Mumbai Court March 1960 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Keshav Mills Co. Ltd., Petlad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-1960
Reported in: [1962]44ITR647(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. In this reference a question arose with regard to 3 amounts and when the reference came on before us we disposed of the questions arising out of two amounts and directed the Tribunal to submit a supplementary statement of the case with regard to the amount of Rs. 6,71,735 and that supplementary statement has now been submitted to us. 2. The question that arose with regard to this amount was whether this amount had been received by the assessee in British India. The supplementary statement that we called for was necessary before the Supreme Court delivered its judgment which is reported in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ogale Glass Works Ltd. After this judgment the position with regard to receipt has been considerable simplified. Now, in this case the amount concerned was paid by the various merchants to the assessee by drafts, hundies and cheques, and the Supreme Court has laid down that where there is on the part of the seller a request express or implied, to pay the am...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Kawas Manekshaw Nanavati
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-1960
Reported in: (1960)62BOMLR383; 1960CriLJ1558
Chainani, C.J.(1) In Criminal Reference No. 159 of 1959, which was made to this Court under Section 307 Cr. P. C. by the Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, a Division Bench of this Court, consisting of Shelat and Naik, JJ. found the accused commander K. M. Nanavati guilty of the offence of murder and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. The accused was then in naval custody and the Court directed that a warrant for his arrest should issue. This decision was gien of Friday, 11th March 1960. An application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was made soon after the judgment was pronounced. This ws fixed for hearing on the following Monday, 14th March. A writ comminicating the order of this Court was sent to the Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, who issued a warrant for the arrest of the accusede and sent it to the police officer in charge of the City Sessions Court for Greater Bombay for execution. The warrant was returned unserved by the police officer with a report, in which he stat...
Tag this Judgment!Balaram Abaji Patil Vs. Ragojiwalla (M.C.)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-1960
Reported in: (1960)IILLJ491Bom; (1960)IILLJ491Bom
Tarkunde, J.1. Two questions arise for decision in this petition filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, and the questions are : (1) whether wages which are required to be paid by statute, over and above the wages stipulated by contract, fall within the definition of 'wages' in the Payment of Wages Act; and (2) whether in the case of workers covered by both the Payment of Wages Act and the Minimum Wages Act, the jurisdiction of the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act to direct the employer to pay the unpaid balance of minimum wages is exclusive so as to oust the jurisdiction of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act to grant the same or similar relief. The facts on which these questions arise are these : The petitioners were employed by respondent 2 for the work of preparing salt in certain salt pans. The concern of respondent 2 was a factory under the Indian Factories Act and the petitioners are accordingly covered by the Payment of Wages Act. By a notification iss...
Tag this Judgment!Balaram Abaji Patil and ors. Vs. M.C. Ragojiwalla and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Bom59; 1961BomCR(Cri)59; (1960)62BOMLR807; ILR1960Bom816; (1960)IILLJ491Bom
Tarkunde, J. 1. Two questions arise for decision in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and the questions are: (1) whether wages which are required to be paid by statute, over and above the wages stipulated by contract, fall within the definition of 'wages' in the Payment of Wages Act; and (2) whether in the case of workers covered by both the Payment of Wages Act and the Minimum Wages Act, the jurisdiction of the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act to direct the employer to pay the unpaid balance of minimum wages is exclusive, so as to oust the jurisdiction of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act to grant tha same or similar relief.2. The facts on which these questions arise are these: -- The petitioners were employed by respondent No. 2 for the work of preparing salt in certain salt pans. The concern of respondent No. 2 was a factory under the Indian Factories Act, and the petitioners are accordingly covered by the Payment of Wages Act. By a ...
Tag this Judgment!Pralhad Gangadhar Joshi Vs. Sakhubai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Bom142
Kotval, J.1. This is an appeal under Clause 10 of the Nagpur Letters Patent against the order of Mr. Justice P.P. Deo upon leave granted by that Judge. The matter arises out of execution proceedings. The appellant judgment-debtor before us, Pralhad Gangadhar Joshi, is the husband of the respondent Smt. Sakhubai wife of Pralhad Joshi. The parties were married sometime in 1940. In July 1949 the husband married a second time. Thereafter, it appears that he neglected to look after his first wife, the respondent, and so she filed a suit for maintenance in 1950. She obtained a decree for maintenance on 11-4-1951. By this decree she was given a monthly allowance of Rs. 20/- for her own maintenance plus Rs. 2/- for rent of accommodation suitable for her. The decree also awarded Rs. 400/- as arrears of maintenance. The respondent then commenced execution on 3-8-1951 out of which the present appeal arises. Upto this day, the appellant, her husband, has not paid a single pie towards the maintenan...
Tag this Judgment!Pandappa Rachhappa Vs. the State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1960
Reported in: (1960)62BOMLR717
Raju, J.1. This revision application is against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Buldhana, confirming in appeal the conviction of the appellant under Section 66(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act for having been found in possession of about 210 tolas of ganja. The prosecution case was that this ganja was found buried at various places in the kotha admittedly proved to be of the applicant. The defence case was that the kotha was accessible to many persons and was in charge of the servant of the applicant. The learned Sessions Judge referred to the evidence as regards the accessibility of the kotha as well as the possibility of ganja being planted and also observed that in view of Section 103 of the Bombay Prohibition Act there was a presumption against the accused. He, therefore, confirmed the conviction.2. In a case like this the first question that arises is whether the contraband articles were in the possession of the applicant. The mere fact that the articles were found in ...
Tag this Judgment!Rev. Fr. Farcisus Mascarenhas Vs. the State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-1960
Reported in: (1960)62BOMLR790
Mudholkar, J. 1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the City Civil Court, dismissing the appellant's application under Section 72 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. 1950.2. The appellant is the acting Vicar of the Sacred Heart Church at Worli situate in the Archdiocese of Bombay. The appellant made an application under protest under Section 18 of the Act for the registration of the trust. The Vicars of several other Roman Catholic Churches in the State had made similar applications under protest. It was contended by the appellant and the other applicants that the various churches do not constitute trusts, much less public trusts, and that consequently the Bombay Public Trusts Act does not apply to those churches. They further contended that the Roman Catholics all the world over are governed by the Canon Law, which is their personal law, that this law provides for the appointment of ecclesiastical officers and also for the administration of church properties, and that under this law ...
Tag this Judgment!Samarth Transport Co. Private Ltd. Vs. Y.B. Chavan and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Bom80; (1960)62BOMLR952; ILR1960Bom978
V.S. Desai, J.1. The petitioners are a private limited company carrying on the business of operating bus service in the Nagpur region. They have been in this business for about last 20 years and have been plying their stage carriages on the routes Yeotmal-Umarkhed and Yeotmal to Pusad. The permits held by the petitioner for these routes were due to expire on the 31st of December 1959. The petitioners, therefore, made applications for the renewal of their permits to the Regional Transport Authority, Nagpur on the 24th of August, 1959. These applications for renewal made by the petitioners have not yet been disposed of and are pending before the authority. The permits of which renewal has been sought by the petitioners having expired on the 31st of December 1959, for the month of January 1959, they were issued a temporary permit and again for the month of February a temporary permit lias been issued to them which they have accepted tinder protest. We are also told that a further temporar...
Tag this Judgment!Javerchand Tulsidas and ors. Vs. the State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Bom133; (1960)62BOMLR705; 1961CriLJ633; ILR1960Bom907
1. This judgment will dispose of two Revision Applications Nos. 469 and 471 ot 1959. The facts giving rise to these two revision applications are: Orders admittedly amounting to orders of acquittal were passed in 16 cases under Section 30(2) of the Police Act in respect of more than 200 accused who had been prosecuted for directing or promoting a procession without a licence between 9 and 9.30 a.m., on 3-3-58 at Akola. 8 or these persons (who are applicants in Criminal Revision Application No. 471 of 1959) were prosecuted again along with others under Sections. 147, 332, 34, 149 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code, for having committed rioting and for having voluntarily caused hurt to a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant, at 10.30 a.m., on 3-3-58 at Akola. 12 of the 200 persons (who are applicants in Criminal Revision Application No. 469 of 1959) were subsequently prosecuted along with others for having committed offences under Sections 147, 332, 34, 149 of...
Tag this Judgment!Seth Radhakisan Ramnath Vs. Ramji Langadu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1960
Reported in: (1960)62BOMLR535; (1960)IILLJ317Bom
1. This judgment will dispose of two Criminal Revisions Nos. 453 and 475 of 1959. The facts involved are common and common questions of law are also involved. The facts giving rise to these two revision applications are that one Ramji, who is admittedly an employee of the bidi factory of the firm of Ramkrishna Ramnath of Kamptee at Tumsar, was dismissed on 20 October 1953. Admittedly Radhakisan (applicant in Criminal Revision No. 453 of 1959) is the proprietor of this firm and Ghasilal (applicant in Criminal Revision No. 475 of 1959) was the general manager and agent at Tumsar. After Ramji was dismissed by Ghasilal on 20 October 1953, he applied to the district industrial court, Bhandara, for a declaration that his dismissal was illegal. The district industrial court by its order dated 30 April 1956. Held the dismissal to be illegal and in appeal the State industrial court. Nagpur, confirmed this order on 28 June 1957. Ramji then gave notice to the firm of Ramkrishna Ramnath for being ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »