Mumbai Court December 1958 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Vs. Chugandas and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1958
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR847
ORDER(1) Messrs. Chugandas and Co. (Securities) Bombay, a registered firm, hereafter referred to as 'the assessee', was a dealer in securities. Securities constituted the stock-in-trade of its business. It received a sum of Rs. 4,13,992/- as and by way of interest on securities during the accounting year 1946, the assessment year being 1947-48. The assessee firm was dissolved on 30th June 1947. It received a sum of Rs. 1,01,229/- during the accounting period 1st January 1947 to 30th June 1947, the assessment year being 1948-49, as interest on securities. The business carried on by the assessee was an old business. It had paid tax in connection with that business under the provisions of the Indian Income Tax Act,1918. That business having been dicontinued, the assessee became entitled to the benefit of the provisions contained in section 25(3) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922. A question has arisen whether the benefit conferred by section 25(3) extended to interest on securities recei...
Tag this Judgment!Manordas Kalidas Vs. G.R. Desai and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-15-1958
Reported in: [1959]37ITR302(Bom)
K.T. Desai, J.1. Manordas Kalidas, an assessee under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, has filed the present petition for the issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order under article 226 of the Constitution of India against the Additional Income-tax Officer, Section V (Central), Bombay, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, N. Range, and the Additional Collector of Bombay, in connection with the assessment orders, penalty orders, notices of demand and other notices issued by the Additional Income-tax Officer, Section V (Central), Bombay, in respect of assessments for the assessment years 1946-47 to 1946-57 and for setting aside the same. He has also prayed for the issue of a writ in the nature of prohibition or any other appropriate direction, order or writ under article 226 of the Constitution prohibiting the first respondent and his successors in office from proceeding to make the regular assessment of the income, profit...
Tag this Judgment!Chunilal Vallabhaji Gandhi Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom554; (1959)61BOMLR807; 1959CriLJ1429; ILR1959Bom1336
1. The appellant was convicted by the Presidency Magistrate, 27th Court, Mulund, Bombay, of an offence under Section 18(c) read with Section 27 of the Drugs Act, 1940, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Against the order of conviction and sentence this appeal has been preferred.2. C.N. Patel, Drugs Inspector, received information on 19th October 1956 that the appellant who was trading in the name of 'Vivigan Products Corporation' at Kandivli was manufacturing drugs without obtaining a licence under the Drugs Act, 1940. Patel then lodged a complaint with the Kandivli Police Station against the appellant for contravention of Section 18(c) of the Drugs Act. The Police Officer raided the place occupied by the appellant and attached under a panchanama certain articles found on the premises, At the time the son and daughters of the appellant were also found present and taking part in the manufacture of Vivig...
Tag this Judgment!Francesco Corsi Vs. Gorakhram Gokalchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-1958
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1195
(1) The petitioner is a national of Italy. He carries on business under the name and style of Messrs. Francesco Corsi. The respondents are a firm, the partners whereof are citizens of India. The respondents carry on business interalia of import and export at Choksi Chambers, Sheikh Memon Street, Bombay. By three contracts in writing the respondents agreed to sell to the petitioner 300 tons of Indian crude groundnut oil in aggregate. 100 tons being agreed to be sold under each of the aforesaid contracts on the terms and conditions set out in those contracts. One of the terms of each of the said contracts is as follows:'All other terms and conditions as per London L. O. T. T. A. contract (that is, 'London Oil and Tallow Trade Association Contract.')'.One of the terms of the said London Oil and Tallow trade Association contract is as follows:'(15). Any dispute arising out of this contract shall be settled by arbitration in London in accordance with the Rules endorsed on this contract.' Th...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Raheman Mahammud and ors. Vs. Mishrimal Shrimal Picha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-1958
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR761
(1) In both these second appeals a common question of law arises and that question is whether a gift by a grandfather to his minor grandsons of immovable property can be said to be complete where the delivery of possession is accepted on behalf of the minors not by their father but by their mother.(2) It has been held by the lower Appelate Court that in such circumstances the gift cannot be regarded as complete. It seems to me that the viw taken by the lower appellate Court is supported by the decisions in Musa Miya v. KadarBuz. ILR 52 Bom 316 and in Suma Meah v. S.A.S. Pillai AIR 1933 Rang be held that there was no necessity of transfer of possession to the father of the donees who was their natural and therefore their legal guardian.155.The first mentioned decisioon is of the Privy Council.in that case, as in the present case, the father of the moiinors was alive and was actually living with his wife and children in the house of a donor, who was the paternal grandfather of the donees...
Tag this Judgment!Hamidbhai Weaving Mills Vs. Registrar, Bombay Industrial Relations Act ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-1958
Reported in: (1959)IILLJ101Bom
ORDER1. This is an appeal against an order of the Registrar, Bombay Industrial Relations Act, declining to delete the name of Hamidbhai Weaving Mills, Ichalkaranji, from the list of undertakings maintained by him under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. The undertaking was originally started by Appasaheb Dewal Shirgawe in 1948 as a proprietary concern and was duly registered as an undertaking under S. 11 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act. In 1953 Appasaheb admitted his sons, Mohamed Gaus, Hamidsaheb and Ghulam Hussein into Partnership with him. Ghulam Hussein was minor at that time and he was only admitted to the benefits of the partnership but the two other sons became full-fledged partners of Appasaheb. A deed of partnership was executed on 11 January, 1954. The partnership continued on the list of undertakings under the old registration. 2. This partnership was dissolved by a deed of dissolution dated 1 May 1956 and the partnership assets were distributed among the part...
Tag this Judgment!The Maharana Mills Kamdar Union and ors. Vs. N.L. Vyas and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-1958
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR678
Chainani, C.J.(1) The petitioners in these five applications were employees of the Maharana Mills Ltd. at Porbundar, respondent No. 2, to whom I will hereinafter refer to as 'the respondent'. In 1954-55 there were disputes between the respondent and its workmen represented by Maharana Mill Majoor Mahajan Sangh. Three references were then made by the Saurashtra Government under S, 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act to the Industrial Tribunal. These were References No. 47 of 1954, 91 of 1955 and 102 of 1956. During the pendency of these refrerences before the Industrial Tribunal the parties arrived at a settlement, by which they agreed to refer the disputes between them to private arbitration. On 8th Jue 1956 an application signed on behalf of both the parties, that is to say, the respondent and the workmen represented by Maharana Mill Majoor Mahajan Sangh, was made to the Industrial Tribunal in each of the three cases pending before it. In this application it was stated that the parties ...
Tag this Judgment!Darbar Shri Meramwala Bhayawala Vs. Bai Shri Valbai Sadul
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-1958
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR939
Patel, J.1. These four Special Civil Applications arise out of proceedings under the Barkhali Tenure Abolition Act of 1951. The tenants made four separate applications for occupancy certificates under the provisions of this Act, alleging that they were the tenants of the Barkhalidar Bai Valbai, and that under the provisions of the Act, they were entitled to occupancy certificates on payment of compensation provided under the Act. First, when these applications were made, the present applicant was not made a party to the proceedings. In his absence, the Mamlatdar dealing with these applications, made an order in favour of the tenants. The applicant filed an appeal to the Collector, and because he was not a party and an order was made in his absence in all these proceedings, the proceedings were remanded for retrial. Thereafter, after a finding was received, there was a further remand and it is after that remand that the matters came before the Deputy Collector in appeal and before the R...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Ibrahim Nabiji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-09-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom525; (1959)61BOMLR803; 1959CriLJ1416; ILR1959Bom1323
Shah, J.1. The Superintendent of Police, Kaira, Served a notice upon the respondent Ibrahim Nabiji dated 20th August 1957 that the respondent who was a foreigner as defined under Section 2(a) of the Foreigners' Act, 1946, as amended by the Foreigners Laws (Amendment) Act, 1957, having entered India on 31-1-1956 through the Barmer Check post on a Pakistan passport No. 374894 dated 3-12-1955 hearing an Indian Visa No. 5993 dated 27-1-56 valid for stay in India till 30-4-56, was unauthorisedly staying in India since 1-5-56, and he was, therefore informed that he should leave India within one month from the date of receipt of the notice, and that failing compliance with the notice he will be prosecuted and deported under the Foreigners, Act, 1946. The respondent failed to carry out the direction contained in this notice. The Sub Inspector of Police, Petlad, then filed a complaint in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, F.C., Petlad against the respondent on 23-10-1957 charging him with ha...
Tag this Judgment!The State Vs. Bastav Victory Rodrigues and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom434; (1959)61BOMLR670; 1959CriLJ1150
Chainani, C.J. 1. The question referred to the Full Bench is, 'Whether it is open to a Court of Session trying a case with the aid of a jury, after recording the opinion of the jury, which is ex facie not ambiguous, to re-charge the jury, because the judge feels that the verdict is the result of confusion in the minds of the jury, and to obtain the verdict of the jury after so re-charging the jury.' In order to answer this question, it is necessary to consider the provision contained in the Code relating to trial of case tried by jury. Section 297, Criminal Procedure Code, provides that in cases tried by jury, when the case for the defence and the prosecutor's reply are concluded, the Court shall proceed to charge the jury, summing up the evidence for the prosecution and defence, and laying down the law by which the jury are to be guided. Section 298 Criminal Procedure Coder lays down that in such cases it is the duty of the Judge to decide all question of law. Section 299 states that ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »