Mumbai Court September 1961 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.
James Anderson, Administrator to the Estate in India of Henry Gannon ( ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1961
Reported in: [1963]47ITR229(Bom)
Tambe, J. 1. This is a reference under sub-section (1) of section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). We are concerned with the assessment year 1948-49, the relevant previous year being the year ending on 31st March, 1948. 2. One Mr. Henry Gannon died testate on 13th May, 1945, leaving behind his will of date 18th November, 1942, and considerable property. The national Bank of India in England was under the will appointed as executors. The will was probated by the National Band of India in England. The deceased had left behind some estate in India. The National Bank of India, therefore, gave power of attorney to one Mr. James Anderson, the assessee in this case. The assessee applied to this court under section 241 of the Indian Succession Act and was granted letters of administration with a copy of the will annexed to the estate of the deceased in British India. The letters of administration were granted on 14th August, 1946. The deceased, Mr. Gannon, ...
Ramchandra Harischandra Vs. Tukaram Karu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1961
Reported in: (1962)64BOMLR67
To an application made by a landholder for obtaining possession of the land from his protected lessee on the ground that he required it for personal cultivation, to which Section 132(3) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region & Kutch Area) Act, 1958, applies, the provisions of Section 38(1) and of the proviso to Section 36(2) of the Act will not apply, but the other provisions of Section 38 as well as the other relevant provisions of the Act will apply.Jayantraj v. Hari (1961) 64 Bom. L.R. 57, referred to.H.K. Chainani, C.J.1. The petitioner is the manager of a joint Hindu family, which owns two lands, Survey Nos. 31 and 32 of mouza Karankhed, taluq Chikhali, district Buldana. These two lands were held by opponent No. 1, hereinafter referred to as the opponent, as a protected lessee under the provisions of the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act, 1951. (XXIV of 1951), hereinafter referred to as the B.E.A.L. Act. A notice was given to the opponent terminati...
Jayantrai and Kanakmal Zambad and anr. Vs. Hari Dagdu and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Bom147; (1962)64BOMLR57; ILR1962Bom42
Chainani, C.J.(1) The facts which have given rise to this reference to the Full Bench, are as follows: The petitioners are the land holders of three lands of which the opponent no. 1, herein after referred to as the opponent, was a protected lessee under the provisions of the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act, 1951 (XXIV of 1951) , hereinafter referred to as the B. R. A. L. Act. The petitioners gave a notice terminating the tenancy of the opponent under sub-section (1) of section 9 of the Act. The opponent then made an application to the Sub-Divisional Officer under sub-section (3) of section 9, in which he prayed that the notice should be declared to be invalid and inoperative. On this application, the Sub-Divisional Officer made an order on 12-11-1956 terminating the lease of the opponent with effect from 1-4-1957. Against this order, the opponent appealed to the Additional Deputy Commissioner, who set aside the order of the Sub-Divisional officer and held that the notice g...
Jayasingrao Piraji Rao Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay South, P ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1961
Reported in: AIR1963Bom66; (1962)64BOMLR70; ILR1962Bom341
Desai, J. 1. The short question, which arises on this reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, is whether the assessee is entitled to any depreciation under Clause (vi) of Sub-section (2) of Section 10 read with Rule 9 and the Schedule thereto the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 on the water storage tank constructed by him in connection with his business of supplying water for irrigation purposes to farmers.2. The assessee is an individual and derives income from various sources, one of which is the supply of water for irrigation purposes to farmers. In the assessment for the assessment years 1951-52, 1952-53, 1952-53 and 1953-54, the relevant accounting years for which were those ending on the 31st March, 1951, 31st of March 1952 and 31st of March 1953 respectively, the assessee claimed depreciation on the storage water tanks constructed by him. Before the Income-tax Officer the claim for depreciation was on the basis of the asset being a 'Building and Embankment' and d...
Jayasingrao Piraji Rao Ghatge Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay S ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1961
Reported in: [1962]46ITR1160(Bom)
V.S. Desai, J. 1. The short question, which arises in this reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, is whether the assess is entitled to any depreciation under clause (vi) of sub-section (2) of section 10 read with rule 8 and the schedule thereto of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, on the water storage tank constructed by him in connection with his business of supplying water for irrigation purposes to farmers. 2. The assessee is an individual and derives income from various sources, one of which is the supply of water for irrigation purposes to farmers. In the assessment for the assessment years 1951-52, 1952-53 and 1953-54, the relevant accounting years for which were those ending on the 31st March, 1951, 31st of March, 1952, and 31st of March, 1953, respectively, the assessee claimed depreciation on the storage water tanks constructed by him. Before the Income-tax Officer the claim for depreciation was on the basis of the asset being a 'Building and Embankment' an...
Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd. Vs. Meher M.R. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1961
Reported in: (1962)IILLJ683Bom
Mody, J.1. The petitioners are the Royal Western India Turf Club, Ltd. and respondent 3 are a union registered under the Indian Trade Unions Act. The petitioners conduct horse races. The races are held between the months of November and April in Bombay and between July and October at Poona. For it business the petitioners engage employees, who are in their permanent service. But besides those permanent employees, the petitioners employ other persons temporarily for working on race days. The permanent employees are not members of the respondent 3 union, but only such temporary employees are members of that union. Those employees made a demands for bonus for the year 1956-57. The petitioners resisted that demand. There were certain conciliation proceedings held, but the same were infructuous. Ultimately, the respondent 2 which is the State of Maharashtra, made an order dated 25 April, 1960, under S. 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referring the said dispute about bonus for ad...
Jagannath Hazarimal and ors. Vs. State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1961
Reported in: AIR1963Bom83; (1962)64BOMLR150; 1963CriLJ745; ILR1962Bom252
Abhyankar, J. 1. The plaintiffs have filed this appeal against the dismissal of their suit by the Second Additional District Judge, Amravati, on a preliminary finding on the issue of limitation. 2. The plaintiff No. 1 is a partnership firm going by the name of Jagannath Hazarimal firm doing business at Amravati and of which plaintiffs 2 to 4 are partners. The plaintiffs' case is that the partnership carried on business In cotton seed at Amravati and held a licence required fordoing that business or for dealing with cotton seed under the Cotton Seed Control Order 1947. There was a local Act in the then State of Madhya Pradesh called the Specified Commodities Control Act. Under that Act Control Order could be issued in respect of specified commodities and accordingly an Order called the Cotton Seed Control Older was substituted by a similar Order in 1948. The plaintiffs had purchased cotton seed at Akola, Khamgaon and other places and there being no restrictions on transport of cotton se...
Kusumben D. Mahadevia Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1961
Reported in: (1961)63BOMLR1011; [1963]47ITR214(Bom)
Tambe, J. 1. The question framed by the Bombay Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and referred to us under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is : 'Whether the net dividend income of Rs. 47,120 accrued to the assessee in the former Baroda State, or whether it is income accrued or deemed to have accrued to the assessee in British India ?' 2. Mrs. Kusumben D. Mahadevia, hereinafter referred to as the assessee, was at the material time a resident of Bombay. In the assessment year 1950-51, the previous year being the calendar year 1949, the assessee was assessed to a total income of Rs. 1,50,765, which included a grossed-up dividend income of Rs. 1,47,026. Included in this dividend income was a net dividend income of Rs. 47,120, being the total amount of three dividends received by the assessee on 760 shares of Mafatlal Gagalbhai & Co. Ltd. is a private limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. Its registered office is in Bo...
National Garage, Nagpur (by Managing Director) Vs. Gonsalves J.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Bom152; (1961)63BOMLR989; ILR1962Bom36; (1962)ILLJ56Bom
ORDERTambe, J.1. Sri D. B. Padhye, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that both the respondents 2 and 3 were in error in holding that termination of respondent 1's services amounted to retrenchment. According to Sri Padhye, a termination of service brought about in accordance with the provisions of a standing order does not amount to retrenchment and, therefore, respondent 1 was not entitled to get any retrenchment compensation as a condition precedent to the termination of his services under S. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. He places reliance on two decisions of this Court, one in Municipal Corporation, Bombay v. Labour Appellate Tribunal : (1957)IILLJ37Bom and another in Central Potteries, Ltd. v. Kalidas Ganpat [(1958) Special Civil Applications Nos. 347, 348 and 349 of 1957, decided by Chainani, C.J., and Badkas J., on 5 February 1958 (Unrep.)]. These two decisions no doubt support the contention of Sri Padhye, but, however, the decision to which reference has been ...
The Managing Director, the National Garage Vs. J. Gonsalves, Automobil ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1961
Reported in: 1961(63)BLJR989
Chainani, C.J.1. The question referred to the Full Bench is:'Whether termination of service simpliciter, whether on giving one month's notice under the provisions of a standing order or otherwise, amounts to retrenchment attracting the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act?'2. Clause (oo) in Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, defines the word 'retrenchment' to mean as follows :' 'Retrenchment' means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, but does not include- (a) voluntary retirement of the workman; or (b) retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment between the employer and the Workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf; or (c) termination of the service of a workman on the ground of continued ill health.' Section 25-F provides for payment of compensation when a workman i...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »