Mumbai Court April 1958 Judgments
In Re: Tolaram Jalan and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-30-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom245; (1958)60BOMLR1346; [1959]29CompCas34(Bom)
ORDER1. This is petition under Sub-section (2) of Section 633 of the Companies Act. 1956 for relief against liabilities for fines or penalties in regard to the failure of Filmistan Private Ltd. to file with the Registrar of Companies copies of balance sheet and Auditor's report for the year ending on the 31st of August 1956.2. The reason given by the petitioners for this omission is that accounts up to the year 1950-51 used to be audited by M/s. Sharp and Tannon but that sometime in August 1955 the auditing of the accounts was entrusted to M/s. Kalyaniwala and Mistry, who were then appointed the Company's auditors and that the new auditors could not audit the accounts owing to a radical conflict of opinion between the Company on the one hand and the Income Tax authorities on the other hand as to the manner in which the unexploited value of five cinematographic pictures produced by the Company should be determined for the purpose of computing annual profits or losses of the Company. The...
Tag this Judgment!Mohmed Haji Noormohamed Vs. Mona Vicaji Javeri
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-29-1958
Reported in: (1958)60BOMLR1096
Miabhoy, J.1. This revision petition arises out of an order made by the appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, Bombay.2. The first point which is raised in this petition by Mr. Shah, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, is that the suit which was filed by the opponent against the petitioner in the Small Causes Court for recovering possession of the premises under Section 13(1)(hhh) of the Bombay Rants, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, was not competent because of a certain order passed by the learned Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court under Section 507 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. The point was raised both before the trial Judge and the appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court. Both the Courts have recorded a finding against the contention. In order to dispose of this contention, it is necessary to state the following facts.3. The petitioner is the tenant and the opponent is the landlady of a shop situated in a building known as 'Javeri bui...
Tag this Judgment!Digambarrao Bindu Vs. Deorao Kamble
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-28-1958
Reported in: (1958)60BOMLR1065
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the Election Tribunal holding that the election of Harihar Sonule to the Lok Sabha was valid and dismissing the petition filed by the defeated candidate Digambar Rao Bindu. Now, the constituency, with which we are concerned, is a two member constituency of Nanded, and one of the two seats is reserved for the Scheduled Caste. In the general election, the result of the votes obtained by the four candidates was as follows:Kamble, a member of the Scheduled Caste obtained .. .. 1,77,268Hari Har Sonule obtained .. .. 1,49,663Digambar Rao Bindu obtained .. .. 1,46,686andVajendra Kabra obtained .. .. 1,32,075Kamble was declared elected to the reserved seat and Sonule was declared elected for the other seat which was not reserved, and it is the election of Sonule which was challenged by the petitioner.2. We had a very able and interesting argument presented to us on behalf of Bindu by Mr. Ekbote, and his main contention is that inasmuch a...
Tag this Judgment!M.K. Venkatachalam Vs. Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-28-1958
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR536
Gajendragadkar, J.1. This is an appeal by the Income-tax Officer, Companies Circle 1(1), Bombay, and the Union of India, and it raises a short question about the construction of Section 35 of the Income-tax Act read with Section 1, Sub-section (2) and Section 13 of the Indian Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1953 (XXV of 1953). It arises in this way. The Income-tax Officer, by his assessment order made on October 9, 1952, for the assessment year 1952-53, assessed the respondent, the Bombay Dyeing and ., under the Act. In the said assessment order the respondent was given credit for Rs. 50,603-15-0 as representing interest at 2 per cent, on tax paid in advance under Section 18A of the Act. This credit was given to the respondent in pursuance of the provisions contained in Section 18A, Sub-section (5) of the Act as it then stood. On May 24, 1953, the Amendment Act came into force. Section 1, Sub-section (2) of the Amendment Act provides that 'subject to any special provision made in this beha...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Amritlal Bhogilal and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-28-1958
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR541
Gajendragadkar, J.1. This is an appeal by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay, by special leave and it raises a short question of law under Section 33B of the Income-tax Act. The respondent assessee had been registered as a firm under Section 26A of the Act for the year 1946-47. For the assessment years 1947-48, 1948-49 and 1949-50, the Income-tax Officer made the assessment on the respondent on June 7, 1949, June 7, 1949 and September 23, 1949, respectively, under Section 23(3) of the Act. The Income-tax Officer made an estimate about the profits of the respondent under the proviso to Section 13 and computed the total income of the respondent at Rs. 95,053, Rs. 93,430 and Rs. 83,752 for the said years respectively. The respondent had applied for and obtained renewal of registration of the firm. The Income-tax Officer had also passed an order under Section 23(6) of the Act and allocated the shares of the various parties.2. Against the said assessment orders the respondent preferred ...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. K.A. Dhairyawan Vs. J.R. Thakur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-28-1958
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR548
Imam, J.1. The appellants, as trustees, of the Mankeshwar Temple Trust had filed suit No. 2325 of 1948 in the High Court of Bombay in its Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction, for a declaration that they were entitled to the building in suit and were entitled to claim possession of the same and to recover the rents and profits thereof. The appellants further prayed that the defendants may be ordered and decreed to obtain a letter of attornment from the tenants of the said property attorning to the appellants, that defendant No. 1 may be ordered to render accounts of the rents received by him from the tenants of the said property from May 23, 1948, and that pending the hearing of the suit a Receiver may be appointed of the property in suit. The appellants had obtained leave of the High Court under Order II, Rule 2, of the Civil Procedure Code, reserving to them liberty to file a separate suit with respect to the land on which the building was situated. The learned Judge who heard the su...
Tag this Judgment!Pundlik Vishwanath Vs. Mahadeo Binjraj and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-25-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom2; ILR1959Bom283
G.B. Badkas, J. 1. It is necessary to state a few facts for the proper appreciation of the point involved in this special application. The elections to the Corporation of the City of Nagpur were held in the year 1957. Under Section 9 of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948, the Corporation consists of fifty-seven Councillors, among whom are included forty-five elected councillors and six appointed councillors as given in the said section. Out of the forty-five elected Councillors, one Councillor is to be elected by the special constituency of the Nagpur Chamber of Commerce. The election of a Councillor from the Nagpur Chamber of Commerce is regulated by rules promulgated under Notification No. 230-1956-M-XIII dated 15-1-1952. Respondent No. 1 Mahadeo Binjraj Modi was so declared to have been elected as Councillor to the Corporation in the election held in the year 1957. The petitioner Pundlik Vishwanath Pandharipande filed an election petition challenging the election of the respon...
Tag this Judgment!S. Framji Vs. Union of India Represented by General Manager, Western R ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-25-1958
Reported in: (1958)60BOMLR1302; (1959)ILLJ107Bom
Chagla, C.J. (1) Arather interesting, and by no means easy, Constitutional question arises in this appeal. The plaintiff, whose suit was dismissed by the learned City Civil Court Judge on a preliminary issue, was a guard in the North Western Railway in Grade I and he was appointed on 24-4-1929, being confirmed on 30-1-1930. Then for a short time he acted as Grade II guard and he was made permanent in that Grade in 1944. On partition he opted for India and he served in the B. B and C. I. Railway as it existed in 1947. On 31-1-1950 his post in the North Western Railway was equated to a Grade C post and he filed this suit stating that the order passed on 31-1-1950 ordering him to work as a C Grade guard was invalid. He also sought a declaration that he was entitled to rank as a B Grade guard from the date when he was absorbed as a guard in the B. B. and C. I. Railway, and he also claimed a declaration that he was entitled to rank in seniority as a guard and to receive promotions, pay, con...
Tag this Judgment!Suratsing Chandanmal Vs. Kanakmal Hiralal Munot
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-25-1958
Reported in: (1958)60BOMLR1222
Gokhale, J.1. This is an appeal by the original plaintiff whose suit came to be dismissed by the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar. The suit was for a declaration of the ownership of the plaintiff of a certain land at Ahmednagar and the plaintiff claimed possession of the land from defendant No. 1, who resisted the suit inter alia on the ground that he was a tenant. There were other defences to the suit with which we are not concerned at this stage. The contention of the plaintiff was that defendant No. 1 was a trespasser and could not claim the benefit of the Bombay Tenancy Act. On the other hand, defendant No. 1 contended that he was not a trespasser but was a tenant and that his name was entered in the Record of Rights as a protected tenant. As there was a dispute between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 on this point, on January 28, 1954, the learned trial Judge rightly decided to refer the matter to the Tenancy Court, which alone has jurisdiction to decide whe...
Tag this Judgment!Bhikulal and ors. Vs. Kisanlal and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-24-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom260; (1958)60BOMLR1171; ILR1959Bom277
1. Assuming, however, that it is such an application, Mr. Bobde's further contention is that the lower Court ought to have granted the necessary leave under Order 32, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs nos. 3, 4 and 5 and defendants no.s 6 and 7 are still minors. No evidence whatsoever was led in the lower Court to show how the arrangement mentioned in the application no. 20 was in the interest and for the benefit of the minor parties. The learned trial Judge relied upon one circumstance, namely, plaintiff's offer to exchange their share for that of defendants no.4 to 7 and to pay the latter an additional sum of Rs. 25,000/-, and concluded that the, plaintiff's share including those of the minor plaintiffs was prima facie inferior and that there appeared no special benefit to the minor plaintiffs, by the proposed compromise. In the absence of any other evidence, I cannot say that the conclusion thus reached by the trial Judge is unjustified. It is significant to note tha...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »