Mumbai Court January 1957 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.
Valajibhai Avcharbhai and ors. Vs. Chimanlal Hemraj Joshi and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Bom109; (1957)59BOMLR198; ILR1957Bom445; (1957)IILLJ186Bom
Shah, J. 1. The petitioners are employees of an establishment belonging to the first respondent known as 'Chandra-Vilas Hindu Hotel' at Ahmedabad. The first respondent is the person responsible for payment of wages to the petitioners. The petitioners applied by Application No. 849 of 1955 to the Payment of Wages Authority, Ahmedabad, for an order for payment of overtime wages. It was the case of the petitioners that the establishment of the first respondent was 'a factory' within the meaning of the Indian Factories Act, 1948, and that the petitioners worked every day for periods longer than the maximum periods prescribed under the Factories Act and by virtue of Section 59 of that Act the petitioners were entitled to overtime wages. The petitioners accordingly claimed overtime wages for the period from 1st December 1954 to 1st November 1955. This application was resisted by the first respondent. He contended inter alia that the Payment of Wages Authority had no jurisdiction to hear the ...
Shree Ambarnath Mills Corporation Vs. D.B. Godbole and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Bom119; (1957)59BOMLR309; ILR1957Bom668
Shah, J. 1. This is an appeal against the decree passed by Judge Tulzapurkar on 8th October, 1956, in Civil Suit No. 293 of 1956 on the file of the Bombay City Civil Court. Shree Ambarnath Mills Corporation are a partnership consisting of three partners; (1) Rai Bahadur Kunwar Raj Nath, (2) Shaligram Khanna and (3) Pesumal Atalrai Sha-hani. All the three partners of the firm are displaced persons who migrated to India as a result of the Partition in 1947. We will hereafter collectively refer to the three partners of Shree Ambarnath Mills Corporation as 'the plaintiffs'. The plaintiffs carry on business in Bombay. Prior to 1947 Messrs. Ahmed Abdul Karim Bros. Ltd.. was carrying on business as manufacturers of textiles and bobbins. The properties of that Company consisted of three factories with bungalows and chawls at Ambarnath in the district of Thana, a Bobbin factory at Tardeo in Bombay and the goodwill and other benefits of the business. These properties were notified as evacuee pro...
Mahadev Gokuldas Vs. the District Local Board
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-1957
Reported in: (1957)59BOMLR474
Vyas, J. 1. This is a revision application against an appellate order of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sakri, which the learned Magistrate passed under Section 113 of the Bombay Local Boards Act, 3923. By that order, the learned Magistrate dismissed the appeal of the present petitioner against a notice of demand issued against him by the District Local Board, West Khandesh, to recover a sum of Rs. 250 as professional tax for money-lending business done by the petitioner during the year 1954-55 pins Rs. 15-10-0 as notice fees.2. The petitioner is a money-lender and lends monies under a licence issued to him under the Money-lenders' Act. Upon the money-lending business done by him, he is liable to pay a professional tax to the District Local Board, West Khandesh. In giving the notice of demand for the professional tax for the year 1954-55, the Local Board took into consideration not only the money-lending business done by the petitioner in the year 1954-55, but also the unrecover...
The State of Bombay Vs. Sista's Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-1957
Reported in: [1957]8STC593(Bom)
Shah, J.1. The Bombay Sales Tax Tribunal have referred to us under section 34 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, the question 'whether the respondent-company (Messrs. Sista's Ltd.) is a 'dealer' within the meaning of section 2(c) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1946, and/or of section 2(6) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953.' 2. We may briefly mention the facts which give rise to this reference. Messrs. Sista's Ltd., whom we will hereafter refer to as 'the assessees', are a limited company registered under the Indian Companies Act, having their registered office in Bombay. On 1st December, 1954, the assessees were served with a notice, dated 30th November, 1954, under section 11 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1946, informing them that they were liable to pay tax under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1946, for the period between 1st April, 1951, and 31st October, 1952, and that the assessees had failed to apply for registration under section 8 of the Act, and directing them to attend before the Sal...
Saraswatibai Vs. Corporation of City of Nagpur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Bom244; (1957)59BOMLR375; ILR1957Bom610
1. By this application, the applicant-landlord is challenging the valuation of her building made by the non-applicant for purposes of assessing the building to property tax.2. Facts which are not in dispute In brief are: The applicant owns a house situated in the City of Nagpur within the jurisdiction of the Corporation of the City of Nagpur. That house is divided into six units bearing municipal Nos. 494, 494/1, 494/2, 494/3, 494/4 and 494/5. Unit No. 494 is in the occupation of the applicant herself while the other units are rented out to the tenants. The annual valuation of unit No. 494 fixed for purposes of assessment of the property tax is Rs. 130/, and the annual valuation of the other units is fixed on the basis of rents actually received by the applicant from her tenants after allowing deductions permissible under Section 119(b) of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948 (No. II of 1950). By notice, dated 24-9-1954, the applicant was intimated of the proposed annual valuation ...
Navnitprasad Champakprasad and ors. Vs. Commissioner, Ahmedabad Munici ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Bom163; (1957)59BOMLR379; ILR1957Bom790
Dixit, J.1. These two revisional applications raise a common question and the question raised is about the meaning to be given to the expression 'rent' as occurring in Rule 7(1) of the Taxation Rules in Chapter VIII of the schedule to the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949.2. The applicants are owners of certain tenements which were let out to different tenants. These tenements are situate within the limits of the Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad and the rateable value of these tenements for the year 1952-53 had to be fixed. It appears that there was a covenant in a lease executed between the applicants and their tenants whereby the tenants were to pay the rent as well as the Municipal taxes to their landlords. The Municipal Corporation calculated the rateable value, treating the rent and taxes as rent recovered by the landlords.3. The applicants, feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid method of calculation, contended that they were entitled to deduct the amount of taxes ...
Laxman Dajiba Telanga Vs. Rajaram Lingayya Allalwar Telanga
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-1957
Reported in: (1957)59BOMLR370
Tambe, J. 1. The decision of this application will also govern the decision of Civil Revision No. 113 of 1956. Both these applications are by the defendants.2. Facts in brief are: Plaintiffs instituted this suit for partition of the suit property. Their case was that on the death of one Kesheo, certain property devolved on their father and the father of the defendants. The property was ancestral property in their hands. Thereafter they were in separate possession of some specific portion of that property without defining their shares and without effecting any actual division of their property according to their respective shares. After the death of their respective fathers, the plaintiffs and defendants are in possession of those items of the property. The property in possession of the plaintiffs is lesser in extent than their half share while that in possession of the defendants is more than due to their half share. The total property that had devolved on the plaintiffs' father and th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›