Mumbai Court June 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.
State of Bombay Vs. Morarji Padamsey
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-1956
Reported in: [1956]7STC704(Bom)
Chagla, C.J. 1. A rather novel and ingenious contention was put forward by the assessee in this reference. The facts briefly are that the assessee registered his business under the Sales Tax Act on the 1st October, 1946, and conducted his business till the 2nd March, 1949. On that date he transferred the whole of his business as a going concern to a third party. The Sales Tax Officer assessed the assessee in respect of two periods, 1st October, 1946, to 31st March, 1947, and 1st April, 1947, to 1st March, 1949. It will be noticed that both these periods are antecedent to the date of transfer. The assessee admitted the correctness of the amount of assessment, but he denied his liability on the ground that as the business had been transferred by him the liability to pay tax with regard to the business done before the transfer was only upon the transferee and the transferor was absolved from his liability. The Tribunal accepted this contention and the taxing authority has come before us o...
Pitamber Dhondu Patil Vs. Bhagchand Ratanchand and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Bom9; (1956)58BOMLR797; ILR1956Bom925
Shah, J.1. The petitioner Pitamber Dhondu Patil preferred Tenancy Appeal No. 86 of 1954 against the order passed by the Mamlatdar, Amalner, in Tenancy Suit No. 78 of 1954. The District Deputy Collector summarily rejected the appeal after reading the papers and without giving a hearing to the petitioner or his Advocate. The petitioner preferred a revision application to the Bombay Revenue Tribunal and the Tribunal has expressed the view that the Collector was not bound to give a hearing to the petitioner before summarily dismissing the appeal.The Tribunal observed that there was no provision under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act about the procedure to be followed, by the Collector in entertaining & deciding appeals under the Tenancy Act and inasmuch as Section 209 Bombay Land Revenue Code provided for summary, dismissal of the appeals under that Code and further provided that no reasons need be given by the Collector when dismissing an appeal summarily the' Dist. Deputy Co...
State of Bombay Vs. Morarji Padamsey of E. Eyres and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Bom715; (1956)58BOMLR801; ILR1956Bom940
Chagia, C.J. 1. A rather novel and indigenious contention was put forward by the aesessee in this reference.The facts briefly are that the assessee registered his business under the Sales Act on 1-10-1946 and conducted his business till 2-3-1949. On that date he transferred the whole of his business as a going concern to a third party. The Sales Tax Officer assessed the assessee in respect of two periods 1-10-1946, to 31-3-1947 and 1-4-1947 to 1-3-1949. It will be noticed that both periods are antecedent to the date of transfer.The assessee admitted the correctness of the amount of assessment, but he denied his liability on the ground that as the business had been transferred by him the liability to pay tax with regard to the business done before the transfer was only upon the transferee and the transferor was absolved from his liability. The tribunal accepted this contention and the Taxing Authority has come before us on this reference.2. Turning to the Act, Section 5 imposes the liab...
Panambur Vishnumurti Narayan Upadhyaya Vs. C.P. Fernandes and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-19-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Bom64; (1956)58BOMLR799; ILR1956Bom98
Chagla, C.J.1. The petitioner is the General Secretary of' the Hotel Mazdoor Sabha, and one of the members of this Union applied to the Payment of Wages Authority for payment of overtime wages against second opponent in respect of certain wage periods, and the case of this employee was that he had worked more than 48 hours every week and therefore had become entitled to receive wages at one and a half times the rate for such overtime every week, and in the application it was clearly stated that the claim was made under Section 63 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948.This claim of the employee was rejected by the Authority and in the judgment reference has been made to Section 59 of the Factories Act and Section 70 of the Shops and Establishments Act. It Is clear from the application made by the employee that neither of these two sections had any relevance and Mr. Nar-golkar has stated before us that through some mistake or oversight the arguments advanced in some other case...
Bhagwandas Dhondidas Punekar Vs. Basawwa Ryavappa Kolli
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-19-1956
Reported in: (1956)58BOMLR809
Bavdekar, J.1. This is an appeal arising from a suit to enforce a simple mortgage, and the only question which arises is whether the mortgage in this ease was proved. It appears that the written statement which was filed by the two contesting defendants, defendants Nos. 1 and 2, was that they did not admit the legal execution of the document. Subsequently when defendant No. 1 went into the witness box, he did indeed admit that he as well as defendant No. 2 had signed a document conveying the property. But at the trial there was an issue framed as to whether the plaintiff proved the execution of the suit mortgage bond, and even though the mortgage was required to be attested and does purport to be attested by two witnesses, the plaintiff did not call any attesting witnesses to prove the execution. He called instead one witness who said that he was present at the time when the mortgage was executed, though he had not attested it and proved the signature of the executants to the bond as w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›