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.
Moreshwar Damodar Urhekar Vs. Mahadeo Raghunath Tikekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-1960
Reported in: (1961)63BOMLR37
Kotval, J.1. On November 25, 1947, the plaintiff-applicant and the defendant-opponent entered into an agreement of partnership of which the eleventh clause provided for reference to arbitration in the event of a dispute arising under the deed. The eleventh clause Was in the following terms:ikVhZ ua- 1 o ikVhZ ua- 2 ;kapse/;sa dksgh okn mifLFkr >kY;kl R;kpk fudky ikVhZ ua- 1 o 2 ;kauh [kkyhy iapkpsdMwu djowu ?;kok o R;kauh fnysyk fudky ikVhZ ua- 1 o 2 oj ca/kudkjd jkfgy-1 nknlkgsc mQZ Mh- ,y- fyHk;s odhy] fVGduxj] vejkorh ljiap2 xksikGjko egknsojko Mksjy] vack njokT;kP;k vkar iap3 nRrk=; oklqnso osnd. EkLrj ]] ]] ]]A dispute did arise between the parties when a suit for dissolution of partnership and accounts was filed by the plaintiff on January 7, 1958, in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati. The defendant inter alia met the suit by taking recourse to the provisions of Clause 11. According to the defendant, the clause precluded the further trial of the suit which o...
Shree Laxmi Bus Transport Co. Vs. the Regional Transport Authority
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-1960
Reported in: (1960)62BOMLR958
V.S. Desai, J.1. The petitioners are a firm carrying on the business of operating buses in the Rajkot Region. They obtained a permit to operate their buses in 1951 on the routes Palitana to Dhasa via Jamnagar and Liliya to Lathi via Jamnagar, and since then they have been operating their buses along the said routes. The stage carriage permit held by the petitioners was due to expire on or about March 20, 1958, and, therefore, on January 8, 1958, they made an application to the Regional Transport Authority, respondent No. 1, for the renewal of their permit. The Saurashtra State Road Transport Corporation also made an application for operating their buses along the same route. Both the applications were considered together and were decided by the Regional Transport Authority on July 5, 1958. The application of the petitioner was rejected and that of the Saurashtra State Road Transport Corporation was granted and a permit was ordered to be issued to the Saurashtra State Road Transport Cor...
Shah Manekchand Kundanmal and Co. Vs. the State of Bombay
Court: Sales Tax Tribunal STT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-08-1960
Reported in: 196011STC50Tribunal
1. These three applications which raise a common question may be disposed of by a common judgment and it would be sufficient to mention the facts in Revision Application No. 347 of 1959.2. The applicants are a partnership firm who do business under the name and style of Messrs Shah Manekchand Kundanmal & Co. The period of assessment is from 1st April, 1954, to 31st March, 1955 and in respect of this period the applicants were assessed by the Sales Tax Officer in the manner set out in his order dated 21st February, 1958. The applicants pre-ferred appeal from that order to the Assistant Collector of Sales Tax who, by his order dated 23rd February, 1959, confirmed the order made by the Sales Tax Officer. From the appellate order the applicants went in revision before the Additional Collector of Sales Tax, Bombay City Division (Revision), Bombay and that authority by his judgment dated 14th July, 1959, confirmed the order made by the Assistant Collector. It is the correctness of this ...
Ramdas Zinga Banjari Vs. the Additional Commissioner
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-08-1960
Reported in: (1960)62BOMLR719
Tambe, J.1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated October 13, 1959, made by the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, respondent No. 1 hereto, and for a direction that the appeal be heard and decided by respondent No. 1 in accordance with the law.2. Following facts give rise to this petition. Respondent No. 5, Shewantabai was the landholder of S. No. 41 situate in village Dabhadi, taluq Darwha, district Yeotmal. She transferred that field under a registered deed dated April 27, 1957, to Gangadhar, respondent No.4 hereto. Gangadhar filed a civil suit on July 19, 1957, against petitioner Ramdas alleging therein that he was in possession of the field, that he had performed summer operations in the field and that Ramdas had forcibly dispossessed him. The defence of Ramdas was that he has acquired the status of a protected lessee under the Berar Regulation of Agr...
Baburao Tatyaji Bhosle Vs. Madho Shrihari Aney
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-06-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Bom29; (1961)63BOMLR20; ILR1960Bom994
Kotval, J.1. We are concerned in this appeal with an election from the Nagpur-Umrer Parliamentary Constituency held to fill a casual vacancy in the House of the People as required by Section 149 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, (Act No. 43 of 1951) (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The following dates are material for the purposes of the appeal:The notification cal-ling upon the Constitu-ency to fill the vacancy(under S. 149 of the Act)was issued on 10th December 1958The last date for fil-ing nominations by can-didates standing for theelection (under S. 30) was 20th December 1958The last date forwithdrawing one's candi-dature (under S. 37) was 26th December 1958The actual polling atthe election (under S. 56) 31st January andtook place on 1st February 1959.The counting of votes was commenced on 2nd February, 1959 and completed by 3rd February, 1959 on which date the result of the election was declared.3. At the election, the contest was between three persons. They we...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay North Vs. Kishoresinh Kalyansinh So ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-06-1960
Reported in: [1960]39ITR522(Bom)
S.T. Desai, J.1. This reference taken out at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Ahmedabad, raises a question of construction of a provision in section 33B of the Income-tax Act. The assessment year is 1954-55 and the assessment for that year was made on the assessee in the status of a registered firm on August 31, 1954. The Commissioner of Income-tax was of the opinion that the order granting registration to the firm and the order of assessment made thereafter were prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and he, therefore, took action under section 33B(1) and on July 5, 1956, revised the order of the Income-tax Officer holding as under : 'There being grave doubts about the genuineness of the firm it was wrong on the part of the Income-tax Officer to have passed an order under section 26A registering the firm and dividing the profits in the names of the alleged partners. Both the orders of the Income-tax Officer, namely the assessment order as well as the order granting...
Harihar Cotton Pressing Factory Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-1960
Reported in: [1960]39ITR594(Bom)
S.T. Desai, J.1. This reference raises a question of some importance and interest relating to the meaning and import of the expression 'commission' in section 10(4)(b) of the Income-tax Act. The reference came up for hearing before Mr. Justice Tendolkar and myself on September 19, 1957, and as we felt that the Tribunal had not applied its mind to one aspect of the case and dealt with the question whether the rebate in question had been paid for any commercial consideration, we directed that it should submit a supplementary statement of the case setting out the facts on which it had reached its conclusion. The material facts may be briefly stated. The assessee is a partnership firm and runs a cotton pressing factory at Kosamba in Surat District. Four of its five partners are co-operative societies. The two assessment years are 1954-54 and 1954-55. During the relevant accounting years, the assessee-firm pressed no cotton for anyone except four of its partners and no bales were pressed on...
The Harihar Cotton Pressing Factory Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-1960
Reported in: (1960)62BOMLR675
S.T. Desai, J.1. This Reference raises a question of some importance and interest relating to the meaning and import of the expression 'commission' in Section 10(4)(b) of the Income-tax Act. The Reference came up for hearing before Mr. Justice Tendolkar and myself on September 19, 1957, and as we felt that the Tribunal had not applied its mind to one aspect of the case and dealt with the question whether the rebate in question had been paid for commercial consideration, we directed that it should submit a Supplementary Statement of the case setting out the facts on which it had reached its conclusion. The material facts may be briefly stated. The assessee is a partnership firm and runs a cotton pressing factory at Kosamba in Surat District. Four of its five partners ar,e Co-operative Societies. The two assessment years are 1953-54 and 1954-55. During the relevant accounting years, the assessee-firm pressed no cotton for any one except four of its partners and no bales were pressed on b...
H.M. Kashiparekh and Co., Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-1960
Reported in: [1960]39ITR706(Bom)
S.T. Desai, J.1. This reference raises a question of some importance and the income under assessment relates to managing agency commission. It is trite saying that income-tax is not and cannot be cast on logical lines. No considerations of equity or hardship can be permitted to control the application of the Act. Nor is it permissible to the court to disregard any axiomatic principle of tax law. One such principle expressed in the laconic style of Lord Macnaghten is that income-tax is a tax on income - an expression of wide connotation and elastic ambit. Another principle - one of computation which also may be regarded as axiomatic - is that in assessing the yearly profits and gains of a business for the purpose of the Income-tax Act, each year is a self-contained period. We have said all this at the very outset, because we have been very strongly reminded by Mr. G. N. Joshi, learned counsel for the Revenue, that we are bound to act in conformity with this principle of computation. We ...
H.M. Kashiparekh and Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay N ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Bom84
S.T. Desai, J.1. This Reference raises a question of some importance and the income under assessment relates to managing agency commission. It is a trite saying that income-tax is not and cannot be cast on logical lines. No considerations of equity or hardship can be permitted to control the application of the Act. Nor is it permissible to the Court to disregard any axiomatic principle of tax law. One such principle expressed in the laconic style of Lord Macnaghten is that income-tax is a tax on income -- an expression of wide connotation and elastic ambit. Another principle -- one of computation which also may bo regarded as axiomatic -- is that in assessing the yearly profits and gains of a business for the purpose of the Income-tax Act, each year is a self-contained period. We have said all this at the very outset, because we have been very strongly reminded by Mr. G. N. Joshi, .learned Counsel for the Revenue, that we are bound to act in conformity with this principle of compulatio...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »