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.
Gurdial Nariandas and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-1962
Reported in: [1963]50ITR633(Bom)
Tambe, J.1. This is reference under sub-section (1) of section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act and the question referred to this court is in the following terms : 'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the inference drawn that the sum of Rs. 90,125 was profit from an adventure in the nature of trade is valid in law ?' 2. The question arised thus : The assessee is registered partnership firm of six partners carrying on business of importers of piece goods merchants on wholesale basis. We are here concerned with the assessment year 1952-53, the relevant previous year being one ending with 31 st March, 1952. At an auction held on 4th October, 1944, the assessee had secured from the Government a right to obtain a lease of a plot of land bearing No. 25 in the Back Bay Reclamation. The right was acquired in the name of one Shamdas, one of the partners of the assessee firm. One of the conditions of the auction material for the purpose of this case was : 'That he (assesse...
Anna Balgonda Patil and ors. Vs. Vasant Raghunath Kulkarni and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Bom36; (1962)64BOMLR591; ILR1963Bom198
Chainani, C.J.1. The question, which has been referred to the Full Bench, is as follows:'Whether, for the purpose of section 88C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, the material date lor ascertaining who is the landlord entitled to apply, whether the lands leased by him do not exceed an economic holding, and whether his total annual income does not exceed Rs. 1500/-, is the 1st of April 1957 or the 'postponed date' specified in the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of section 32?'2. In order to answer this question, it is necessary to consider the relevant provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. Sub-sec, (1) of Section 14 states that notwithstanding any law, agreement or usage, or the decree or order o a Court, the tenancy of any land shall not be terminated except on the grounds mentioned in Sub-clauses (i) to (v) of clause (a) of this Sub-section. This Sub-section, therefore, curtails the ordinary right of the landlord to terminate the tenancy of his...
Bombay Steam Navigation Co. (1953) Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of In ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-1962
Reported in: [1963]48ITR476(Bom)
Desai, J. 1. The question raised on this reference relates to the payments of Rs. 2,74,610 and Rs. 2,86,823, which the assessee had made in the assessment years 1955-56 and 1956-57 and which it had claimed as deductions under the Indian Income-tax Act. 2. The assessee company was incorporated on the 10th of August, 1953. Under a scheme of amalgamation, which was approved of by this court, an incorporate company known as 'the Bombay Steam Navigation Co. Ltd.' was amalgamated with the Scindia Steam Navigation Company Limited with effect from the 30th of June, 1952. This scheme of amalgamation had provided that the Scindia Steam Navigation Company Ltd. would be entitled to float and establish a joint stock company with the object of taking over the passenger services on the Konkan coast and the ferry services in the Bombay harbour, which were formerly carried on by the Bombay Steam Navigation Company Limited. It was pursuant to this object that the assessee company was floated and incorpo...
Namdeo Chintaman MaraThe Vs. Shaligram Motiram Bonde
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-1962
Reported in: (1963)65BOMLR229; 1963MhLJ172
Patel, J.1. These are two appeals by the original owner who failed in all the Courts so far. The short facts are that the appellant Namdeo, who subsequently became defendant No. 2, is the original owner of the two fields which are the subject-matters of the two appeals. On July 17, 1951, by exh. P-2 he executed a sale-deed in respect of both these fields along with some other property in favour of defendant No. 1 who is Shri Akkalkot Swami Maharaj Sansthan, through its Wahiwatdar Vithalrao, and on the same day and at the same time the manager of the said Sansthan agreed to reconvey these properties if he returned the purchase price within two years from the date of that document. The plaintiffs in both the cases are the co-occupants of the sub-divisions of these fields and they instituted the respective suits in exercise of their right of pre-emption under Section 174 of the Berar Land Revenue Code, 1928.2. During the pendency of these suits, on April 12, 1953, long before the period o...
Habib HusseIn Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City I
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-1962
Reported in: [1963]48ITR859(Bom)
Tambe J. 1. This is a consolidated reference under sub-section (1) of section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the three assessment years 1950-51, 1951-52 and 1952-53, corresponding accounting years being financial years ending with 3Ist March, 1950, 31st March, 1951, and 31st March, 1952. During these assessment years, the assessee derived income from various sources including his business of exhibiting pictures in a theatre known as 'Liberty Cinema.' 2. Some time in the year 1947 the assessee thought of opening a cinema theatre in the City of Bombay. It appears that one Manu Subedar had entered into an agreement with the Government of India to take on lease certain lands at Marine Lines, Bombay, including composite plot No. 41/42 on Queen's Road Estate. On January 6, 1947, the assessee obtained a licence from Manu Subedar in respect of this plot to enter upon this land and erect thereon buildings, cinema theatre, show rooms, shops, business pre...
Bhurmal and Mitra Motor Association and anr. Vs. Raghunath Bansilal Ka ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Bom144; (1963)65BOMLR180; ILR1962Bom797; 1963MhLJ241
Patel, J. X X XX X X1. The first question is about the nature and amount of care expected from the defendants. This being an action in negligence the plaintiff must establish that the defendant owed him a duly, breach of it and a causal connection between the injury and the breach of duty. In Read-head v. Midland Railway Co. (1869) 4 QB 379 the injury resulted from the breaking of the tyre of one of the wheels, owing to a latent defect in the manufacture of the tyre. On the question of the respective liabilities of carrier of goods and carriers of passengers the learned Judge Montague-Smith, J. cited with approval a passage from Christie V. Griggs, (1809) 2 Camp 79 to the following effect:'There is a difference between a contract to carry goods and a contract to carry passengers. For the goods the carrier was liable at all events, but he did not warrant the safety o1 the passengers. His undertaking as to them went no further than this, that as far as human care and foresight could go h...
Mishrimal Chhogalal Vs. N.B. Patel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-1962
Reported in: (1963)65BOMLR15; 1963MhLJ309
Shah, J.1. The only question that has been raised in this application by Mr. Jahagirdar, the learned advocate for the applicant-landlord is as to whether the notice of ejectment given by the plaintiff alone was valid in law in view of the fact that admittedly the plaintiff was receiving the rent from the defendant in respect of the premises in his occupation as a tenant. The plaintiff had filed this suit for ejectment, on the ground that the tenant was in arrears of rent and was also using the premises for purposes other than those for which they were let out to him. During the pendency of the suit the plaintiff made an application for amendment of the plaint that he might be allowed to join the widow and the two sons of his deceased brother Pratapmal as party defendants in view of the contention raised by the defendant that the suit in the absence of these representatives of the deceased Pratapmal was not maintainable. This contention was raised by the defendant in his written stateme...
Phalton Sugar Works Ltd. Vs. B.J. Chackoo, Income-tax Officer, Compani ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-1962
Reported in: [1963]50ITR56(Bom)
V.S. Desai, J.1. This is a petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the notices issued to the petitioner under section 34(1)(a) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for reopening its assessments for the assessment years 1949-50 and 1950-51. The petitioner has prayed in the present petition for appropriate writs quashing the said notices and for restraining the respondent from taking any further steps or proceedings in enforcement, furtherance, pursuance or implementation of the said notices. The petitioner company was formed in the year 1933 in the former Phalton State as a private company, to establish a sugar factory in the State for the purpose of manufacture and sale of sugar. In the year 1942 it was converted into a public limited company incorporated in the Phalton State. At the commencement of the company in the year 1933 it had entered into an agreement with the Phalton Darbar. Under this agreement the company had obtained certain concessions in the ma...
Sahu Rubbers Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-1962
Reported in: [1963]48ITR464(Bom)
Tambe, J. 1. This is a reference under sub-section (1) of section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act (hereafter referred to as the Act). We are here concerned with assessment years 1956-57 and 1957-58, the corresponding account years being those ending with 31st August, 1955, and 31st August 1956, respectively. The assessee is private limited company, which at one time was carrying on the business of manufacture time before August 1, 1949, the labour working in the factory made terms of the demands made by the labour. It appears that some certain demands and the Industrial Tribunal had made an award in terms of the demands made by the labour. The assessee anticipating that it would not be profitable to work the factory if those demands were to be satisfied, closed its business on August 1, 1949, and commenced doing the business of importing trimobiles, clocks and cement and deal in those goods. This new business was commenced before the year ended August 31, 1949. In April, 1950, the asse...
Nimbibai Rajibai Onkar Mali Vs. Ragho Parashram Mali
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-1962
Reported in: (1962)64BOMLR798; 1963MhLJ125
H.K. Chainani, C.J. 1. The petitioner landlady had made an application to the Mamlatdar under Section 29 read with Section 43D of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act for obtaining possession of the land held by opponent No. 1 as a tenant, on the ground that she bona fide required the land for a non-agricultural purpose. Section 43D gives a right to the landlord to terminate the tenancy of a tenant on the ground that he requires the land bona fide for any non-agricultural purpose. The petitioner's application has been dismissed on the ground that she had not proved any necessity or that it was necessary for her to augment her income by using the land for a non-agricultural purpose.2. The principal question, which has been argued before us, is whether it is essential for a landlord to prove necessity before he can obtain possession of the land from his tenant on the ground that he wants to use it for a non-agricultural purpose. There appears to be some confusion on this point a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›