Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1963]50ITR429(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). The assessee M/s. Bhaidas Cursondas & Co., is a registered firm carrying on cotton business on an extensive scale, both in India and Pakistan. The business is done both on ready and forward basis. On December 3, 1947, Raw Cotton Traders Ltd. of Shanghai acting as brokers of M/s. China Cotton Mills Ltd. and M/s. Lee Hsing Cotton Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd. entered into a transaction for purchase of 4,000 bales of cotton with the assessee at Rs. 765 per candy c.i.f. Shanghai in full pressed bales shipment during December, 1947/January, 1948 at seller's option. The terms of the contract, inter alia were that buyers were to obtain the import licence before the time of the shipment and the buyers had to open an irrevocable confirmed credit in favour of the assessee in Bombay before the time of shipment. Cotton was, however, not shipped as was contemplated ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1963Bom208; (1963)65BOMLR152; 1963MhLJ312
Patel, J. 1. The question in this case is whether the respondents were common carriers and liable as such in respect of the goods belonging to the plaintiff and which they were carrying from Nagpur to Pusad. The goods were despatched on 21st April 1949 from Nagpur and were to be delivered to one Vinayakrao Patil of Pusad. The plaintiff alleged that he had expressly declared the value and the description of the goods at the time of delivery to the defendants. On the way the goods were burnt to ashes and hence the plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery of the value of the goods (they were all pieces of furniture) on the basis of a contract to reimburse and also on the basis that the defendants were common carriers. 2. Defendant No. 1 contended that there was no negligence on his part, that the truck was operated by gas plant, and the days being summer days, the goods were destroyed by fire due to some accident, and that there was no negligence on his part. He also denied that they...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1963]49ITR913(Bom)
Tambe, J.1. This is a reference under sub-section (1) of section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act. The assessee is a public limited company engaged in the business of distribution of electricity in the City of Poona. It is a licensee within the meaning of sub-section (6) of section 2 of the Electricity (Supply) Act (54 of 1948) (hereinafter referred to as the Electricity Act). Section 57 of the Electricity Act provides that the provisions of the Sixth Schedule and the Seventh Schedule shall be deemed to be incorporated in the licence of every licensee, not being a local authority, and it further enjoins a duty on the licensee to comply with the provisions of the said Schedules notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary either in the Electricity Act, 1910, or the licence granted to him thereunder or any other law, agreement or instrument. The section also provides that any provisions contrary to the provisions of the Sixth and the Seventh Schedules contrary in the Electricity Act, 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1962)64BOMLR780
J.C. Shah, J.1. On May 1, 1962, we ordered after arguments were concluded that the appeal be allowed and the conviction of the appellant be set aside. We now proceed to record our reasons in support of the order.2. The appellant Ramesh Amin and seven others were tried in the Court of Session, Aurangabad, for offences punishable under Sections 366, 366A, Indian Penal Code and abetment thereof. The appellant was accused .No. 3 at the trial. The Sessions Judge convicted accused Nos. 1 to 4 and 7 of the offences charged against them and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years for each offence, and acquitted the rest. The High Court of Bombay entertained appeal of accused Nos. 1 to 4 (but not of accused No. 7) and set aside the order of conviction and sentence against them for the offences punishable under Section 366 read with Section 34 and Section 366A of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court, however, convicted the appellant of abetting accused No. 7 in inducing a m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1962)64BOMLR784
J.C. Shah, J.1. With special leave, the two appellants Bhagwanbhai Dulabhai Jadav and Haribhai Maganbhai Bhandare herein after referred to as accused Nos. 1 and 5 respectively-have appealed against the order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay setting aside the order of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Thana, acquitting them and three others of offences punishable under Sections 65(a), 66(6), 81 and 83 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, XXV of 1949 -hereinafter called the Act.2. The case of the prosecution may briefly be stated: On August 25, 1957, a 'wireless message' alerting the officers posted on 'watch duty' at Kasheli Naka, District Thana, that a motor-car bearing No. BMY 1068 belonging to appellant No. 1 was carrying 'contraband goods', was received. This motorcar reached the Kasheli Naka at about 2-30 p.m. on August 28. Accused No. 1 was then driving the car, accused No'. 2 was sitting by his side and accused Nos. 3 to 5 were sitting in the rear seats. Panohas wer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1963)65BOMLR149; 1963MPLJ372
Chandrachud, J.1. This revisional application raises the question as to whether a person who derives title from a sub-tenant has a legal status, which can be upheld under the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (Act No. LVII of 1947). The property which is the subject-matter of the present dispute formerly belonged to one Ganpat, but on his death it devolved upon the present plaintiff as a legatee and executor under the will of Ganpat. The. plaintiff filed a suit against six persons for possession of the premises in their occupation on the ground that defendant No. 1 who was the original tenant bad sub-let the premises to defendant No. 2, that defendant No. 2 had sub-let the property to defendant No. 3, that defendant No. 3 had, in turn, sub-let the property to defendant No. 5 and that the several defendants wore profiteering by charging exorbitant rent to one another. The plaintiff also sought for possession on the ground that the premises were re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1963Bom219; (1963)65BOMLR13; ILR1962Bom696; 1963MhLJ258
1. The only question that has been raised in this appeal is as to whether the last proviso in Section 7-A of the Administration of Evacuee Properly Act, 1954 which was introduced into the Act by Section 4 of the Administration of Evacuee Property (Amendment) Act, 1954, can be said to have a retrospective effect, in the sense that its provisions must be deemed to have come into effect as from 7th May 1954. Both the Trial Court is well as the learned Extra Assistant Judge were of the view that the expression in that proviso, namely, 'commencement of the Administration of Evacuee Property (Amendment) Act of 1954', which was admittedly on 8th October 1954, could not be substituted by '7th May 1954' and that, therefore, the property which was attached by the appellant in execution of his decree against the judgment-debtor was not liable to be attached in the hands of the Custodian of Evacuee Property.2. Mr. Omer the learned advocate for We appellant decree-holder, contended that Section 10 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1963]49ITR107(Bom)
Tambe, J.1. This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act. The assessee before us is one Mr. J. B. Greaves. He held 2,300 shares out of 2,500 shares of the entire paid up capital of Greaves Cotton & Co. Ltd., a private limited company. The remaining 200 shares were at the material time held by one Mr. N. G. Hunt. The managing agency of Greaves Cotton Company Limited was held by Greaves Cotton & Co. a partnership firm consisting of Mr. J. B. Greaves and Mr. N. G. Hunt. The terms of the managing agency agreement were reduced to writing under a deed dated 10th April, 1929, which is annexure 'A' to the statement of the case. Clause 10 of the said agreement provided that 'It shall be lawful for the said firm to assign this agreement and the rights of the said firm hereunder to any person, firm or company having authority by its constitution to become bound by the obligations undertaken by the said firm hereunder and upon such assignment being made and notified to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1963Bom137; (1963)65BOMLR54; ILR1963Bom537
Abhyankar, J. 1. This is a petition under Art, 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner was appointed as Revenue Inspector on 7-12-1946 in the then State of Madhya Pradesh. He was confirmed in that capacity on 7-12-1948. Later, he was promoted as Assistant Superintendent of Land Records. He was confirmed as Assistant Superintendent of Land Records by the orders of the Government of Madhya Pradesh on 31-10-1956. The petitioner's services were allocated to the new reorganised Stale of Bombay. The petitioner was at Nagpur when he received an order dated 3-9-1957 from the Settlement Commissioner and Director of Land Records. By that order the petitioner was suspended from service from the date of receipt of the order. The order gave certain other directions as follows:(1) That during the period of suspension he should be paid only the subsistence and other allowances admissible under the B. C. S. Rules, i.e. Bombay Civil Services Rules. (2) That the petitioner should not leave his Headquart...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1963)ILLJ449Bom
Abhyankar, J.1. This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner was appointed as a revenue inspector on 7 December, 1946, in the State of Madhya Pradesh. He was confirmed in that capacity on 7 December, 1948. Later he was confirmed as Assistant Superintendent of Land Records. He was confirmed as Assistant Superintendent of Land Records by the orders of the Government of Madhya Pradesh on 31 October, 1956. The petitioner's services were allocated to the new reorganized State of Bombay. The petitioner was at Nagpur when he received an order, dated 3 September, 1957, from the Settlement Commissioner and Director of Land Records. By that order the petitioner was suspended from service from the date of receipt of the order. The order gave certain other directions as follows : (1) That during the period of suspension he should be paid only the subsistence and other allowances admissible under the B.C.S. Rules, i.e., Bombay Civil Services Rules. (2) That the petitioner ...
Tag this Judgment!