Mumbai Court May 1958 Judgments
Mazagaon Dock Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax and Excess Profi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-12-1958
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR554
Venkatarama Aiyar, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Bombay in a reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, hereinafter referred to as the Act.2. The appellant is a private limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, and is carrying on business as marine engineers and ship repairers. Its registered office is in Bombay and it is resident and ordinarily resident in India. Its entire share capital is beneficially owned by two British Companies, the P. & O. Steam Navigation Co. Ltd., and the British Indian Steam Navigation Co. Ltd., whose business consists in plying ships for hire. Under an agreement entered into with the two companies aforesaid, which will be referred to hereinafter as the non-resident companies, the appellant repairs their ships at cost, and charges no profits. Now, the point for determination is whether, on these facts, the appellant is chargeable to tax under Section 42(2) of the Act. That sub-secti...
Tag this Judgment!Sholapur Spinning and Weaving Company, Ltd. Vs. Maruf B.M. (Government ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-09-1958
Reported in: (1958)IILLJ123Bom
ORDER1. This is an application in revision under S. 88(2) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act against an order of the Judge, Second Labour Court, Bombay, rejecting the contention of the applicants (accused 2 and 3 in the case) that they were not liable to be made accused in this criminal case. 2. The facts out of which this application has arisen are that the Government labour officer, Sholapur, made a report against the Sholapur Spinning and Weaving Company, Ltd., Sri V. H. Mehta, the general manager of the company (applicant 1 in this application), and Sri Gokulchand Dwarkadas Murarka, described as occupier and director of the company (applicant 2 in this application), in which it was stated that these accused had committed an offence punishable under S. 106 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act in that they had made an illegal change by not paying wages and dearness allowance for the month of January 1958 to the employees of the mill as per an award of the industrial court in Re...
Tag this Judgment!Sawatram Ramprasad Mills Company Ltd. Vs. Kundanmal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-07-1958
Reported in: (1958)IILLJ513Bom
ORDER1. This is an appeal against the order of Sri J. N. Khare, Presiding Officer, District Industrial Court, Akola. It appears that the respondent was a clerk in the appellant mills from 20 July 1938 for 7 1/2 years. The respondent was retired on completing 55 years of age with effect from 12 January 1956 by the appellant's notice, dated 11 January 1956. The respondent was paid the amount of gratuity and one month's notice pay. Several issues arose out of the application, viz., whether the retirement of the respondent under the Mangalmurti award was proper or not and whether he was entitled to continue in service and claim reinstatement. On this issue, the lower Court found against the respondent. He filed an appeal but the same has been dismissed. There was one more issue raised by the respondent in his application which was as follows : 'Whether the applicant is entitled to payment of wages at Rs. 130 per month for the full period of accumulated and unenjoyed sick leave to his credi...
Tag this Judgment!Wasudeo Vs. Nagpur Corporation (by the Executive Officer)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-03-1958
Reported in: (1958)IILLJ519Bom
ORDER1. This is an appeal against the order of Shri T. L. Junankar, District Industrial Court, Nagpur, dismissing the application of the appellant. It was alleged by the appellant that he was working as a filter khalasi at Gorewara, Nagpur, since 1946; that by an order, dated 2 February 1955, the non-applicant promoted him in a clear vacancy to be filter attendant, the services of the applicant being of a permanent character; that by an order, dated 18 August 1955, the non-applicant removed him from his job of filter attendant, without showing any reason or else otherwise giving any notice to the applicant and consequently effected a change in the conditions of service of the applicant not only affecting his wages but also his rightfully acquired status. He, therefore, alleged that the change was in regard to an industrial matter and was an illegal change and asked for a declaration and for certain consequential reliefs. 2. The non-applicant in his written statement has denied the vari...
Tag this Judgment!Chaturbhuj Durgadas Factory Vs. Damodar Jamnadas Zawar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-02-1958
Reported in: (1958)60BOMLR1329
Gokhale, J.(1) This is an appeal by the plaintiff Chaturbhuj Durgadas Factory at Dharangaon against the dismissal of its suit by the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Jalgaon, District East Khandesh. The suit was for recovering Rs. 25,000 and costs from defendant No. 1 and defendants No. 2 to 5 in respect of certain dealings between the plaintiff and a cloth shop named Jamnadas Radhakisan Shop, which according to the plaintiff was of the ownership of the deceased father of defendant No. 1 Jamnadas Jugaikishore, of defendant No. 1 Damodar and of Vithaldas Jamnadas, the deceased brother of defendant No. 1, and of defendants Nos. 2 to 5. There was another cloth shop belonging to the defendants and that was named Bhagirath Gangadhar, but we are not concerned in this case with latter shop. The original partners of Jamnadas Radhakisan were Jamnadas Jugalkishore, father of defendant No.1, Radhakisan Jankidas, the father of defendants No. 3 to 5, and it would appear that this shop ...
Tag this Judgment!Western India theatres Ltd. Vs. Ishwarbhai Somabhai Patel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-02-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom386; (1958)60BOMLR1288; ILR1959Bom295
D.V. Vyas, J. 1. This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and it is filed by one Jadeja Habhubha Viraji of Kalawad. The reliefs which the Petitioner has prayed for are declarations (i) that 'extinguishment' of his Mulgiras rights by Section 39 of the Saurashtra Land Reforms Act 1951 is void, and (ii) that the lands held by the Petitioner are not liable to any assessment, tax or cess. A further prayer made by the Petitioner is that it should be declared that Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 7 of the Saurashtra Local Development Fund Act, 1958, are ultra vires the legislative competence of the Saurashtra State Legislature and that the notice dated 14-4-1957 issued upon the Petitioner by the Mamlatdar for the levy of cess in pursuance of the Saurashtra Local Development Fund Act, 1956, is void and illegal and should therefore be quashed. It is contended by the petitioner that the levy of cess from him at the rate of three annas on the amount of ful...
Tag this Judgment!Maroti Sadashiv and ors. Vs. Godubai Narayanrao and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-02-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom443; (1959)61BOMLR143; ILR1959Bom405
1. These appeals arise out of a suit filed by the plaintiff for damages for defamation against the defendants. The plaintiff is the widow of one Narayan died in the year 1943, leaving behind him his own widow and the adoptive mother Bainabai, defendant No. 1. The second defendant is Bainabai's sister and defendants Nos. 3 and 4 are the sons of the second defendant. Defendant No. 5 is the brother of Bainabai. Defendants Nos. 6 to 10 are stated to be the friends of defendant Nos. 3 to 5. Now, the defamation alleged against the several defendants was that defendant No. 10 made an anonymous application to the District Superintendent of Police which contained the defamatory words that 'the plaintiff was pregnant.' This application was enquired into and statements were recorded by the police at Dapori on 29-4-1950. The application was read to the plaintiff in the presence of other persons. The plaintiff, however, stated that the application was in the handwriting of the 10th defendant, thoug...
Tag this Judgment!Khanderao Malkarjun Dhotre Vs. Anandrao Laxmanrao Mashalkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-02-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom471; (1958)60BOMLR1039; ILR1958Bom1325
ORDER1. This is a civil revision application arising out of an order of the Dist. Court, Sholapur, and the point that arises for determination is as to what is the meaning of the words 'on the first day of hearing of the suit' in Section 12, Sub-section (3), Cl. (b) of the Bombay Rent Act, which provides that if the tenant pays on or before such date the rent in arrears and continues to pay subsequent rent regularly, he will not be liable to face eviction.2. Now, a few facts are that in the suit for ejectment the date mentioned in the summons as the returnable date was 2-2-1955. Nothing was done on that date and the matter was adjourned to 16-3-1955. On that date it was adjourned for the defendants's written statement, which appears to have been filed on 23-4-1955. On 4-10-1955 -- ignoring an interlude of an ex parte order being passed and set aside -- the issues were settled. The rent had been paid by the defendant before the 4th of October 1955.3. Now, the words 'the first day of hea...
Tag this Judgment!Nagindas Madhavlal Sandesara Vs. Kodidas Mangaldas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-02-1958
Reported in: (1958)60BOMLR1226
J.C. Shah, J.1. His Lordship after stating the facts and dealing1 with points not material to this report, proceeded : In a recent judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court the extent of liability of Hindu sons to pay the debt of their father was elaborately examined See Pannalal v. Mt. Naraini : [1952]1SCR544 . In that case, their Lordships discussed the relevant law in detail and enunciated certain propositions. This judgment was relied upon both by the judgment-debtors and by the plaintiff, and the observations made therein are pressed into service in support of their respective contentions. In order to appreciate the contentions, it may be necessary to set out the material propositions which are enunciated in Pannalal's case and then to examine whether the contentions advanced by the respective parties in support of their respective cases are supported by the observations relied upon.2. The following undisputed propositions emerge from the judgment in Pannalal's case:(1) A H...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›