rules - and again I refer only to those material to the present case - applicable to Schedu...
East and West Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kamala Jayantilal Mehta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Bom537; (1956)58BOMLR660; ILR1956Bom619
Chagla, C.J.1. The defendant, who is the respondent before us, was at alt material times a shareholder of the plaintiff company who are the appellants. The plaintiff company filed a suit, out of which this appeal arises, to recover from the defendant a sum of Rs. 4,835/- being the amount due in respect of calls made by the company and interest thereon. The contention of the defendant was that the call was not validly made. That contention was accepted by the trial Court which proceeded to dismiss the plaintiffs' suit. The appellants have now come in appeal.2. At a meeting of the board of directors held on 3-3-1948 the directors resolved that a further call of Rs. 40/- per share on B Class shares of the company and a notice of one month be given to all B class shareholders to pay the same. The B class shares are of the face value of Rs. 50/- andRs. 10/- were paid up, and the defendant held 100 B class shares of this company. Another meeting of the board of directors was held on 22-6-194...
State Vs. Maheboob Ali Khan Nawab Ali Khan and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Bom548; 1956CriLJ983
Gajendragadkar, J.1. This is an application by the State against the order passed by the learned Presidency Magistrate, 2nd Court, Mazagaon Bombay, releasing 10 out of 11 accused persons in Criminal Case No. 1281/P of 1055. A charge-sheet has been filed against 11 persons and the prosecution case appears to be that these 11 persons have committed offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 324, 323 along with Sections 143, 147 and 149 read with Section 109, I.P.C.Fending inquiry before the learned presidency Magistrate an application was made by the accused for bail. The Prosecutor strongly opposed the granting of bail to any of the accused persons in this case. The learned Magistrate however took the view that opposition to the granting or bail was justified only in the case of accused No. 9.In respect of the rest of the accused he was inclined to accept their prayer for bail and an order for releasing them on bail or different terms as to surety has accordingly been passed on 21-12-...
Chimanlal and ors. Vs. Parashar Singh and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1956
Reported in: 1957CriLJ1430
ORDERChoudhuri, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated 12-2-1955 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Balaghat. in Criminal Revision No. 89 of 1954 refusing to interfere with the order dated 18-10-1954 passed by the Magistrate First Class, Waraseoni, in Criminal Case No. 100 of 1954.2. The non-applicant No. 1 has filed a complaint under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of the Magistrate First Class, Waraseoni. The two applicants, who are the accused in the criminal case, were ordered to be summoned for 24-8-1954. On that date, the applicant No. 2 appeared through Shri Khadilkar pleader, who applied for his exemption from personal appearance on the ground that he is busy in connection with his business. Applicant No. 1 was not served, and so a fresh summons was ordered to be issued to him. The case was fixed for 30-9-1954. On that date, the applicant No. 1 was served but was absent. He was represented by Shri Khadilkar, who made an application on his...
Raghunath Laxman Parkale Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Bom580; 1956CriLJ987
ORDER1. This is an application for revision from the conviction of the applicant of an offence under Section 353, Penal Code.2. It appears from the evidence that the applicant was occupying a house belonging to one Ghorpade in the village of Undavadi, Taluka Baramati, in the Poona District. The Gram Panchayat of the village was entitled to levy a tax of 15 annas under the provisions of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1933, and not knowing the address of the owner of the house who was not living in the village they appear to have issued bills and demand notices directed to the owner but meant for delivery to the applicant.The applicant refused to accept these bills, whereupon they were affixed to the outer door of the house. Even then the tax was not paid, whereupon on 23-2-1954 when the applicant was about to shift to the adjoining village Anjangaon, which is at a distance of four miles, together with all his belongings, the Gram Panchayat Issued a distress warrant under the provisi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »