Mumbai Court November 1958 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.
C.M. Trivedi Vs. C.B.L. Bhatnagar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-15-1958
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR450
Gokhale, J.1. A question as to the interpretation to be placed on the provisions of Sub-section (13) of Section 198B of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been raised in this revision application on behalf of the Public Prosecutor for Greater Bombay, who is the petitioner in this application. The revision has come to be filed in the following circumstances:2. On March 20, 1958, the Public Prosecutor for Greater Bombay, Mr. C.M. Trivedi, filed a complaint against the opponent under Section 198B of the Code of' Criminal Procedure, alleging that the opponent had published a defamatory article in the issue of a weekly, named 'Congress' dated September 23, 1957, and thereby committed an offence of defamation against a public servant by name J.B. Contractor, who is a Selection Grade Sub-Inspector of Police. The complaint bears an endorsement of the same date to the effect that it was filed before the Registrar, City Sessions Court, Bombay. On March 31, 1958, the Court of the Additional Sessi...
Abdul Karim Husseinbhai Lakdawala Vs. Haji Mahomed HusseIn Haji Abdulr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-14-1958
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR625
Shah, J.1. This is an appeal from an order in an execution proceeding. In Suit No. 13 of 1944 of the file of the Civil Judge, Senior Division at Broach, it was decreed that defendant No. 10 Mahomad Hussein Haji Abdulrehman do pay Rs. 24,426-5-4 to the heirs of one Kadarbhai. After this decree was passed Suit No. 203 of 1949 to administer the estate of Kadarbhai was filed. By the decree in that suit it was directed that Mahomad Hussein Haji Abdulrehman (whom we will hereafter refer to as the judgment-debtor) do pay the decretal amount of Rs. 24,426-5-4 to Abdul Karim Hussembhai Lakdawala who was one of the heirs of Kadarbhai. Abdul Karim Husseinbhai Lakdawala (whom we will hereafter refer to as the judgment-creditor) then filed Darkhast No. 26 of 1951 to recover the amount declared to be-due to him by the decree in Suit No. 203 of 1949. It was contended in that darkhast, that the judgment-debtor had under the orders passed by the Income-tax authorities, paid an amount of Rs. 11,508-9-0 ...
Bhagwandas Kevaldas Vs. N.D. Mehrotra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-13-1958
Reported in: [1959]36ITR538(Bom)
S.T. Desai, J.1. This is a petition for a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ under article 226 of the Constitution and it arises out of an order for penalty interest made by the Income-tax Officer, the second respondent before us, in respect of the assessment of the petitioner for the assessment year 1948-49. The first respondent is the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay. The second respondent served a notice upon the petitioner under section 18A(1) for the assessment year 1948-49, requiring the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 25,973-5-0 in equal installments as an advance payment of tax. The petitioner filed an estimate of the income and tax payable thereon. That was under section 18A(2) and that was done on the 17th of September, 1947. Thereafter a revised estimate was filed by the petitioner. But that fact is not material. After the petitioner filed his return of income, the second respondent made a provisional assessment under section 23B and the petitioner paid the am...
Lata Mangeshkar Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-07-1958
Reported in: [1959]36ITR527(Bom)
S.T. Desai, J.1. It is the duty of the court to see as far as possible in interpreting the provisions of income-tax law that the various provisions read harmoniously. Courts have never pronounced that they have always succeeded in doing so and in this case the effort of learned counsel for the assessee has been to show that if we accept the construction strongly pressed for our acceptance on behalf of the Revenue, the result will be illogical. 2. Now, in these matters it has been stated over and over again that the court must look merely at the express language of the law-maker if it is clear or the necessary intendment to be gathered from such express language of the enactment. Apart from that, there is no room for intendment in a taxing statute. The matter must depend on the language of the section and construction of any provision of a taxing statute cannot be controlled by the consequences that may follow where the language is clear and capable of only one meaning. 3. On 11th Febru...
Sevantilal Chimanlal Shah Vs. V.D. Dalvi and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-06-1958
Reported in: AIR1961Bom105; 1961BomCR(Cri)105; (1960)62BOMLR832
ORDER1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for directions and orders quashing and setting aside the decision of the Post Master General, Bombay, refusing renewal of registration of the petitioner's monthly magazine 'Savita' under the provisions of the Post Office Act and also for directions requiring the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's case for registration purposes of the said monthly magazine under the said Act,2. The relevant facts are that the petitioner started publishing of the said monthly magazine 'Savita' in August 1947. The circulation of the said magazine at the date of the petition was 14,000 copies out of which 3,500 copies were meant for despatch by post. In pursuance of an application made for the purpose in 1950 the petitioner's publication was registered under the said Act under No. B 5750. It has been the invariable practice of the Post Master General to issue notice in printed form to all registered newspapers in connection with the r...
New Shorrock Spg. and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. N.U. Raval, Income-ta ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-06-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom477; (1959)61BOMLR618; ILR1959Bom1256
S.T. Desai, J.1. This petition for a writ of certiorari or a writ of mandamus or a writ of prohibition raises a rather important question of the construction of Section 35 (10) of the Income-tax Act. Sub-section (10) of Section 35 was introduced by amendment brought about by the Finance Act, 1956. We shall have occasion to refer to the amendment little later in our judgment. The facts succinctly stated are these. The petitioner-the New Shorrock Spg. and Mfg. Co. Ltd., which carries on business of manufacturing and selling textiles has its registered office at Ahmedabad. The first respondent is the Income-tax Officer having jurisdiction to assess the petitioner. The assessment years in respect of which this petition arises are 1950-51. 1951-52 and 1952-53.2. For the assessment year 1950-1951 (previous year ending 31-12-1949) the Income-tax Officer had passed an order on 18-1-1951 assessing the total income of the petitioner-mills at Rs. 30,30,622/-. At that time, in accordance with the ...
Ahmedabad People's Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Pradip
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-06-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom482; (1959)61BOMLR612; ILR1959Bom1112
Shah, J.1. The plaintiff who is a minor sued through his next friend for (1) declaration that the mortgage of the properties described in sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of paragraph 16 of the plaint executed by the first defendant in favour of the 4th defendant and an award in favour of 4th defendant by the Registrar under the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act are not binding upon the plaintiff's share in the properties mortgaged; (2) for a declaration that a sale-deed dated 20th October 1949 executed by the first defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant conveying the property described in sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 16 of the plaint is not binding upon the plaintiff, the same being without consideration and brought about by undue influence; (3) that an agreement entered into by the first defendant on 23rd January 1950 with the 3rd defendant for sale of the properties described in paragraph 16 of the plaint is without consideration and without legal necessity; (4) for partition and sepa...
New Shorrock Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. N.U. Raval, Incom ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-06-1958
Reported in: [1959]37ITR41(Bom)
S.T. Desai, J.1. This petition for a writ of certiorari or a writ of mandamus or a writ of prohibition raises a rather important question of the construction of section 35(10) of the Income-tax Act. Sub-section (10) of section 35 was introduced by amendment brought about by the Finance Act, 1956. We shall have occasion to refer to the amendment a little later in our judgment. The facts succinctly stated are these. The petitioner, the New Shorrock Spinning & ., which carries on business of manufacturing and selling textiles, has its registered office at Ahmedabad. The first respondent is the Income-tax Officer having jurisdiction to assess the petitioner. The assessment years in respect of which this petition arises are 1950-51, 1951-52 and 1952-53. 2. For the assessment year 1950-51 (previous year ending 31st December, 1949) the Income-tax Officer had passed an order on 18th January, 1951, assessing the total income of the petitioner mills at Rs. 30,30,622. At that time in accordance w...
Ahmedabad Laxmi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. H.K. Sondhi, Income-tax Offi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-06-1958
Reported in: [1959]37ITR50(Bom)
S.T. Desai, J.1. This is a petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ under article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner is a public limited company carrying on business of manufacturing textiles in Ahmedabad. The dispute related to certain orders which, as well shall presently point out, were made by the first respondent who is the Income-tax Officer concerned with the assessment of the petitioner company. 2. For the assessment year 1952-53 (previous year ending 31st December, 1951), the Income-tax Officer made an order on 26th December, 1952, and assessed the income of the petitioner mill company at Rs. 8,81,594. The amount of undistributed profits was ascertained at Rs. 3,59,771 and the Income-tax Officer granted rebate to the mills company at one an per rupee on the undistributed profit and that amount of rebate came to Rs. 22,485-11-0. This rebate was granted under proviso (i) to clause B, Part II of the First Schedule to the finance Act relati...
Ratilal Virchand Shah Vs. the State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-06-1958
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR990
K.K. Desai, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of a requisition order dated May 30, 1958, made in pursuance of the Bombay Land Requisition Act and for appropriate reliefs in that connection.2. The premises in question are plot No. 6, 2nd floor of building known as 'Durga Villa', situate at 77-B, Ranade Road, Dadar, Bombay. The petitioner's case is that he had been a tenant of the premises since 1943 and had been residing at the premises continuously right up to the date of the impugned order. In June 1957 the petitioner was called upon to give information regarding these premises to the Accommodation Department. In August 1957, a show cause notice in connection with the enquiry contemplated under the Act was served on the petitioner. In pursuance of that notice, the petitioner gave such information as was required to the Department. By an order dated February 8, 1958, a copy whereof is annexed as exh. A to the petition, after the reci...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »