Mumbai Court April 1960 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.
Bapuji Dhanaji Thakare and anr. Vs. Ganpatrao Anyaji Gawande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-19-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Bom123; (1961)63BOMLR40; ILR1960Bom834
ORDER1. The plaintiff-opponent filed a suit for possession of an open site alleged to have been purchased by him from the defendants-applicants. It was alleged that the plaintiff purchased the suit site on 19-6-1946 but that the plaintiff was dispossessed by the defendants in 1952. The defence was that the site in suit was not the site sold. The taking of forcible possession was also denied. On 9-11-1957 the parties applied to the trial Court that the matter in dispute should be referred to arbitration. Upon their agreement, the matter was referred to the arbitration of one Anandrao Chandrabhanji. This person, it may be mentioned here, was a witness in the suit on behalf of the plaintiff. The arbitrator made an award which the defendants challenged on the ground of the arbitrator's misconduct. Various allegations of misconduct were made but all the allegations going to show personal misconduct on the part of the arbitrator have been negatived. Both the Courts below have, however, found...
Surajmal Karamchand Vs. C.M. Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-19-1960
Reported in: (1961)63BOMLR884
K.K. Desai, J.1. [His Lordship after dealing with points not material to this report, proceeded:] The other important question is whether the arbitration bye-laws 282 to 315 contain any provision which is inconsistent with the provisions of Section 14 and the right of the petitioner to make this application for directing respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to file the award in question in Court.2. In that connection Mr. Nariman has relied upon the bye-laws Nos. 282, 283, 290, 291, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 304, 305, 311 and 315. He has for the purpose of facilitating construction also relied upon bye-laws Nos. 259 and 270 which are bye-laws applicable to 'arbitration other than between members'.3. Bye-laws 282 and 283 inter alia, provide as follows:-282. All claims.. .and disputes between members arising out of or in relation to any bargains, dealings, transactions or contracts made subject to the Rules, Bye-laws and Regulations of the Exchange or with reference to anything incidental thereto.. .s...
N.R. Wadia and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City I
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-1960
Reported in: (1960)62BOMLR685; [1960]39ITR754(Bom)
S.T. Desai, J.1. The question that arises for our determination on this reference is : 'Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, Wadia, Dadachanji and Vakil constituted a partnership and were rightly assessed as an unregistered firm within the meaning of section 2(16) of the Act ?' 2. A situation somewhat incongruous if not grotesque has arisen in the matter of the assessment of the assessee before us and it is primarily due to the attitude taken up by the Income-tax Department and of that attitude consistency is not a merit. We are, however, not particularly concerned with the attitude of the Department and what we have to determine is whether in law there was constituted a partnership between these three persons. Though the point we shall be deciding lies in a reasonable compass, it will be necessary to set out the relevant and material facts in some detail. 3. Wadia, Dadachanji and Vakil are three architects and surveyors by profession. Wadia and Dadachanji were carrying ...
Chhatrasinhji Kesarisinhji Thakore Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-14-1960
Reported in: [1962]45ITR512(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. This is rather an unusual reference, in that the assessee is contending that he is liable to pay a larger amount and the taxing department equally emphatically insists that the liability of the applicant is a smaller liability. Of course, such a position would be inconceivable if the dispute was restricted to the payment of tax. No assessee ever contends that he is liable to pay more income-tax and no taxing department ever says that the assessee is liable to pay less tax. But this controversy arises because the liability is different in nature. The liability which the assessee wants to take up upon himself is the liability to pay to the State Government and the liability which the department wishes to impose upon the assessee is a liability to the Central Government in respect of income-tax. 2. Now, the question arises this way. The assessee is the Thakore Saheb of Shivrajpur and the assessment years are 1952-53 and 1953-54. The Thakore Saheb had leased out certain of h...
Purshotamdas Thakurdas Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City I
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-14-1960
Reported in: [1960]39ITR700(Bom)
S.T. Desai, J.1. These two references raise identical questions and we have directed that they should be consolidated. When the references last came up for hearing on March 17, 1958, the parties agreed that there should be a supplemental statement of the case and that statement of the case is now before us. The question is as under : 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the relief allowed in the assessment under section 23(3) on that portion of dividend income from Narandas Rajaram & Co. Pirvate Ltd., which is attributable to the income of the company arising in Pakistan, can be withdrawn while making reassessment under section 34(1)(b) ?'2. It will suffice to state the facts in the first reference, which arises out of the reassessment made upon the assessee for the assessment year 1949-50 by having recourse to the provisions of section 34, may be briefly stated. The assessee is a shareholder of M/s. Narandas Rajaram & Co. Ltd., which carried on business in the taxable...
Sirur Municipality, (Ghodnadi) District Poona Vs. the Workmen, Sirur M ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-14-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Bom75; (1960)62BOMLR965; ILR1961Bom415; (1960)IILLJ657Bom
V.S. Desai, J.1. This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the Award Part I made by the opponent No. 2, as the Industrial Tribunal of Bombay, in the dispute which was referred to him under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, between the petitioner, who is the Sirur Municipality (A District Municipality functioning under the Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901), and opponent No. 1, who are its employees represented by the Poona Mazdoor Sabha. The Award was submitted by the opponent No. 2 to the Government on 20th April 1959 and was published in the Bombay Government Gazette, Part I-L, on 21st May 1959.2. The dispute related to the pay-scales, allowance, leave, etc. of the employees of the petitioner and the categories of employees mentioned in the order of reference were as follows :(i) Municipal Secretary. (ii) All Clerks except Naka Clerk. (iii) Municipal Fitter. (iv) Assistant Fitter, Lamp Lighter. (v) Municipal Chec...
Sirur Municipality Vs. Its Workmen
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-14-1960
Reported in: [1960(1)FLR536]
V.S. Desai, J.1. This is an application under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the award - part I made by opponent 2, as the industrial tribunal of Bombay, in the dispute which was referred to him under S. 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, between the petitioner, who is the Sirur Municipality (a district municipality functioning under the Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901) and opponent 1 who are its employees represented by the Poona Mazdoor Sabha. The award was submitted by the opponent 2 to the Government on 20 April 1959 and was published in the Bombay Government Gazette, Part I-L, on 21 May 1959. 2. The dispute related to the pay-scales, allowance, leave, etc., of the employees of the petitioner and the categories of employees mentioned in the order of reference were as follows : (i) Municipal secretary. (ii) All clerks except naka clerk. (iii) Municipal fitter. (iv) Assistant fitter, lamp-lighter. (v) Municipal checker. (vi) Naka clerk, san...
Tulsidas Khimji Vs. Jeejeebhoy (F.)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-14-1960
Reported in: (1961)ILLJ42Bom
V.S. Desai, J. 1. This is a petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the award made by respondent 1, the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, on 31 August 1959, in Reference (CGIT) No. 7 of 1959. 2. The petitioners are a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, and carry on business as (1) clearing and shipping agents, (2) insurance agents, (3) godown keepers and (4) cotton supervisors and controllers. The petitioner have four different departments for the business carried on by them and these departments are : (1) the clearing and shipping department, (2) the insurance department, (3) the godown department, and (4) the cotton supervising and controlling department. 3. On 15 November 1958, the petitioners gave notice of termination of employment to 14 clerks and 2 peons from their clearing and forwarding departments and the godown department and after following the principle 'last come, first go' from the said respective department...
Tulsidas Khimji Vs. F. Jeejeebhoy of Bombay and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-14-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Bom277; (1960)62BOMLR972; ILR1960Bom1034
V.S. Desai, J.1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the Award made by the respondent No. 1 the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, on 31st August 1959, in Reference (CGIT) No. 7 of 1959.2. The petitioners are a Partnership Firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, and carry on business as (1) Gearing and Shipping Agents. (2) Insurance Agents (3) Godown Keepers and (4) Cotton Supervisors and Controllers. The petitioners have four different departments for the business carried on by them and these departments are--1. The Clearing and Shipping Department,2. The Insurance Department,3. The Godown Department, and4. The Cotton Supervising and Controlling Department.On 15th November 1958 the petitioners gave notice of termination of employment to 14 clerks and two peons from their Clearing and Forwarding Departments and the Gcdown Department and after following the principle 'last come first go' from the said respective departments, t...
Malbary and Bros. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay North
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-1960
Reported in: [1962]44ITR674(Bom)
Desai, J.1. The question which arises for our determination on this references is as under : 'Whether the levy of Rs. 68,501 as penalty for concealment in the original return for the assessment year 1951-52 is legal 2. The assessee firm is carrying on business in cloth at Surat and in the course of its business, it has been exporting cloth to its branch at Bangkok in Thailand. During war years, the business at Bangkok had been suspended obtained export licence. The head office at Surat charged a commission of about 2 per cent. Which was loaded on to the price shown in the invoices relating to the export of goods to the branch at Bangkok. That amount of 2 per cent. was shown by the assessee in its profit and loss amount. The exports so accounted by the assessee in its profit and loss account. The exports so accounted by the assessee in the income-tax proceedings relating to the previous years 1948, 1949 and 1950 were as under : -----------------------------------------------------------...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »