Mumbai Court June 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.
K.P. Shankerlingam Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1959
Reported in: (1960)62BOMLR1
(1) After I had delivered judgment in this case (on June 24th and 25th, 1959) in the case of Balkrishna Bapuji Karkhanis v. State of Bombay, Suit No. 276 of 1954, Mr. R. L. Dalal on behalf of the State contended that by reason of the provisions of Article 310 of the Constitution, the plaintiff in that case was not entitled to maintain his action for a declaration that the order of termination of his services was wrongful and that he was continuing in service in spite of that order. Mr. Dalal relied upon the decision of this Court in Jagdish Dajiba v. Accountant General of Bombay, : (1959)ILLJ117Bom in support of that contention. That suit was after considerable arguments settled in Court. This contention appeared to me to be a contention which ought to have been argued and considered in this case. The parties had asked for adjournment of this suit for ascertaining the amount which would be payable by the defendants to the plaintiff in accordance with the judgment. The matter accordingl...
Bai Jiviben Vs. Bombay Revenue Tribunal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1475
H.K. Chainani, C.J.1. The point involved in both these applications is whether a widow can terminate tie tenancy of her land under Section 31 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. The Bombay Revenue Tribunal has taken the view that a widow has no such right and that the right to maintain such an application is available only to the successor-in-title of the widow under Sub-section (3) of Section 31. This view is in accordance with the decision of the Full Bench of the Revenue Tribunal in Parvati Bhau Patil v. Nagu Ragha Patil, decided on October 22, 1958.2. The question to be determined, therefore, is whether this view is correct Sub-section (1) of Section 31 provides that a landlord may, after giving notice and making an application for possession as provided in Sub-section (2), terminate the tenancy of any land, if the landlord bona fide requires the land for cultivating personally, or for any non-agricultural purpose. Sub-section (3) of Section 31; provides inter alia th...
P.H. Divecha and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Bom319; (1959)61BOMLR1584; [1960]38ITR209(Bom)
Shah, J.1. This reference raises the vexed question whether certain amounts received by the assessee are capital receipts or revenue receipts. Elaborate arguments have been advanced before us by Mr. Palkhivala for the assessee in support of the plea that the amounts received by the assessee were capital receipts and not liable to tax and he has invited our attention to several discussions of the Supreme Court as well as of other courts. Before we refer to the arguments, advanced at the Bar, it is necessary to set out the facts which give rise to this reference. 2. Prior to the year 1938, three persons, Jehangir A. Irani, Pirojsha H. Divecha and Khurshed A. Irani were conducting in partnership a business in 'electrical goods' and as commission agents and merchants in the name and style of 'Precious Electric Co.' The duration of the partnership was initially limited to a certain period but was from time to time renewed. Jehangir A. Irani dies on August 22, 1942, and in is place his son N...
Maneklal Vallabhdas Parekh Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Nort ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-1959
Reported in: [1959]37ITR142(Bom)
Shah, J.1. The assessee was the owner of 16 motor-lorries which were run on petrol. In the years of account 2009-2010 he replaced the petrol engines by diesel engines at a total cost of Rs. 97,996. The cost of installing diesel engines represented approximately half the value of the motor-lorries. Before the Income-tax Officer, the assessee claimed initial depreciation in respect of these diesel engines under section 10(2) (vi), paragraph 2. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim and that order was confirmed by the Appellate Tribunal. 2. In this reference, Mr. S. P. Mehta, who appears on behalf of the assessee, contends that the assessee has been granted normal depreciation under paragraph 1 clause (vi) of section 10(2) and there is no reason why he should not be entitled, in respect of the same engines, to initial depreciation under paragraph (2). Mr. Mehta seeks to support this argument by referring to rule 8 in the schedule which has been framed under the Indian Income-tax Act....
Anusuyabai Vithal Vs. Mehta J.H.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1417; (1959)IILLJ742Bom
Chainani, C.J. 1. The question which arises for determination in these two applications is whether compensation, payable to workers, who have been laid off, under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is 'wages' within the meaning of the Payment of Wages Act. The term 'lay-off' is defined in Clause (kkk) of S. 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act as meaning the failure, refusal or inability of an employer on account of shortage of coal, power or law materials or the accumulation of stocks or the breakdown of machinery or for any other reason to give employment to a workman whose name is borne on the muster-rolls of his industrial establishment and who has not been retrenched. To put it briefly, lay-off therefore means the failure, refusal or inability of an employer to give employment to his employee. There is an explanation to this clause which states : 'Every workman whose name is borne on the muster-rolls of the industrial establishment and who presents himself for work a...
New Mahalaxmi Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City, ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1369
Shah, J.(1) The assessee is a private limited company. For the year of account 1949-50 accordin g to the balancesheet of a net profit of Rs . 3,367/- resulted in the busiess of the assessee. The assessee distributed Rs. 12,800/- as dividend to the shareholders. In the assessment proceeding the In ome-tax officer diallowed in the assessee Rs. 55,459/- included for excess provision for bonus for the year under reference, Rs. 33,000/- for under-valuation of stock and Rs. 20433/- for excess provision for bonus for 1947-48 and 1948-49. He also diallowed Rs. 45,020/- on charity account and Rs. 1,053/- on Diwali account and made a slight adjustment in respect opf the claim for depreciation. Finding that the assessee had not distributed as dividend sity per cent of the assessable income less the amount of income-tax and super tax payable by the assessee, the income Tax Officer passed an order under S. 23A of the Income Tax Act. Against that order an appeal was preferred to the Appellate Assist...
Manilal Dahyabhai Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1359
Shah, J.(1) The assessee is a Hindu undivided family. Ir carries on business as a wholesale dealer in cloth in two names (1) Manilal Dayabhai, Vithalwadi, Bombay, and (2) Dayabhai sobharam, Champa Galli, Bombay. The business with the up-country merchants is carried on in the name Manilal Dayabhai, and the local business is carried on the name of dayabhai sobharam. The assessee also carries on business in speculation in gold, silver, cotton, etc. Two separate sets of books of account are maintained by the assessee in respect of the business carried on in the two names. We are in this reference concerned with the business which is carried on by the assessee in the name of Dayabhai Sobharam. For the Assessment year 1949-50 the assessee retuned a total income of Rs. 1,38,946/- from the business done in the name of Dayabhai sobharam. In arriving at that figure the assessee deducted from the gross income an amount of Rs. 1,04,042/- as loss suffered in the speculation business in shares cotto...
Manilal Dahyabhai Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Bom130; [1959]37ITR398(Bom)
Shah, J.1. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family. It carries on business as a wholesale dealer in cloth in two names : (i) Manilal Dayabhai, Vithalwadi, Bombay, and (ii) Dayabhai Sobharam, Champa Galli, Bombay. The business with the up-country merchants is carried on in the name of Manilal Dayabhai, and the local business is carried on in the name of Dayabhai Sobharam. The assessee also carries on business in speculation in gold, silver cotton, etc. Two separate sets of books of account are maintained by the assessee in respect of the business carried on in the two names. We are in this reference concerned with the business which is carried on by the assessee in the name of Dayabhai Sobharam. For the assessment year 1949-50, the assessee returned a total income of Rs. 1,38,946 from the business done in the name of Dayabhai Sobharam. In arriving at that figure the assessee deducted from the gross income an amount of Rs. 1,04,042 as loss suffered in the speculation business in shares,...
New Mahalaxmi Silk Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Bom220; [1959]37ITR423(Bom)
Shah, J.1. The assessee is a private limited company. For the year of account 1949-50 according to the balance-sheet a net profit of Rs. 3,367, resulted in the business of the assessee. The assessee distribute Rs. 12,800 as dividend to the shareholders. In the assessment proceedings the Income-tax Officer assessed the assessable income of the assessee at Rs. 1,37,693. The Income-tax Officer disallowed to the assessee Rs. 55,459, included for excess provision for bonus for the year under reference, Rs. 33,000, for under-valuation of stock and Rs. 20,433, for excess provision for bonus for 1947-48 and 1948-49. He also disallowed Rs. 45,020 on charity account and Rs. 1,053, on Diwali account and made a slight adjustment in respect of the claim for depreciation. Finding that the assessee had not distributed as dividend sixty per cent. of the assessable income less the amount of income-tax and super-tax payable by the assessee, the Income-tax Officer passed an order under section 23A of the...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Ii Vs. Trustees of Seth Meghji ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-1959
Reported in: [1959]37ITR419(Bom)
Shah, J.1. One Seth Meghji Mathuradas executed a deed of trust on 4th May, 1943, in respect of a sum of Rs. 3,50,000 to be held by the trustees for purposes which were religious or charitable in character. By clause 1(d) of the deed of trust it was directed that after setting apart certain sums by way of depreciation and other expenses the balance of the income, interest, dividends, rents and profits of the trust properties was to be utilised for all or any or more of the following charitable purposes, in such shares and proportions and in such manner in every respect as the trustees shall, in their absolute and unfettered discretions, think fit : '(i) In giving aid to deserving or poor Hindus of the three upper or twice-born classes in the shape of money, clothes, books, articles, food or otherwise howsoever as the trustees may in their absolute discretion think fit; (ii) For the purpose of advancement of education (primary, secondary, technical or other) by the opening, starting, ma...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »