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.
Vinayak Sitaram Patil Vs. Navnitrai Bhogilal Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1962
Reported in: (1963)65BOMLR6; 1963MhLJ244
H.K. Chainani, C.J.1. Petitioner No. 1 was elected as a Councillor of the Palghar Panchayat Samiti constituted under Section 57 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act. Petitioner No. 2 was nominated as an associate member of this Samiti under Clause (c) in Sub-section (1) of Section 57 of the Act. As required by Sub-section (1) of Section 67, a meeting for electing a Chairman of the Samiti was convened on August 7, 1962. The petitioner and opponent No. 1. hereinafter referred to as the opponent, stood as candidates at this election. Petitioner No. 2 was not allowed to vote on the ground that he being an associate member of the Samiti had no right of vote. Petitioner No. 1 and the opponent secured equal number of votes, 12 each. Lots were then drawn and the opponent was declared to have been duly elected. Thereafter the present special civil application was filed.2. Mr. Paranjpe, who appears on behalf of the petitioners, has relied on Sub-section (1) of Section 67 ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City I Vs. Chunilal Manilal Private ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-1962
Reported in: [1963]48ITR628(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) at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax. The question referred to us in the following terms : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 50,000 being the amount paid to Mr. Jariwala as per the compromise was deductible in considering the application of section 23A ?' 2. The following facts give rise to this question : The assessee is a company in which the public are not substantially interested within the meaning of section 23A of the Act. For the assessment year 1952-53, it returned an income of Rs. 1,56,894. The Income-tax Officer, however, after disallowing certain expenditure said to have been incurred by the company, computed its income at Rs. 2,33,466. The tax payable thereon was worked out at Rs. 1,01,412. The balance available for profits as per the assessment order of date 31st July, 1954, was Rs. 1,32...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Ii Vs. Hind Commission Agents
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-1962
Reported in: [1963]48ITR615(Bom)
V.S. Desai, J.1. This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, at the instance of the department and it arises out of the Tribunal's order disposing of six consolidated appeals filed by the assessee relating to the assessment years 1954-55, 1955-56 and 1956-57. Two questions have been referred to us in this reference and they are as follows : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income of the assessable entity was assessable under section 10 of the Income-tax Act 2. Whether the status of the said assessable entity is 'firm' for income-tax purposes and as such registrable under section 26A of the Income-tax Act ?' 2. The facts necessary to be stated in order to appreciate the questions raised are as follows : Hindustan Sugar Mills (which will hereafter be referred to as the sugar mills) is a public limited company. Its managing agents were Bachhraj & Co. Private Limited. Four of the directors of the managing agents' company we...
Swastik Rolling Shutters and Engineering Works Vs. Taki Bilgrami (S.) ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-1962
Reported in: (1965)ILLJ482Bom
Chainani, C.J. 1. The petitioners are a registered firm carrying on business as manufactures of rolling shutters, rolling grills, etc., in Bombay. A dispute between the petitioners and their employees, who are represented by respondents 2, 3 and 4, was referred for adjudication to the industrial tribunal under S. 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The tribunal made its award on 6 January 1962. The petitioners have challenged this award in so far as it relates to revision of pay-scales and dearness allowance, the consequential adjustments to be made and the differences to be paid as result of the decision of the tribunal. The award in regard to the demand for gratuity has also been objected to by the petitioner. 2. In so far as the award relates to the pay-scales, the dearness allowance, the adjustments to be made and the differences to be paid, the petitioners have contended that the tribunal has not followed the industry-cum-region principle, that the award of the tribunal in regard t...
Currimbhoy Ebrahim Baronetcy Trust Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bom ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-1962
Reported in: [1963]48ITR507(Bom)
V.S. Desai, J.1. The questions raised on this reference arise out of the assessment of the assessee for the assessment year 1957-58 and they are as follows : '1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the annual value of Flats Nos. 7 and 8 of 'Currimbhoy Manor' and 'Poona Bungalow No. 20, was liable to assessment in the hands of the assessee trustees under section 9 of the Act 2. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case the rent receivable by the Custodian of Evacuee Property can be considered to be a charge within the meaning of section 9(1)(iv) of the Act or whether it constituted an effective alienation at source ?' 2. The assessee is a corporation created by a statute, viz, Sir Currimbhoy Ebrahim Baronetcy Trust Act, IV of 1913 (hereinafter referred to as Act IV of 1913), and has been all along assessed to tax as trustees of Sir Currimbhoy Ebrahim Baronetcy Trust in the status of an association of persons. The income of the assessee is from the immo...
Abdul Kassam and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Ii
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-1962
Reported in: [1963]48ITR514(Bom)
Tambe, J.1. This is a consolidated reference under sub-section (1) of section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act arising out of an order made under section 18A(1) and a notice of demand issued in pursuance of the order under section 29 of the Indian Income-tax Act to two partners, Abdul Kassam and Abdul Halim Valimahomed. We are here concerned with the assessment year 1957-58, the relevant previous year being one ended on 2nd November, 1956. On 21st November, 1956, the Income-tax Officer made an order under section 18A(1) calling upon the partner, Abdul Kassam, to pay an advance tax of Rs. 4,473 in two equal instalments on December 15, 1956, and March 15, 1957. The Income-tax Officer also similarly made an order under section 18A(1) calling upon the other partner, Abdul Halim Valimahomed, to pay advance tax of Rs. 4,521 in similar two instalments on December 15, 1956, and March 15, 1957. This notice along with the notice of demand under section 29 of the Act were served on both the partne...
Sundarabai Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-1962
Reported in: AIR1967Bom203; (1963)65BOMLR821; ILR1964Bom1
Abhyankar, J.(1) The State of Maharashtra issued a preliminary notification on 29-8-1959 under S. 4 of the C. P. and Berar Municipalities Act. 1922. By that notification,. respondent No. 1 signified its intention to declare the local areas comprising of four villages of Desaiganj, Wadsa, Nainpur and Virsitukum in Gadchiroli Tahsil of the Chanda district to be a municipality. This notification was followed by subsequent notification bearing No. DTM (M) 2558(a)-A, dated 26-4-1961. Under this latter notification , the Government was pleased to declare the area comprising in these four villages to be a municipality from 1st May 1961. The Government is empowered to declare a municipality comprising of certain areas under S. 5 (1) (a) of the C. P. and Berar Municipalities Act. It may be noted here that in his final notification of 26-4-61, through some inadvertence mention of village Virsitukum is omitted, though the village was mentioned in the preliminary notification. It is not now disput...
Sriram Ranglal and anr. Vs. Baburao Bhandoba Itkar and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Bom235; (1962)64BOMLR763; ILR1962Bom703
ORDER1. This is an application in revision against the order of the Taxing Officer. The respondent filed a suit against the petitioners for redemption of a mortgage executed by him on 16th January 1956 for a sum of Rs. 5000/-. According to the petitioner-defendants, they were tenants on the suit properly from 17th October 1952 and one of the defences was that even though the plaintiff may be entitled to redeem as they were tenants in the property they were entitled to remain in possession as tenants. The Trial Court made a decree in redemption and the Appellate Court confirmed it. Against that decree the defendants come in appeal.2. In the appeal, the Taxing Officer called upon the defendant to pay Court-fee on the full amount of Rs. 5000/-being the consideration for the mortgage-deed. It is this order that is sought to be revised by the petitioners.3. It is clear from the prayers, which the petitioners make, that they are not challenging the redemption decrees as such; they are only c...
Eastern Mining Contractors (Private) Ltd. Vs. the Premier Automobiles ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1962
Reported in: (1963)65BOMLR183; 1963MhLJ164
Patel, J.1. His Lordship after stating the facts of the case and matter not relevant to the report, proceeded. The next question is of liability. The respective liabilities of the dealer and the manufacturer are two entirely different matters and have to be dealt with, separately ; of the dealer it is under the Sale of Goods Act, and of the manufacturer, if at all, in tort. It is first necessary to take up the question of the dealer's liability.2. The appellant relies upon Section 16(1) and (2) and respondent No. 2 relies upon the proviso to Sub-section (1) for excluding his liability. The section is:Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any other law for the time being in force, there is no implied warranty or condition as to the quality or fitness for any particular purpose of goods supplied under a contract of sale, except as follows:(1)Where the buyer, expressly or by implication, makes known to the seller the particular purpose for which the goods are required, so as to sho...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City I Vs. Trustees of Lady Wadia
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-1962
Reported in: [1963]48ITR500(Bom)
V.S. Desai, J. 1. This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax and the question which arises for consideration on the reference is 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the trustees could be treated as dealer in shares for the assessment year 1955-56 ?' On the 26th January, 1929, Lady Wadia executed a will, under clause 7 of which she left three properties solely for her grandson, J. B. Wadia. Under the said clause, the trustees appointed under the will were prohibited from selling the properties. On the 25th September, 1929, Lady Wadia executed a codicil, under which she have power to the trustees to sell the properties and invest the proceeds in shares and securities. Under clause 24 of the will, power had been given to the trustees to invest moneys in their names in certain investments from time to time. Lady Wadia died on 14th April, 1930, and the will took effect on that date. The trustees, i...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »