Mumbai Court March 1959 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.
Kuberdas Hargovindas Modi Vs. State of Bombay and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1276
Mudholkar, J.(1) Two of these petitions are under Article 226 of the Constitution and two under Article 227 of the Constitution.(2) The petitioner in the first and second petition is the occupant of Survey No. 204 of the village Sahijpurbogh. It is common ground that he sold this field to one Punjiram Prajapati on 1st April 1957 for Rs. 9,176. This sale has been declared invalid by the the Mamlatdar under section 84C (2) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. Pursant to this declaration the land purported to have been sold by the petitioner to Punjiram Prajapati has been declared by the Mamlatdar to have been forfeited to the Govt. and the price received by the petitioner is also declared to have been forfeited to the Governmen. The Mamlatdar's order having been ultimately affirmed by the Prant Officer in appeal and by the Bombay revenue Tribunal in revision, the petitioner seeks to have all those orders quashed under article 227 of the Constitution. By way of precaution the...
Keshab Govind Kulkarni Vs. Extra Assistant Judge, Sourth Satara and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1151
Chainani, C.J.(1) The petitioner is a resident of Islampur. An election for two seats in the Islampur Municipality was held on 5-11-1957. The petitioner and opponents Nos. 3 to 6 stood for the election. The nomination papers were filed on 10-10-1957. The petitioner objected to the nomination papers of opponents Nos. 3 and 4, Ganpat Ssmbhaji and Baburao yeshwant. He contended that they were disqualified from standing for election under clause (ea) of S. 15(1) of the Bombay District Municipal Act, which applies to the Islampur Municipality. Under this clause, no person may be a councillor, who fails to pay any arrears of any kind due by him to the Municipality within three months after a special notice in this behalf has been served upon him. The objection raised by the petitioer was overruled by the Returning Officer. Opponents Noz. 5 and 6 withdrew their candidature. At the time of the election there were, therefore, obly three candidates. Opponents Nos. 3 and 4. He challenged the elec...
Yamunabai and anr. Vs. Ram Maharaj Shreedhar Maharaj Pandit and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1315
Shah, J.(1) By interlocutory judgment, dated 11-2-1958, further hearing in these two appeals was adjourned to enable the frst defendant to apply to the State of Bombay for sanction ex post facto to his adoption. the first defendant then submitted an application to the State of Bombay for sanctioning his adoption ex post facto. The first defendant was informed by the under Secretary to the government of Bombay, Political and Services Department, by his letter dated 6-6-1958 that orders granting sanction ex post facto to his adoption by Shri Annapuranabai, wido of late Bala Maharaj, on 14-3-1949 have been ssued, and that the first defendant may 'approach the Collector of Kolhapur in that behalf'. The first defendant,then, applied for a certified-copy of the order, but none was supplied to him. We are informed by Mr. Gokhale who appears on behalf of the plaintiff, that this client - the plaintiff - also applied for a ecertified-copy of the oprder, but a copy of the order has not been furn...
Rao Saheb Anandrao Mahagaonkar Vs. Eknath Dnyanoba Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1123
Mudholkar, J.1. The petitioners in both these petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution are landlords of certain lands and had sought possession of those lands from the respective respondents in the two petitions on the ground that these respondents had forfeited the tenancies in their favour because they had sub-let all the lands or some of the lands, which were leased out to them.2. It may be pointed out that in both the petitions before Us a number of fields were leased out to the respective respondents in the two petitions by their landlords under a single lease one of which reserved a single rent with respect to the demised lands. In Spl. C.A. No. 3384 of 1958 the contention of the petitioner-landlord was that his tenants had sub-let all the lands leased out to them. The Tribunals below have, however, held that only a portion of the demised lands was sub-let by the tenants. In Spl. C.A. No. 1328 of 1958 the contention of the petitioner-landlord was that most of the lands wer...
Gyangirji Narsinggirji Math Vs. Dhanrajgirji Raja Narsingh Girji and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1959
Reported in: AIR1967Bom94; (1966)68BOMLR207
1. This is an appeal by the original plaintiff against the order passed by Mr. Justice K.K. Desai dismissing the notice of motion, which the plaintiff had taken out for obtaining an injunction restraining the defendants from dealing with or disposing of the suit properties or from taking any proceeding in execution of the decree for sale passed in Suit No. 452 of 1954 and from selling the suit properties or any part thereof. The plaintiff's case briefly is that the suit properties belong to a Math, of which defendant No. 1 is the Mahani. He has alienated these properties to defendants Nos. 2 to 5. The plaintiff has, therefore, in his suit asked for a declaration that he is the owner of the said properties and that the defendants had no right to deal with or alienate these properties. He has also asked for a declaration that the decree passed in Suit No. 452 of 1954 is invalid, inoperative and not binding upon him. During the pendency of the suit the plaintiff took out a notice of motio...
Humayun Abdullali Vs. M.G. Abrol and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1633
ORDER(1) This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of two orders, oen made by the 1st respondent, viz., Additional Collector of Customs and the second made by the Central Board of Revenue in appeal against the order made by the 1st respondent. The relevant facts as appearing from the documents annexed to the petition and the affidavit in reply are as follows: (2) In 1955 the petitioner received an inquiry from some foreign customer for export and sale from India for coarse white goat-hair or wool. The petitioner had in that connection sent his inaterial which is described as petitioner's type 100AA to that foreign customer. The petitioner was in doubt as to whether he could export his goods as wool waste which did not require export licence or only as raw wool which required export licence. In that connection the petitioner's representative interviewed the Deputy Marketing Development Officer in Bombay with a sample: but the officer refused to give ...
P.S. Subramanyan, Income-tax Officer, Companies Circle I (1), Bombay a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1959
Reported in: [1963]48ITR980(Bom)
Chainani, C.J. 1. This is an appeal by the Income-tax Officer, Companies Circle 1(1). Bombay, and the Union of India, against the order passed by Mr. Justice K. T. Desai, by which he set aside the assessment order dated 30th July, 1957, passed by the first appellant and the notice of demand issued by him on 3rd August, 1957, upon the respondents, and prohibited the appellants from taking any steps or proceedings in enforcement of the said assessment order or the said notice of demand. 2. The respondents are a limited company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1913. For the assessment year 1952-53, the respondents made an advance payment of tax amounting to Rs. 10,75,017-9-0 under section 18A(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act. On 30th August, 1952, the respondents were regularly assessed under sub-section (3) of section 23 of the Act, for the same assessment year. The total amount of tax assessed was Rs. 6,46,329-9-0. Under section 18A(5) of the Act, as it then stood, the responde...
Parikh Jivanlal Manilal Vs. Shah Chhitalal Chunilal and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1254
Datar, J.(1) This is an appeal against an order made by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, of Baroda, on an application filed by one of the defendants in the original suit under S. 95 of the Civil Procedure Code for awarding of compensation against the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff had got effected an attachment before judgment of his property without sufficient reasons. The learned trial Judge held that the defendant applicant had succeeded in showing that the attachment before judgment had been effected without sufficient reasons. He accordingly awarded an amount of Rs. 500 to the defendant applicant from the plaintiff.(2) The application for attachment before judgment was made by the plaintiff on the same day on which he instituted his suit for an amount of Rs. 21,719-14-9 due on the foot of accounts. The learned trial Judge, before whom the application came for preliminary orders, granted an ex parte order for attachment before judgment. This ex parte order was however ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City I Vs. E.D. Sheppard
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-1959
Reported in: [1960]39ITR14(Bom)
Shah, J. 1. This reference relates to the assessment year 1948-49. Killick Nixon & Co., were a partnership concern carrying on trading operations on an extensive scale in India. They owned various textile factories and managing agencies of limited companies. The firm used to employ assistants initially for five years, and if their service were found satisfactory, extensions were given after the initial period at enhanced salary. The assistants could expect in due course to become partners in the firm. The assessee, E. D. Sheppard, was one of such assistant who joined the firm in 1930. The original contract of Sheppard's employment is not on the record : but it is undisputed that the terms of employment were the same as those on which one W. J. Heygate was employed on January 7, 1937. A copy of Heygate's contract of employment was produced before the Income-tax Officer. The assessee was in the first instance employed for a period of five years and he undertook to 'diligently and faithfu...
Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Nagpur and ors. Vs. Firm Ramkrish ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1959
Reported in: [1960]11STC807(Bom)
Datar, J. 1. These two appeals have been filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax and the Sales Tax Officer, Nagpur, for setting aside the order which our brother Justice Kotval passed in two miscellaneous petitions filed under the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned Judge allowed the application on the ground that the notice purported to have been issued by the Commissioner of Sales Tax was bad in view of the fact that it had not been issued within the period of three calendar years as required by section 11 of the Sales Tax Act. The learned Assistant Government Pleader has drawn out attention to a subsequent Full Bench decision of this Court which is reported in Bisesar House v. State of Bombay [1958] 9 S.T.C. 654; 1958 N.L.J. 658. The point that arises in the two appeals before us has been authoritatively decided by the Full Bench in the case above-mentioned. The Full Bench took the view that assessment under sub-section (1) of section 11 of the Sales ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »