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.
State Vs. Sakharam Anna Vanjari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-15-1961
Reported in: (1962)64BOMLR400
Abhyankar, J.1. This reference made by the Sessions Judge, Akola, raises an interesting question under the Bombay Village Panchayats Act.2. It appears that though a charge-sheet was presented before a Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Akola, on December 5, 1960, by the Station Officer, Barsi-Takli Police Station, through constable No. 980 Ramsahai, it was obviously a police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of an offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, alleged to have been committed by one Sakharam Vanjari of Takli. Copies of the documents under Section 173(4) of the Code were supplied to the accused. The case was ordered to be registered on that day by the Presiding Magistrate and the accused who was perhaps present was bound over for appearance on the next date, December 13, 1960. On that day, a contention appears to have been raised on behalf of the accused that the Judge Magistrate was required to return the complaint for presentation...
Abdul Rehaman Abdul Gafur and anr. Vs. E. Paul and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-1961
Reported in: AIR1963Bom267; (1963)65BOMLR20; (1962)IILLJ693Bom; 1963MhLJ261
ORDER1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution whereby the Petitioners claim a writ of mandamus and/or directions that the 1st Respondent, being the Conciliation Officer appointed by the State of Maharashtra; (the 2nd Respondent) do forbear and/or abstain from proceeding with the conciliation of industrial disputes between the Mazagaon Dock Limited being the 4th Respondent and its workmen regarding increase in wages, dearness allowance, leave paid holidays, etc.2. The only contention which has been advanced before me in support of this petition is that the Mazagaon Dock Limited, the 4th Respondent, is an industry 'carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government' and that accordingly the appropriate Conciliation Officers to consider any industrial disputes arising between the Mazagaon Dock Limited and its workmen are the Conciliation Officers appointed by the Central Government. For this reason it is argued that the 1st Respondent being the Conciliation ...
Dhunjishaw Pestonji Ratanji Cassad Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mad ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-1961
Reported in: (1962)64BOMLR201; [1962]46ITR1023(Bom)
Naik, J.1. These two applications can be disposed of by a common judgment since they raise a common question. The material facts lie within a narrow ambit. The petitioner is doing business with his headquarters at Nagpur in coal and manganese ore. He is also a director and managing director of several companies. There is a company known as 'The Byramji Mining Combine Limited' with its headquarters at Hornby Road, Bombay. This is a private limited company and was registered in July, 1949. The only two shareholders and also directors of this company are the petitioner and his wife, Mrs. Kamalrukh D. Cassad. The assessment of the personal income of the petitioner was made by the Income-tax Officer on January 10, 1952, and the entire income received by the petitioner was assessed to income-tax. This income included the remuneration which the petitioner received for carrying on the business of the private limited company, namely, 'The Byramji Mining Combine Limited'. The case for the assess...
Abdul Rehman Abdul Gafur and anr. Vs. Paul (E.) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-1961
Reported in: [1963(7)FLR22]
1. This is petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution whereby the petitioners claim a write of mandamus and/or directions that the respondent 1 being the conciliation officer appointed by the State of Maharashtra (respondent 2) do forbear and/or abstain from proceeding with the conciliation of industrial dispute between the Mazgaon Dock, Ltd., being respondent 4 and its workmen regarding increase in wages, dearness allowance, leave, paid holidays, etc. 2. The only contention which has been advanced before me in support of this petition is that the Mazgaon Dock, Ltd., respondent 4, is an industry 'carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government' and that accordingly the appropriate conciliation officers to consider any industrial disputes arising between the Mazgaon Dock, Ltd. and its workmen are the conciliation officers appointed by the Central Government. For this reason it is argued that the respondent 1, being the conciliation officer appointed by the State of Mahar...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Asian Assurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-1961
Reported in: [1962]46ITR560(Bom)
Tambe, J.1. This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The relevant assessment years are 1952-53, 1953-54 and 1954-55, the accounting years being the calendar years 1951, 1952 and 1953. The assessee is a life insurance company, and the assessment has been made by the Income-tax Officer under rule 2(b) of the Schedule under section 10(7) of the Act on the basis of the actuarial valuation for the biennial period 1950 and 1951. The assessee company constructed a house property at Borivli between 1st April, 1946, and 31st December, 1949. By 31st December, 1949, the building had been completed and had been rented out. The question involved in this case relates to the rental income of this property. The assessee company claimed that the rental income from Borivli property was exempt from taxation under section 4(3)(xii) of the Act. This contention was not accepted by the Income-tax Officer. In his view the insurance company had ...
Natarajan (T.R.) and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-1961
Reported in: (1962)IILLJ321Bom
1. This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of an order dated 8 February, 1961, whereby the State Government held that there was no case for referring the dispute (which is referred to in this petition) for adjudication by an industrial tribunal. The order was made under the provisions of S. 12(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 2. It is unnecessary to refer to all the facts as mentioned in the pleadings in this case. The short facts leading to this petition are as follows : The first petitioner is a workman employed with the Automobile Products of India, Ltd., being respondent 2. Petitioner 2 is a union of workmen. At all material times 302 workmen of respondent 2 company were members of petitioner 2 union. On 9 July, 1960, petitioner 2 submitted a charter of demands of the workmen to the respondent 2 company. In that connexion, petitioner 2 terminated a prior agreement dated 13 August, 1956, made between respondent 2 company and the Automob...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Vs. Mogul Line Ltd., Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-1961
Reported in: [1962]46ITR590(Bom)
V.S. Desai, J.1. This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax. The assessee concerned in this reference is a limited liability company having its head office in India. Its business is plying ships on hire and it has an agency in Karachi. In September, 1949, when the Indian rupees was devalued the company had a balance standing to its account in its agent's books at Karachi. The amount in this account was Rs. 7,33,794 as on 30th April, 1950. On devaluation there was a prohibition by the Pakistan authorities on remitting monies from Pakistan to India. The company succeeded in obtaining permissions to remit its amounts to India. But the permission was granted only in respect of earnings after May, 1950, The balance of Rs. 7,33,794, in Pakistan rupees, standing to the company's account as on 30th April, 1950, remained intermitted to India. After the devaluation, the company ascertained that the vale in Indian rupees ...
Gandhi Sewa Shikshan Samiti Vs. Gulam HussaIn Welji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-1961
Reported in: (1962)64BOMLR206
Naik, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiffs on behalf of an association known as 'Gandhi Sewa Shikshan Samiti, Chimur', which is registered under the Societies Registration Act, for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 6,000 and odd from the defendant on the basis that the latter having made certain recoveries on behalf of the association has retained the same without any right and in a wrongful manner. Although the pleadings in this case are very much prolix, the facts so far as they are necessary for deciding this appeal lie within a narrow compass. Prominent residents of the village of Chimur held a meeting on June 15, 1952, for forming an Association with a view to start a High School to be named as 'Rashtriya Vidyalaya'. It appears that thirty members attended this meeting. It further appears that each of them agreed to donate a sum of Bs. 100. A committee to be styled as 'managing' committee' was formed comprising nine members. Some other meetings took place and i...
Navnitlal C. Javery Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-08-1961
Reported in: [1962]46ITR550(Bom)
Y.S. Tambe, J.1. The is a reference under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act (hereafter referred to as the 'Act') on two applications made by the assessee and the question referred to this court is in the following terms : 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the entire amount of dividend of Rs. 17,265 (Rs. 20,718 for the assessment year 1953-1954) was the income of the assessee ?' 2. As already stated, the reference arises out of two applications made by the assessee, one arising out of his assessment case relating to the assessment year 1952-53, and the other arising out of his assessment case relating to the assessment year 1953-54. To appreciate the contentions of the parties and the question raised before us, it is not necessary to state the facts relating to both the years. The facts are similar. The matter arises in this way : A partnership firm of five brothers, the assessee being one of them, doing business under the the Consolidated Electric Agencies Pr...
Dhootpapeshwar Panvel (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bomaby
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-1961
Reported in: [1962]46ITR503(Bom)
Tambe, J.1. This is a reference made by the Income-tax Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act. The assessment year is 1950-51, the relevant accounting year being 1st April, 1949, to 31st March, 1950. The assessee is a private limited company. Prior to 31st March, 1949, the business of the assessee was manufacture and sale of Ayurvedic drugs and medicines. The assessee discontinued its business as from 30th of March, 1949, and on that date the assessee under a deed of transfer dated 30th March, 1949, transferred it to a public limited company, called Dhootpapeshwar Industries Limited. As from the date of the transfer, the assessee has been acting as a managing agent of the said public limited company. Now, although the Dhootpapeshwar Industries Limited had purchased the business of the assessee company under a deed of 30th March, 1949, it had not purchased the finished goods, which were with the assessee company. Those finishe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »