Mumbai Court March 1962 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.
Navnitlal C. Javeri Vs. K.K. Sen, Appellate Assistant Commissioner of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-1962
Reported in: [1963]48ITR451(Bom)
Tambe, J. 1. In this petition under article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has raised questions regarding the constitutionality of section 12(1B) read with section 2(6A)(e) of the Indian Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioner holds II shares out of 345 shares each of the value of Rs. 100 in a private limited company - the Malegaon Electricity Co. (Private) Ltd. The business of this company is supplying electricity to the citizens of Malegaon. It appears that some time during the year 1955 the petitioner had taken a loan amounting to over Rs. 4 lakhs from the company. For the assessment year 1956-57 a notice was issued by the 8th Income-tax Officer to the petitioner under section 22(2) of the Act calling upon him to file his return. The Income-tax Officer computed his income at Rs. 3,53,460. The said sum included a sum of Rs. 2,83,126 representing the accumulated profits of the company, which was, under the provisions of section 2(6...
Bapurao Vs. Waman and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-29-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Bom179; (1962)64BOMLR541; ILR1963Bom629
Shah, J.1. This is an application filed by a tenant against the landlord-respondents challenging the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in revision against the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer who, in his turn, reversed the decision of the Naib Tahsildar in an application made by the landlords for possession of the land in question on the ground of personal bona fide cultivation. The landlords before making the application to the Naib Tahsildar, gave notice to the tenant on 26th March, 1959, under Section 39 (I) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands ( Vidarabhai Region and Kutch Area) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act). Thereafter, an application for possession of the land was made to the Naib Tahsildar under Section 36 of the Tenancy Act on 23-7-1959. This application was resisted by the tenant on several grounds. The Naib Tahsildar, however, allowed the landlord's application on 22nd of March 1960 and ordered the tenant to deliver po...
Milkhiram (India) Private Ltd. Vs. the State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-28-1962
Reported in: [1963]14STC18(Bom)
Desai, J.1. In this reference under section 34 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act of 1953, the Sales Tax Tribunal has referred to this Court the following four questions :- 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case the property in the goods passed to the Government of India on or about the 3rd December, 1953, on the applicants' delivering the shipping documents to the Government of India and on the Government of India paying the c.i.f. value of the said goods to the applicants when the said goods were on the high seas outside the Bombay State. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case there was any sale in Bombay taxable under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953. 3. Whether the Bombay Sales Tax Tribunal was right in not allowing fresh evidence on the point of endorsement on the bill of lading in favour of the Government of India, and 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case the sale of goods made to the Government of India is protected u...
Kamlakar and Company Vs. Gulamshafi Imambhai Musalman
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Bom42; (1962)64BOMLR554; ILR1963Bom236
Patel, J.1. These two appeals raise at least one question in common and that is why they have been placed together. In appeal No. 1041 of 1958, the point arises in execution proceedings and in appeal No. 1162 of 1958 it arises in a suit proper. In both these cases, the mortgagors obtained redemption decrees against their mortgagees. The mortgagees had before the filing of the suit created monthly tenancies in respect of the mortgaged premises. After the decrees were obtained, the tenants of the mortgagees claimed protection under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. In appeal No. 1041 of 1958, the mortgagor sought to execute the decree against the tenants also on the ground that once the decree was passed in his favour against the mortgagee, the tenants of the mortgagee were bound by the decree and, therefore, he was entitled to obtain physical possession of the properties. In Appeal No. 1162 of 1958, an order for symbolical possession was passed in favour...
Mohamed Massi Safi and Co. Vs. the State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-1962
Reported in: [1962]13STC552(Bom)
Tambe, J.1. The applicant, a partnership firm, is a registered dealer within the meaning of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, (hereafter referred to as the Act). The firm at the material time was carrying on business of tanning skins and selling them to purchasers outside India. In the course of its business, the firm used to purchase raw skins of sheep slaughtered in the Bandra Slaughter House. Thereafter the applicant-firm separated the wool from the skin and then cleaning it used to sell the wool. We, however, are not concerned with the turnover of sale of wool. Skins were then converted into leather by tanning process and the latter was sold to purchasers outside India, and we are here concerned with the turnover of sale of leather. The relevant period is the period commencing from 1st April, 1954, to 31st March, 1955. It is not in dispute that at the time the applicant-firm purchased raw hides from the slaughter house, it was required to pay purchase tax on the price paid by it for ...
Pioneer Scrap Traders and Exporters Vs. O.G. Eapen and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Bom50; (1962)64BOMLR534
ORDER1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the legality of the conditions imposed in a licence dated September4, 1961, and an allotment order also dated September 4, 1961, as also directions in a letter dated October 20, 1961, copies of which licence, order and letter are annexed to the petition. The relevant facts are as follows :2. The petitioners are a partnership firm carrying on business, inter alia, of export of ferrous scrap from India to foreign countries. The Petitioners had in fact in connection with export of ferrous scrap prior to the date of the above stated licence obtained several licences for export of ferrous' scrap. By an application for licence dated August 29, 1961, (copy whereof is annexed as Ex. 9 to the affidavit of M. M. Solanki in reply dated January 15, 1962), the Petitioners applied. for exporting 300 tons of cast iron borings and turnings (scrap). As a result of this application, the 1st Respondent issued to the Petitioners ...
Bennett Coleman and Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bomba ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-1962
Reported in: [1963]49ITR264(Bom)
V.S. Desai, J.1. The questions raised on this reference relate to the assessment made upon the assessee company for the assessment year 1952-53, the previous year for which was the calendar year 1951. The assessee at the material time was a private company, doing business of publishing several dailies, weeklies etc. It had for its business owned certain buildings, machinery, plant etc. At the commencement of the relevant account year, the actual cost of the building owned by it stood at Rs. 17,92,625 which included cost of certain constructions and installations of part of machinery subsequent to 31st March, 1948. In the month of January 1951, construction of certain additional buildings was completed at a total cost of Rs. 16,90,972. The buildings including the new buildings were used for the purpose of its business by the assessee, till the end of October, 1951, when all of them were sold to the Bharat Insurance Company for a certain consideration. In the assessment proceedings for t...
In Re: of Gagalbhai Jute Mills Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-1962
Reported in: (1965)67BOMLR723
Kantawala, J.1. [His Lordship after setting out the facts, proceeded.] In the course of the hearing of this petition, Mr. Amin, who appeared on behalf of the company, did not press for confirmation of alterations of the objects set out in sub-paras (b), (c) and (d) of Clause 2A set out above. I am, therefore, not called upon to consider whether the proposed alterations in respect of the objects mentioned in the said paras, (b), (c) and (d) of Clause 2A should be confirmed by this Court.2. The notice of this petition was served upon the Registrar of the Joint Stock Companies and the Registrar has opposed this application. He has mainly objected to additional objects contained in sub-paras, (a) to (e) in Clause 2A of the Object clause.3. Section 17 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, makes inter alia the following provision in respect of alteration of objects.17. Special resolution and confirmation by Court required for alteration, of memorandum.-(1) A company may, by special resolution, ...
Gulam HussaIn Ahmedali and Co. Vs. Trustees of the Port of Trust, Bomb ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Bom45; (1962)64BOMLR670; ILR1963Bom35
Tarkunde, J.1. This suit was filed in the Bombay Small Causes Court for the recovery of Rs. 2,966/- by way of damages. The plaintiffs are a private limited company carrying on business as importers and merchants. The defendants are the Trustees of the Port of Bombay, hereinafter referred to as the Board, a statutory body incorporated under Section 4 of the Bombay Port Trust Act, 1873. The plaintiffs say that they imported four cases of Cellulose Tapes and Bench Dispensers from London, that the four cases arrived at the Bombay docks, that the plaintiffs paid the necessary customs duty on the goods, that the Docks Manager of the Board delivered to the plaintiffs only one of the four cases, and that the remaining three cases were not delivered to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs say that the three cases were lost when in the custody of the Board, and that they were lost solely due to the acts of negligence, malfeasance and nonfeasance on the part of the Board's administration and also due t...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Ii Vs. Bhagwandas Amersey
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1962
Reported in: [1963]50ITR239(Bom)
V.S. Desai, J.1. The question, which is referred on this reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the proceedings initiated under section 34(1)(a) for the assessment year 1945-46 and the assessment made in pursuance thereto were bad in law ?' 2. The assessee was assessed to tax for the assessment year 1946-47 on his income from a share in a certain registered firm in which he was a partner. In the year 1953 the Income-tax Officer at Bhavnagar addressed a letter to the Income-tax Officer, B-II Ward, Bombay, requesting the latter to make inquiries in respect of a draft favouring self for Rs. 66,000 which the assessee had taken on the 23rd of March, 1944, on the Bank of Baroda Limited, Bombay, and which wash cashed through payee's account with the Exchange Bank of India and Africa Ltd. This letter, appears, inadvertently bore the assessee's address on its cover and was consequently first received by t...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »