Mumbai Court August 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.
Dhun Dadabhoy Kapadia Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Ii
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-1962
Reported in: [1963]48ITR882(Bom)
Tambe, J.1. This is a reference under sub-section (1) of section 66 of the Act. We are here concerned with the assessment year 1957-58, the corresponding accounting year ended 31st March, 1957. The assessee, Miss Dhun Dadabhoy Kapadia, derives income from various investments in securities and shares and interest on fixed deposits. She, however, is not a dealer in shares. Amongst the shares held by her, she held 710 ordinary shares of the Tata Iron & Steel Company Limited. We are here concerned with these shares, and the rights acquired by the assessee to subscribe to the additional share capital floated by the Tata iron & Steel Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Tata Company). The said 710 shares were acquired by the assessee by inheritance some time before the 1st of January, 1954. 2. At an extraordinary general meeting of the Tata Company held on March 12, 1956, special resolutions were passed - (1) for increase of the capital of the company; and (2) for the issue of 12,85,000...
Ramkrishna Ramnath Bidi Manufacturing, Kamptee Vs. the Presiding Offic ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Bom201; (1963)65BOMLR109; [1963(6)FLR175]; ILR1962Bom714; 1963MhLJ182
Palekar, J. 1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for writs of certiorari and prohibition. The petitioner is Ramkrishna Ramnath Bidi Factory at Kamptee. The first respondent is the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, at Nagpur, and the second respondent is a bidi binder of Kamptee. 2. The Bidi Factory was closed from 1-7-1958 to 9-8-1958 and thus the bidi workers were out of employment for that period. After the factory was re-opened on 10-8-1958, all the employees, including respondent No. 2, were re-employed. 3. On 7-3-1961 respondent No. 2 filed an application before respondent No. 1, purporting to be one under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Respondent No. 2 alleged that as a consequence of the closure of the factory, the workers including herself were retrenched and hence she was entitled to retrenchment compensation under Chapter VA of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. She further claimed that it was a benefit computable under Sec...
Savatram Ramprasad Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Baliram Ukandaji and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Bom189; (1963)65BOMLR91; ILR1963Bom594; (1963)ILLJ400Bom
Abhyankar, J.1. The order in this application will also govern Special Civil Applications Nos. 381 and 382 of 1961.2. The petitioner in Special Civil ApplicationNo. 360 of 1961 is Messrs. Sawatram Ramprasad Mills, Company, and the contesting respondent is one of their workers, Baliram. In the other two petitions, Nos. 381 and 382 of 1961, the petitioner is Rai Saheb Rekhchand Malhotra Spinning and Weaving Mills at Hinganghat, and in each the contesting respondent is one of the workers in the Mill. In all the three cases an employee of the Mills, which are all textile Mills in Vidarbha region, filed an application 'before the presiding officer of the Labour Court, Bombay, at Nagpur. The claim in each of the application was for payment of lay-off compensation on the ground that the worker was illegally laid off by the employer and was entitled to compensation under Section 25A (sic 25C) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Specific amounts have been claimed as lay-off compensation. The ...
Ramkrishan Ramnath Bidi Manufacturing, Kamptee Vs. Labour Court, Nagpu ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-1962
Reported in: (1963)ILLJ417Bom
Palekar, J.1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for writs of certiorari and prohibition. The petitioner is Ramkrishan Ramnath Bidi Factory at Kamptee. Respondent 1 is the presiding officer, labour court, at Nagpur, and respondent 2 is a bidi-binder of Kamptee. 2. The bidi-factory was closed from 1 July, 1958 to 9 August, 1958 and thus bidi-workers were out of employment for that period. After the factory was reopened on 10 August, 1958, all the employees, including respondent 2, were reemployed. 3. On 7 March, 1961, respondent 2 filed an application before respondent 1 purporting to be one under S. 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Respondent 2 alleged that as a consequence of the closure of the factory, the workers including herself were retrenched and hence she was entitled to retrenchment compensation under Chap. V-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. She further claimed that it was a benefit computable under S. 33C(2) of the Industrial ...
Ramchandra Anant Joshi and ors. Vs. Janardan Tulshiram Ghuge and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Bom79; (1962)64BOMLR635
Chainani, C.J. 1. The petitioners landlords had given a notice to their tenant opponent No. 1 before 3ist December, 1956 under Section 31 of the Bombay Tenancyand Agricultural Lands Act terminating the tenancy on the ground that they requited the lands bona fide for personal cultivation. Subsequently before 1st March 1957, they made an application to the Mamlatdar for obtaining possession of the lauds on the ground that they required them for personal cultivation. That application has not yet been finally disposed of and the matter is pending in appeal before the Deputy Collector. During the pendency of that application on 17th July 1958, the petitioners gave another notice to opponent No. 1 under Section 14 of the Act terminating the tenancy on the ground of defaults in the payment of rent. On nth December 1958, the petitioners made an application under Section 29 read with Section 14 to the Mamlatdar for obtaining possession of the lands on the ground that there were defaults in the ...
M.N. Sidhwa, Agent to East and West Steamship Co. Vs. Commissioner of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-1962
Reported in: [1963]50ITR337(Bom)
Tambe, J. 1. On a direction given by this court, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has drawn up a statement of the case and referred to this court the following question of law : 'Whether the order purporting to have been made under section 44B of the Indian Income-tax Act by the Income-tax Officers at Bombay and Calcutta were in law orders validly made under that section ?' 2. The East and West Steamship Company is a firm carrying on business in Pakistan. In the course of its business several of its ships touched Indian ports such as Bombay, Calcutta and Cochin. We are not here concerned with the business done by the ships touching the Port at Cochin, but are concerned only with the tax levied in respect of the business done by the company in the ports of Calcutta and Bombay. In the relevant assessment year the company had no office in the then British India and the territories of the Indian Dominion. It is common ground that the company was not a resident within the meaning of that e...
The Vidarbha Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd. Vs. Sales Tax Officer ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-1962
Reported in: (1963)65BOMLR238; 1963MhLJ5; [1963]14STC430(Bom)
Kotval, J.1. These are matters which arise under the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 (XXI of 1947). They are both directed against the orders levying a penalty upon the petitioner, the Vidarbha Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd., Nagpur, under section 10(3) of that Act. The facts are not in dispute and briefly stated they are as follows : 2. The petitioner-society is a dealer within the meaning of the Act and was therefore bound to make quarterly returns within one month from the date on which the return for each quarter was due. In S.C.A. No. 375 of 1961 the assessment year is 1st July, 1953 to 30th June, 1954, and in S.C.A. No. 376 of 1961 the assessment year is from 1st July, 1954 to 30th June, 1955. In each of these two years the society was bound to make four returns. For the year 1953-54, we give below the following dates on which the quarters ended and the due dates for the returns :- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Retur...
Manager, Ramkrishna Ramnath Bidi Factory Vs. Small Cause Court, Nagpur ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Bom236; (1963)65BOMLR420; [1963(7)FLR112]; ILR1963Bom561; (1963)IILLJ247Bom
Kotval, J.1. This petition under Article. 227 of the Constitution of India 'arises out of proceedings taken by respondent Ho. 2 Chandan son of Bhika, a bidiroller, for payment of his leave wages under Section 15 of the Payment of wages Act. The present petitioner, the Manager, Ramkrishna Ramnath Bidi Factory, Kamptee, is his employer. The worker alleged that he had been working in the factory of the petitioner for over 240 days and that he was accordingly entitled to leave with wages under Section 79 of the Factories Act for the period of 15 days from 3-4-1961 to 17-4-1961 but that those wages had not been paid. According to the worker his daily average whole time earnings were Rs. 2.75 H.P. and he, therefore, claimed a total of Rs. 41.25 H.P. The Authority under the Payment of Wages Act has granted the worker's application but has held that he is entitled to compute the leave wages on the basis of a daily average earning of Rs. 2,04 N.P. and the employer has filed the present petition...
Devyani Kantilal Shroff Vs. Kantilal Gamanlal Shroff and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Bom98; (1963)65BOMLR24; ILR1962Bom706
1. This is an appeal by the wife against a decree of dismissal of her petition for divorce on the ground of adultery of her husband with respondent No. 2.2. The petitioner was married to respondentNo. 1 on the 15th of February 1947. Aftermarriage, for a number of years they lived as hus-band and wife in Karim Building at Kanda Wadion the and floor. The petitioner left respondentNo. 1 in or about the end of 1958. At that timerespondent No. 1 had two rooms in KarimBuilding. Out of these two rooms, he gave oneroom on leave and license within a short timeafter the petitioner left, while the main residential room in which the petitioner and respondentNo. 1 were residing he says he gave on leave andlicense in the month of April 1960. The present petition for divorce on the ground of adulterywas filed on 23rd February 1961.3. She alleged that since about 1956 respondent No. 1 came in contact with respondent No. 2, who was living in Sikka Nagar with her husband and her two children. Gradually ...
A.J. Kohiyar and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City I
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1962
Reported in: [1964]51ITR221(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 assessee, who are the trustees of the Kohiyar family trust, and arises out of their assessments for the years 1954-55, 1955-56 and 1956-57. 2. On the 16th March, 1953, Dr. A. J. Kohiyar and his wife, Mrs. Amy Kohiyar, as settlers of the one and second part, respectively, executed an indenture of trust, transferring a total sum of Rs. 6,30,000 in cash in equal shares to the trustees for settling that amount upon trust subject to certain powers mentioned in the deed. Under the said deed, they appointed themselves and one Mr. Burjor A. Guzdar as trustees. The amount of Rs. 6,30,000 transferred to the trustees was to be utilised by them to purchase an immovable property known as 'Sealand' situated at Colaba Reclamation, Bombay, and the said immovable property was to be held by the trustees for the trust with and subject to the powers, provisions, agreements and declarations conta...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »