Mumbai Court March 1959 Judgments
Ratanchand Radhakisondas Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1161; 1960CriLJ461
Gokhale, J. (1) Criminal Appeal No. 1491 is an appeal by one Ratachand Radhakisondas against his convictions under S. 471 read with S. 467 and under S. 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The charge against thhe accused was that on 12-11-1956 at Bombay he fraudulently or dishonestly used as genuine a certain document purporting to be a valuable security, viz., K form of Bombay Sales Tax Officer, which he know or had reason to believe at the time be used it to be a forged document and thereby comitted an offence punishable under S. 471 read with S. 467 of the Indian Penal Code. The second charge against him was that at the saem time and place and in the course of the sametransaction, he cheated on Ratialal Wadilala, partner of Shantilala and Company, by dishonesty inducing him to deliver poplin cloth valued at Rs. 844-1-0 to the accused without payment of general sales tax and which cloth was the property of the said Ratilala Wadilala and thus committed an offence punishable under S. 420 of t...
Tag this Judgment!Ambi Pundalik and anr. Vs. Pundalik Shankar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1167
Naik, J.(1) This is an applcation in revision from the judgment of the District Judge, Amraoti, holding that the appeal preferred before him in matrimonial proceedings under the Hindu Marrage Act was maintainable. The circumstances which have led to this revision application may be briefly stated as follows: The husband started proceedings for restitutuion of conjugal rights under the Hindu Marriage Act against his wife. That petition having been dismissed by the Third Additional District Judge, the husband went up in appeal to the District Court in Civil Appeal No. 10-A of 1957. A preliminary objection was raised o behalf of the wife contending that the appeal did not lie to the district court, but that the appeal sould have been properly filed efore the High Court. On this preliminary objections, the District Judge, after examining the relevant provisions, came to the conclusion that the appeal to the District Court was competent. It is from that decision that the present revision ap...
Tag this Judgment!Rakhama Sitaram Ghadge Vs. Laxman Sitaram Ghadge and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1170
Shah, J. (1) The dispute in this appeal relates to two lands - Survey Nos. 155/5 and 155/6 of the village of Kandali, Taluka Junnar, district Poona. the lands originally belonged to the plaintiff. By a conveyance, dated 17-1-1951 the plaintiff sold these lands to the first defendant for Rs. 500. The first defendant then executed an agreement in favour of the plaintiff, who it may be noted is his full brother, whereby he contracted to re convey the lands to the plaintiff at any time on repayment of Rs. 500. On 13-11-1954 the plaintiff served a notice calling on the first defendant to re convey the property pursuant to the agreement., dated 17-11-1951, but the first defendant declined to carry out the requisition. The plaintiff then filled Civil Suit No. 16 of 1955 in the court of the Civil Judge, Junion Division, Junnar, for a decree for specific performance of the agreement. To that suit, Krishanabai - wife of the first defendant - was impleaded as the second defendant on the allegatio...
Tag this Judgment!The Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. J.H. Katrak
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1259
Shelat, J.1. [His Lordship after dealing with the facts of the case and points not material to this report, proceeded.] As regards development, admittedly upto January, 1950, there was no development in Parjapur itself except for a solitary one-room structure with a verandah in S.N. 34/2-A. As one comes down south towards Marol gaothan, the Acme Bobbin & Shuttles Co., Ltd. had, by January, 1950, constructed a factory in Instance No. 3. Except for that, there were no structures on Marol-Maroshi Road until one came to S. No. 168/6 where there were three structures. Marol gaothan had, of course, about 400 houses. Going eastwards there was some development in S. Nos. 44 and 45 of Paspoli and in S. No. 31 of Tungwa where M/s. Larsen & Toubro and Khandelwal & Co. had their factories. Near Saki Naka also there were some 3 or 4 structures. But the distance between these places and Marol-Maroshi Road is as much as five furlongs and, therefore, any development in that direction cannot be conside...
Tag this Judgment!Mahavirprasad Badridas Vs. M.S. Yagnik, Second Wealth-tax Officer, C-i ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Bom191; [1959]37ITR191(Bom)
Shah, J.1. By this petition the competence of the Union Parliament to enact the Wealth-tax Act (XXVII of 1957), in as far as that Act seeks to levy wealth-tax on Hindu undivided families, is challenged. The petitioner, who is the karta of a Hindu undivided family and is being assessed to wealth-tax in the status of Hindu undivided family was, by notice dated 12th July, 1958, issued in exercise of powers conferred by section 14(2) of the Wealth-tax Act, called upon by the Second Wealth-tax Officer, C-II Ward, Bombay, to furnish a return of the net wealth of his undivided Hindu family. The petitioner claims that the notice is invalid because section 3 of the Wealth-tax Act is ultra vires the Union Parliament in so far as that section authorises the levy of wealth-tax on the net wealth of a Hindu undivided family. 2. By section 3 of Act 27 of 1957 liability to pay for every financial year commencing on and from the 1st day of April, 1957, a tax referred to as the wealth-tax in respect of ...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Laxman Koltewar and ors. Vs. State of Bombay Through Secretary ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1284
Mudholkar, J.(1) The petitioners were elected members of the Warora Municipality in the year 1955. After they were elected to the municipality they are alleged to have taken leases of certain rooms belonging to the municipality. It is because of this that the Commissioner exercising his powers under Section 22(2) of the C. P. and Berar Municipalities Act has declared that they have incurred a disqualification set out in Section 15 of the Act and have consequently ceased to be members of the municipality.(2) It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that by merely taking leases of the rooms belonging to the municipality a member does not incur a disqualification under Section 15. The releyand part of that section runs thus:'No person shall be eligible for election or nomination as a member of a committe, if such person-x x x x x x x (1) has directly or indirectly any share or interest in any contract with, by or on behalf of the committe, while owning such share or interest. Provided...
Tag this Judgment!Dhananjaya Keshao Bhende Vs. Bombay Revenue Tribunal at Nagpur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1156
Naik, J.1. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order passed by the Revenue Tribunal directing the restoration of possession of survey No. 26 to the tenant.2. The material facts can be briefly stated as follows :-Survey No. 26, measuring 23 acres and 37 gunthas, and situated at mouza Pimpri, originally belonged to one Keshao Shamrao Bhende. This land was given on lease to Baliraan Panduji Jadhao as a tenant. Keshao served a notice on November 23, 1952, terminating the tenancy of Baliram on the ground that he required the land for his personal cultivation. Baliram did not make any application under Section 9(3) of the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act, challenging that the notice was not bona fide or even making a prayer under Clause (b) of Sub-section (3) that some other land may be given to him in lieu of the land mentioned in the notice. It appears that Baliram handed over possession of the land to Keshao by the middle ...
Tag this Judgment!Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh, Nagpur Vs. State Industrial Court, Nagpu ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1279; (1959)IILLJ737Bom
Mudholkar, J.1. In this application we have to consider mainly two questions. The first is the date on which S. 7A which was inserted by Act XXI of 1955 [the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Disputes Settlement (Amendment) Act, 1955] which amendment the Industrial Disputes Settlement Act of 1947, came into force. The second question is whether the Deputy Labour Commissioner, who was appointed as a Registrar under S. 14 of the Act, was entitled to entertain the application of opponent 7. 2. The circumstances which have given rise to this petition are briefly these : 3. The Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh, Nagpur, who is the petitioner before us, was recognized as a registered union under S. 3 of the Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947, sometime during the year 1951-52. Taking advantage of the provisions of S. 7A, opponent 7 made an application to the Assistant Registrar of Recognized Unions, Nagpur, on 25 April, 1958, for its recognition in place of the petitioner union. This application was...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Bombay Vs. Mulraj Karsondas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Bom375; [1960]40ITR561(Bom)
Shah, J. 1. This reference relates to two assessments years 1947-48 and 1948-49. A private limited company known as 'Chidambaram Mulraj & Co., which will hereafter be referred to as the company, was incorporated on April 30, 1943, with the object of acquiring the managing agency of the Elphinstone Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. The company appointed the assessee, Mulraj Karsondas, as its managing director and agreed to pay him 25 percent. of the annual managing agency commission and also a salary of Rs. 1,000 per month. The salary was later increased to Rs. 2,000 per month because Chidambaram, who was the director chairman of the company, retired from active management and the assessee was 'saddled with higher burden and responsibilities'. In completing the assessment of the company for the assessment year 1946-47 the taxing authorities disallowed the salary paid to the assessee in excess of Rs. 1,100 as a business deduction. In the assessment years 1947-48 and 1948-49 the taxing au...
Tag this Judgment!Pukhraj Champalal JaIn Vs. D.R. Kohli
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1230
Tambe, J.1. One of the questions raised in this application relates to the constitutionality of Section 178A of the Sea Customs Act (Act VIII of 1878) and, therefore, a notice was issued to the Attorney General. The contention is that it violates the constitutional guarantee to acquire, hold and dispose of property, and to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business enshrined in Sub-clauses (1) and (g) of Clause (1) of Article 19 of the Constitution of India.2. Petitioner Pukhraj Jain, a national and citizen of India, owns a gold and silver shop at Rajnandgaon and carries on business of a goldsmith under the name and style of 'Champalal Pukhraj'. The petitioner claims that his business is of buying and selling gold and that he was doing business both at Rajnandgaon and Tatanagar.3. On October 25, 1956, while he was travelling in a train he was intercepted at Raigarh railway station at about 4.30 p.m. by the Customs Inspector (P & I) and he was found in pos...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »