Mumbai Court March 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.
Vinayak Gopal Limaye Vs. Laxman Kashinath Athavale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Bom94; (1956)58BOMLR592; ILR1956Bom827
Gajendragadkar, J.1. These two civil revisional applications along with tour others have been ordered to be placed before a Division Bench because it appeared that they raised a common question of law under Section 6 Sub-section (1) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947). In all these cases, one of the questions which arose for decision in the Courts below was whether the lease in question attracted the provisions of the Rent Act, and naturally the decision of this question depended on the construction of Section 6(1). Section 6 Sub-section (1) provides that, in areas specified in Schedule I, Part II of the Act shall apply to premises let for residence, education, business, trade or storage. If the lease in question can be regarded as falling within the purview of Section 6(1) then the provisions of Part II would apply. If, on the other hand, the lease does not fall within Section 6(1), the provisions of Part II would be inapplicable. All the leases...
Chintaman Dhundiraj Vs. Sadguru Narayan Maharaj Datta Sansthan and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Bom553
Shah, J.1. Special Civil Suit No. 208 of 1947 filed by the plaintiff Shrimant H.H. Sir Chintaman Dhundiraj alias Appasaheb Patwardhan against the defendants for a decree for Rs. 35,000 from the estate of defendant 1 with the defendants or in the alternative for a decree for Rs. 20,000 with interest from 10-11-1944 has been dismissed. The plaintiff has appealed to this Court.2. It was the plaintiff's case that Shri Sadguru Narayan Maharaj Kedgaonkar established an institution described as Shri Sadguru Narayan Maharaj Datta Sansthan and Datta Mandir, Ked-gaon, Bet Taluka Bhimthadi, District Poona; that during his lifetime Shri Narayan Maharaj was doing daily and occasional worship of Shri Datta and big festivals and puja of Shri Satyanarayan were performed on a large scale; that Sansthan devotees were paying cash or offering various gifts on several occasions and from these gifts and offerings the expenses of the Sansthan were met; that Shri Narayan Maharaj thought it expedient to make a...
Kikabhai Abdulali Vs. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1956
Reported in: [1957]32ITR762(Bom)
Chagla, C.J. 1. A firm by the name of Gokaldas Dayalji was assessed to tax as an unregistered firm and Gokaldas, the fourth respondent before us, appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner contending that the assessment should have been on himself as an individual and not on the firm, the contention being based on his allegation that the firm was a proprietary firm and not a partnership firm. The appeal preferred by Gokaldas was dismissed. On the 3rd of March, `48, the property of the petitioner was attached, it appearing that the petitioner was shown as a partner along with Gokaldas and others in a partnership deed which constituted the firm, and , the Income-tax authorities were proceeding against the petitioner as a partner in that firm. The petitioner thereupon preferred an appeal to the Tribunal denying his ability to be assessed and contending that he was not a partner in the firm. The Tribunal considered the preliminary question whether the appeal of the petitioner was com...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i, Bombay Vs. Jagannath Kisonl ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1956
Reported in: [1956]30ITR654(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. The question that arises on this reference is whether a certain amount is an allowable deduction under section 10(2) (xv) of the Income-tax Act or in any event it is a business loss which can be deducted for the purpose of ascertaining the true profits of the assessee. 2. The assessee is a commission agent and he along with one Kishorilal borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 from a bank on joint and several liability. Rupees 50,000 out of this sum were taken by the assessee for his business and Rs. 50,000 were taken by Kishorilal. Kishorilal failed to meet his obligation and was adjudicated insolvent. Therefore under the joint and several liability the assessee had to pay to the bank the whole amount of Rs. 1,00,000. In the insolvency of Kishorilal the assessee received a sum of Rs. 18,805 and he therefore claimed the balance of Rs. 31,740 for the assessment year 1951-52, after taking into consideration certain interest and insolvency expenses and the Tribunal held that this w...
Manubhai Gordhandas Vs. Arvind Mills Company Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1956
Reported in: (1956)IILLJ554Bom
ORDER1. This is an appeal against an order of Sri N. M. Majmudar, Judge, First Labour Court, Ahmedabad, by Manubhai Gordhandas rejecting the application of the appellant. It appears that the respondent company had received information that certain workers employed by them were practising double employment by attending the New Swadeshi Mills in the third shift commencing from 12 midnight. The manager, therefore, ordered the labour officer, Sri H. K. Jani, to go to the New Swadeshi Mills and to detect them working in the third shift if possible. Thereupon Sri Jani attended the New Swadeshi Mills on 14 October, 1954, at 1-00 a.m. midnight and by the help of a timekeeper of the said mills found out three persons working in the mills in the third shift by giving wrong names. The appellant was one of them and he worked in the New Swadeshi Mills as Mukeshchandra Manubhai. A show-cause notice was given and an inquiry was held thereafter. The show-cause notice alleged that an information was re...
Rashtriya Girni Kamgar Sangh Vs. Khandesh Spinning and Weaving Mills C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1956
Reported in: (1956)IILLJ275Bom
Acts/Rules/Orders: Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 - Section 73AAWARD1. This is a reference under S. 73A of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, made by the Rashtriya Girni Kamgar Sangh, Jalgaon (East Khandesh), which is a registered union being a representative of the employees. The sangh gave a notice of change in form L to the second party, namely, the Khandesh Spinning Weaving Mills Company, Ltd., Jalgaon (East Khandesh), on 4 June, 1955, demanding an adequate bonus for the year, 1954, to be paid to all the employees including clerks and supervisory staff. Conciliation proceedings commenced but the second party was not agreeable to pay any bonus to the employees. The conciliator under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act issued a certificate on 7 November 1955 stating that the matter was not capable of being settled by conciliation. * * * 2. The dispute between the parties is confined only to two points - (1) allowance for rehabilitation and (2) return on reserves used...
Shree Changdeo Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Bom497; (1956)58BOMLR723; ILR1956Bom711; [1956]30ITR417(Bom)
1. A very short question arises on this reference as to whether at the relevant time the assessee could be deemed to be a company in which the public were substantially interested. The register of this company as the relevant date shows that 11 directors held 41-500 shares, the managing agency firm which was constituted by some of the directors held 2,300 shares, the Mysore Merchants Ltd., held 11, 880 shares, and three outsiders who were members of the public held 4,320 shajes.If the holding of the Mysore Merchants Ltd., can be considered to be a holding of members of the public, then this assessee company would not be a company in which the public were not substantially interested, and therefore the attempt of Mr. Palkhivala was to satisfy us that the shares held by Mysore Merchants Ltd., were shares held by members of the cublic. This view was not accepted by the Tribunal and hence this reference.2. Turning to Section 23A, Sub-section (1) provides that in the case of a company which...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City 1, Bombay Vs. Jagannath Kisonl ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Bom550; (1956)58BOMLR727; ILR1956Bom817
Chagla, C.J.1. The question that arises on this reference iswhether a certain amount is an allowable, deduction under Section 10(2) (xv), Income-tax Act or in anyevent it is a business loss which can be deductedfor the purpose of ascertaining the true profits ofthe assessee. 2. The assessee is a commission agent and he along with one Kisonlal borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- from a Bank on joint and several liability. Rupees 50,000/- out of this sum were taken by the assessee for his business and Rs, 50,000/-were taken by Kisonlal. Kisonlal failed to meet his obligation and was adjudicated insolvent. Therefore under the joint and several liability the assessee had to pay to the Bank the whole amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-.In the insolvency of Kisonlal the assessee received a sum of Rs. 18,805/- and he therefore claimed the balance of Rs. 31,740/- for the assessment year 1951-52, after taking into consideration certain interest and insolvency expenses and the Tribunal held that this was a pe...
Dhanjibhai Khiyashibhai Gujrathi Vs. Daulatbee Mard Najakali
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1956
Reported in: (1956)58BOMLR584
Gajendragadkar, J.1. This appeal arises from execution proceedings and it raises a short question of law under Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The question arises in this way : Survey No. 8 Shevgaon belonged to Kazi Mahamad. Kazi Mahamad entered into an agreement with Dhanjibhai and promised to execute a lease in favour of Dhanjibhai for 99 years. The lease was to come into operation from October 1, 1945. Contrary to this agreement however Kazi Mahamad executed a lease in favour of Mir Najakali for 75 years. That led to Civil Suit No. 429 of 1945 by Dhanjibhai, in which Dhanjibhai claimed specific performance of the agreement to lease. To this suit Kazi Mahamad was, impleaded as defendant No. 1 and his lessee Mir Najakali was impleaded as defendant No. 2. This suit ended in a decree in favour of the plaintiff on October 10, 1947. By the decree an order was passed calling upon defendant No. 1 to execute a lease in favour of the plaintiff. The decree fu...
indira Balkrishna Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay North, Kutch, ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Bom493; (1956)58BOMLR717; [1956]30ITR320(Bom)
Chagla, C.J. 1. One Balkrishna died on 11-11-1947 and the assessees before us are his three widows. They made a return of the income from the property which they inherited as his heirs for the assessment year 1950-51 and the total income they showed in this assessment year was Rs. 69,346/- of whichRs. 11,011/- was derived from property, Rs. 4,071/-from shares from a registered firm, Rs. 51,796/-from dividend, Rs. 2,343/- from interest on deposit, and Rs. 125/- from ground rent.The Income-tax Officer assessed the assessees as an association of persons, but he held that as far as their income from property was concerned the case fell under Section 9(3) and that income must be assessed separately to each of the three widows. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner on appeal confirmed this view of the Income-tax Officer.The Income-tax Tribunal took the same view and dismissed the appeal of the assessees. In dismissing the appeal it gave expression to the opinion that the view taken by the App...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »