Mumbai Court March 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.
Maharaj Shri Govindlalji Ranchhodlalji Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1958
Reported in: [1958]34ITR92(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. The assessee is a direct descendant of Shri Vallabhacharya who founded a faith known as Vallabh Sampradaya. It has been found as a fact by the Tribunal that he is not a sanyasi, that he has married and has children and that he will be succeeded by his sons who would inherit and divide his properties. He resides at Porbandar and keeps an idol of Lord Krishna in his house. Offerings are made to his from time to time by his devotees and these offerings are not made to the idol but to the assessee himself. The offerings are made usually at the time of the prayers. It has also been found as a fact that the assessee by virtue of the office he holds has to perform some obligations as the head of this faith and that he is looked upon by his devotees as 'Guru' and he gives 'mantras' to his disciples. As a matter of fact a person can only be initiated into this faith by the assessee chanting certain 'mantras'. Now, it was found by the income-tax authorities that the assessee's inc...
Varjivandas Hirji and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City- ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1958
Reported in: [1958]34ITR21(Bom)
Chagla, C.J. 1. The assessee firm consisted of two partners Hirji Jeram and Velji Morarji and this partnership was in existence in the Samvat year 2005. It was alleged by the assessee that there was a change in the constitution of the partnership on Kartik Sud 1st, Samvat year 2006, that is 22nd October, 1949, and on that date a new partnership was constituted consisting of five partners - two of them the old partners, Hirji and Velji, and three new partners. The new partnership made an application on the basis of a partnership deed dated 15th June, 1951, for registration for the assessment year 1951-52, which corresponds with 22nd October, 1949, to 9th November, 1950. The partnership deed recited that the partnership had commenced with effect from 22nd October, 1949, although, as just stated, it was dated the 15th of June, 1951. The firm was registered on the strength of this partnership deed under section 26A. This was after the total income of the firm had been assessed by the Incom...
Surat District Cotton Dealers' Association Vs. Commissioner of Income- ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1958
Reported in: [1959]35ITR121(Bom)
Chagla, C.J. 1. The assessee before us is the Surat District Cotton Dealers' Association, which was established to develop local cotton business and to remove difficulties in its development and to further the interest of all persons concerned in cotton business. The membership of the association is open to persons who purchase or sell cotton and to owners of ginning and pressing factories. The entrance fee is Rs. 501 and the annual subscription is Rs. 25. Members of the Association can do business only through brokers who are registered as such with the Association. Tolats (persons in charge of weighing), chhapmars (persons in charge of putting labels or writing on bales) and sikkamars (persons who draw samples) were also to get themselves registered with the Association. The bye-laws provided that the Association was to provide the services of tolats, chhapmars and sikkamars and for these services payments were to be made by the members according to the rates laid down in the bye-law...
Uttam Gulabrao Sakhare Vs. Champatrao Gulabrao Gawande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1958
Reported in: (1958)60BOMLR1150
(1) This is a defendatns second appeal from a suit for possession instituted by the plaintiff who calims to be the defendants's landlord andfor recovery of arrears of rent.(2) The house in question is situated at mouza Sanglud, tahsil Daryapur, district Amravathi. The plaintiff claims to be the owner of this house. According to him, he let out the house to the defendant in the year 1946. He states at that tim the defendant was in his service and had no house to live in. Therefore, he permitted the defendant to occupy the house and it was agreed between the parties that the defendant would pay rent to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 0-8-0 per month. His grievance is that though the defendant was asked several times to vacate the house and though he was even served with a registered notice in respect of it, he has refused to vacate.(3) The defence of the defendant is that the house in question belonged not to be plaintiff but to his maternal uncles Sukedeo and Baban, and that he is occu...
Vinayak Vishnu Sahasrabudhe Vs. B.G. Gadre and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom39; ILR1959Bom87
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal from the judgment made in pursuance of an award given by the arbitrators who had been appointed by the parties to arbitrate into their dispute.2. It is common ground that the plaintiff Sahastrabudhe agreed to construct a building for the respondent No. 1 according to an agreed plan at a cost of Rs. 60,000/-. Subsequent to this agreement, certain variations were effected in the original plan by reason of which the appellant was required to deviate from his original work.3. The appellant carried out a considerable part of the work which he had undertaken and had received from time to time a total amount of had received from time to time a total amount of Rs. 66,550/- from the respondent No. 1 he got that work finished at a cost of Rs. 21,000/- and odd. He therefore claimed from the appellant the difference between the amount which was agreed to be paid by him to the appellant and the amount actually spent by him. This amount according to him was Rs. 7100/-...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Ii Vs. Donald Miranda and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom33; (1958)60BOMLR910; ILR1958Bom1134; [1959]35ITR103(Bom)
Chagla, C.J. 1. The question that we have to consider in this reference is in a very narrow compass. It is not a question which is easy to decide. The assessment year of the assessee is 1945-46 and the year of account is the year ending 21st March, 1945. During this year, the firm of three partners, James Miranda, Donald Miranda and Mrs. N. Q. Miranda, were carrying on business as wine merchants. Their income for the year was assessed to tax and they were also charged excess profits tax upon their profits of the business for the chargeable accounting period ending on the 1st of April, 1944. The firm was succeeded on the 25th of March, 1945, by a limited liability company, S. S. Miranda Ltd. For the assessment year 1945-46, the firm claimed the benefit of section 25(4) contending that no tax was payable on its profits of the said business for the period from the 1st of April, 1944, to the 24th of March, 1945. The claim of the assessee was considered by the Department and benefit was giv...
Noormahammad Rahimutallah Vs. Undrya Goma
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1958
Reported in: (1958)60BOMLR1156
Mudholkar, J.1. This judgment will also govern Second Appeal No. 105 of 1954.2. These two second appeals arise out of two suits instituted by the plaintiff-appellant for possession of certain sites situate in a former Izara village which were leased by him to respondent No. 1 in each of the two appeals or their predecessors-in-interest.3. The only question which arises for decision is whether under Section 5(a) of the M.P. Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act, 1950, the appellant is entitled to be in possession of these sites despite the fact that they have vested in the State. Section 5(a) runs thus:Subject to the provisions in Sections 47 and 63:(a) All open enclosures used for agricultural or domestic purposes and in continuous possession for twelve years immediately before 1948-49 ; all open house-sites purchased for consideration ; all buildings ; places of worship ; wells situated in and trees standing on lands included in such enclosures or house-sites or land appertaining to suc...
Padmavatibai and ors. Vs. Manilal Nyahalchand Kasliwal Shravagi and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom141; (1958)60BOMLR1015; ILR1959Bom81
1. This second appeal arises out of a suit instituted b the respondent No. 1 for a declaration that the properties described in certain paragraphs of the plaint were not liable to be attached and sold in execution of the decree in Civil Suit No. 7-B of 1937 passed on 23-3-1939 by the Additional District Judge, Buldana, on the ground that those properties were allotted to his share at a family partition.2. It is common ground that Nyahalchand, father of the respondent No. 1, was indebted to the defendant No. 1, Amrit, now deceased and represented here by his legal representatives, to the extent of Rs. 39,000 or so upon a pro-note. The defendant No. 1, therefore, instituted a suit against Nyahalchand on the basis of the pro-note and eventually obtained a decree against him. During the pendency of that suit, a partition was effected by Nyahalchand between himself and his son, the respondent No. 1. At that partition, the properties referred to in the suit were allotted to the share of the ...
Pohoomal Bros. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-1958
Reported in: AIR1958Bom461; (1958)60BOMLR838; ILR1958Bom1124
Chagla, C.J.1. In this reference we are concerned with assessment of the well-known firm of Messrs, Pohoomal Bros. for the assessment years 1942-43 to 1946-47. The firm has its head office in Bombay and its branches in various parts of the World. We are concerned with three branches which were at Manila, Saigon and Kualalumpur, and the first important question that we have to decide on this reference concerns the assessment year 1942-43 which corresponds to the accounting period 6th April, 1941 to 26th March. 1942. Now the finding is that the business of the assessee in these three branches was carried on for nine months of the accounting period and the Japanese occupied these places in December, 1941 and no further business could he carried on. The assessee made a certain claim with regard to losses in these three branches resulting from the destruction of stock-in-trade by the invading Japanese. The A.A.C. estimated the loss which should be allowed at Rs. 1,42,500/- for the Manila Br...
Bilasrai Joharmal and ors. Vs. Akola Electric Supply Co. Private Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom176; (1958)60BOMLR906; ILR1959Bom395
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. This is an appeal against an order of Mr. Justice Coyajee dismissing a petition under the Companies Act. The petition was presented for the winding up of the first respondent company and in the alternative a prayer was made for appropriate hearing of the petition the prayer for winding up was given up; and substantially the controversy before Mr. Justice Coyajee was whether any directions should be issued under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act. 2. A preliminary objection has been taken by Mr. Bhabha and that is that Mr. Justice Coyajee was in error in hearing the petition without notice having been given to the Central Government under Section 400 of the Companies Act. Section 400 of the Companies Act provides that 'the Court shall give notice of every application made to it under Section 397 or 398 to the Central Government, and shall take into consideration the representation, if any, made to it by that Government before passing a final order under that s...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »