Mumbai Court September 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.
The Union of India and anr. Vs. Firm Damodardas Narayandas and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom238; (1958)60BOMLR103; ILR1958Bom453
ORDER1. This is an application for revision by the defendants in a suit the Union of India representing the Central and Northern Railway Administrations.2. The non-applicant (plaintiff) firm had consigned to themselves 381 kattas of gur from Meerut to Itwari Station, Nagpur. When delivery was asked, the Railway delivered only 361 kattas and was unable to deliver the balance of 20 kattas of gur. This was on 8-1-1954. The plaintiff then served the usual notices and filed the suit on 3-3-1955. The trial Court passed a decree against the defendants for Rs. 440/- and costs.3. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the non-delivery was due to negligence and misconduct on the part of the servants of the Northern and Central Railways. This finding was not challenged before me. But on behalf of the Railways Mr. Bhave has urged two points. His first point was that the Railway Administrations managed to find the missing consignment of 20 kattas and therefore made an offer to the plaintiff to...
Gondwana Club, Nagpur Vs. Sales Tax Officer, No. Ii, Nagpur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-1957
Reported in: (1958)60BOMLR474; [1958]9STC450(Bom)
Vyas, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the Gondwana Club, Nagpur, and the facts upon which it is based may be shortly stated. On 5th May, 1952, an application was made by the Club to the Sales Tax Officer, Nagpur, for its registration as a dealer. Two days thereafter, on 7th May, 1952, the Club wrote a letter to the Sales Tax Officer, stating that it was not liable to pay sales tax and did not wish to be registered as a dealer. By this letter dated 7th May, 1952, the Club requested the Sales Tax Officer that its prior application dated 5th May, 1952, should be treated as having been withdrawn. In the present petition, the Club contends that notwithstanding its letter dated 7th May, 1952, the Sales Tax Officer proceeded to register the Club as a dealer. Thereafter, on 27th May, 1952, the Club wrote again to the Sales Tax Officer pointing out to him that he should not have registered the Club. The certificate of registration which was issued to th...
Chandrakant Shamsunderlal Sharma Vs. Secretary, Vidarbha Board of Seco ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom433; (1958)60BOMLR446; ILR1958Bom609
Mudholkar, J.1. This is a petition by a person who was declared as having passed at the Secondary School Certificate Examination held by the former Board of Madhya Pradesh in the year 1956. The result of the aforesaid examination was published by the Board on 1-6-1956. In that declaration first twenty-five candidates were placed in the order of merit. The petitioner's grievance is that though he had obtained the highest number of marks at the written examination held by the Board, he was shown as ranking No. 3, the respondent No. 2 who had secured six marks less than him in the written examination was shown as ranking No. 1 and the respondent No. 3 who has secured 9 marks more (less?) than him shown as ranking No. 2. The petitioner contends that Rule 7: of the Rules made by the Board under the Rule-making power conferred upon it by the Secondary Education Act whereunder the ranking was made is ultra vires of the Constitution inasmuch as it allows discrimination to be made amongst the c...
Darab Ruttonshaw Shroff Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Ii
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-1957
Reported in: [1957]32ITR574(Bom)
Tendolkar, J. 1. The assessee before us is Darab Ruttonshaw Shroff. His father Ruttonshaw was carrying on business as wine merchant under the name and style of Shroff & Co. From the commencement of Samvat Year 2002 (assessment year 1947-48) he took his two sons, Darab and Boman, as partners in the business and the shares of the father and the two sons were 9 annas, 4 annas and 3 annas respectively in the income of the business. A deed of partnership was executed on the 17th of December, 1945, the relevant provision of which, for the purposes of this reference, is that the goodwill of the business belonged exclusively to the father. This partnership continued till the 20th of August, 1948, which date falls in the assessment year 1949-50 when Boman retired, leaving Ruttonshaw and Darab as the two partners with shares of 10 and 6 annas respectively. A partnership deed was executed on the 6th of October, 1948, and the relevant provisions of the partnership deed ar : 'Clause 11 : The goodwi...
Ramanlal Manilal Bhatt and anr. Vs. Manilal Laxmichand and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-1957
Reported in: AIR1959Bom229; (1957)59BOMLR1243; ILR1959Bom13
J.C. Shah, J.1. Lallubhai Jesangbhai, father of respondents Nos. 2 to 5 and husband of respondent No. 6, was running the business of a ginning factory at Dabhoi in the District of Baroda. After the death of Lallubhai the business was continued by his sons and his widow. One Muljibhai and respondents Nos. 2 to 5 were the sons of Lallubhai. It appears that for the purpose of the business deposits were taken from diverse persons. A deposit of Rs. 10,000 was taken from one Manilal Laxmichand and at the foot of the account of that deposit Rs. 8,234-6-0 with interest remained due. On 21-8-1953, the creditor demanded his dues from Muljibhai Lallubhai who was acting as manager of the business. Alleging that after the notice was served Muljibhai stopped payment and thereby committed an act of insolvency, the creditor Munilal Laxmichand applied to the Insolvency Court at Baroda for adjudicating Muljibhai, his four brothers and Bai Ujjam -- widow of Lallubhai -- as insolvents. That application wa...
Vadilal Ichhachand Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay North, Kutch ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-1957
Reported in: [1957]32ITR569(Bom)
Tendolkar, J.1. This reference raises a very short question of law and it i : 'Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Officer can calculate penalty on the basis of the return filed by the assessee on 28th September, 1953, under (c) of the Income-tax Act ?' 2. The facts are that the assessee is a firm and for the assessment year 1953-54 for which the accounting year was S.Y. 2008 the assessee filed a return showing a total income of Rs. 7,038. This was on the 28th September, 1953. The books of the assessee were examined on the 19th of October, 1953, when the Income-tax Officer discover that the assessee had not disclosed an income of Rs. 17,548. The assessee filed a revised return dated the 18th of October, 1953, on the 19th of October, 1953, declaring his total income to be Rs. 24,528 which included an addition of Rs. 17,548 to the original income returned, namely, Rs. 7,038. The Income-tax authorities came to the conclusion that the income had been delibera...
Gokuldas Vs. Kikabhai Abdulali and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom385; (1958)60BOMLR147; ILR1958Bom392; [1958]33ITR94(Bom)
ORDER1. This Reference which arises out of some extremely unusual facts has brought to light the difficulty of finding within the framework of the Indian Income-tax Act machinery for determining the liability of an alleged partner in an unregistered firm.2. The assessee in this case was an unregistered firm, and one Gokuldas made a Return for the assessment years 1945-46 and 1946-47. The Income-tax Officer completed the assessments on 24-7-1947. Gokuldas had produced before the 'X. T. O. what purported to be a Deed of Partnership and in this Deed one Kikabhai was shown to be one of the partners. The X. T. O. accepted the Deed and passed an assessment order, but before this order was made on 6-7-1947 Gokuldas had made an application to the I. T. O. in, the following terms :'I went to the partners for obtaining their signatures on the application for registration. They say that the profit or loss is mine and that they have nothing to do with the business. I am willing to pay income-tax o...
Dattatraya Dulaji Chadigaonkar Vs. Wadilal Panchal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-1957
Reported in: (1958)60BOMLR107
Shelat, J.1. This is an application in revision against the order passed by the learned Presidency Magistrate, IV Court, Girgaum, whereby he dismissed under Section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code the complaint filed by the petitioner on October 31, 1956. The application raises points of interest in regard to the scope of the powers of Magistrates under Chap. XVI of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. Before we go to the several contentions raised on behalf of the parties in somewhat elaborate arguments, it would be expedient to set out a few facts relevant for the purposes of this judgment.3. It is a well-known fact that, in the evening of June 3, 1956, a public meeting was held at Chowpaty which was to be addressed by the Prime Minister of India. It is equally a well-known fact that considerable disturbance was caused at that meeting as a result whereof that meeting had to be dispersed. Consequently large crowds began to wander about in various localities around Chowpaty including the ...
Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigaonkar and anr. Vs. Wadilal Panchal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-1957
Reported in: 1958CriLJ1134; AIR 1958 Bom 335
ORDERShelat, J.1. This is an application in revision against the order passed by the learned Presidency Magistrate IVth Court, Girgaum, whereby he dismissed under Section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code the complaint filed by the petitioner on the 31-10-1956. The application raises points of interest in regard to the scope of the powers of Magistrates under Chapter XVI of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. Before we go to the several contentions raised on behalf of the parties in somewhat elaborate arguments, it would be expedient to set out a few facts relevant for the purposes of this Judgment.3. It is a well-known fact that, in the evening of the 3-6-1956, a public meeting was held at Chowpaty which was to be addressed by the Prime Minister of India. It is equally a well-known fact that considerable disturbance was caused at that meeting as a result whereof that meeting had to be dispersed. Consequently largo crowds began to wander about in various localities around Chowpaty includin...
Balkrishna Mahadeo Vartak and ors. Vs. Indian Association Chemical Ind ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-1957
Reported in: AIR1959Bom41; (1958)60BOMLR30; ILR1958Bom1006
Chainani, J.1. The father of appellants Nos. 1 and 2 and husband of appellantNo.3 had given on lease a land Section No. 128 of Mouje Kothrudin Haveli Taluka to the respondent-Company on 11th February 1944.One of the conditions of the lease was that the Company shouldnot sub-lease or transfer the land to any other person withoutthe permission of the lessors. The Company, however, assigned itsleasehold rights to one of its Directors, G.N. Patwardhan, fora consideration of Rs. 8,200. The land is now in the possessionof Patwardhan. The Company subsequently filed a suit for settingaside the assignment in favour of Patwardhan. this was dismissed.In 1953 an order was made for the winding up of the Company andan Official Liquidator was appointed. He obtained a decree forover Rs. 8,000 against Patwardhan. This decree has not yet beenexecuted. The appellants were paid rent for three years by theLiquidator, but it is their case that they have not received rentdue to tem since 1953. It is also the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »