Mumbai Court May 1963 Judgments
Faiju Mahadeo Chandekar and ors. Vs. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Hin ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-04-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Bom160; (1963)65BOMLR755; ILR1964Bom210; 1964MhLJ25
Kotyal, J. 1. This is an application in which is challenged an order passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Hinganghat, acting as a Court under Section 68 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (Bombay Act No. III of 1959). Before the learned Civil Judge an election petition was filed challenging the election of the there petitioners: Faiju Mahadeo Chandekar, Rambhau Nago Urkande and, Govinda Krishnaji Mandlik. The petition was filed by tha respondent No. 6 before us, Vithoba Sadasheo Yende. The election was held for filling three seats of members of ward No, 2 of village Mandgaon in Hinganghat tahsil on 3-10-1961. The election programme had fixed 25-8-1961 as the last date for nominations and tha scrutiny of nominations took place on 26-8-1961. The elections were held on 3-10-1961 and the results of the elections were announced on 5-10-1961. The three petitioners received toe three highest numbers of votes, that is to say, the petitioner No. 2 Rambhau got 144 votes, the petit...
Tag this Judgment!Jubilee Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City I
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-04-1963
Reported in: [1964]51ITR683(Bom)
Desai, J. 1. In this reference there were three questions raised by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The reference was heard by this court on the 13th of March, 1958, when it answered two out of the three question and in view of the answer which it had given to the second question, it did not find it necessary to answer the third question. The first question was answered in favour of the department and against the assessee and the second question in favour of the assessee and against the department. The department obtained leave from this court to go to the Supreme Court in appeal and in the said appeal the Supreme Court decided the second question in favour of the department and against the assessee. In view of the answer given by the Supreme Court to the second question, it became necessary to consider and decide the third question, which on the earlier occasion this court had not considered. The Supreme Court therefore, remanded the reference back to this court for the considerati...
Tag this Judgment!Laxminarayan R. Rathi Vs. Income-tax Officer, Poona
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-03-1963
Reported in: [1964]52ITR254(Bom)
Tambe, J.1. This is an application under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. All the contentions raised in the petition have not been pressed before us, and it is, therefore, not necessary to refer to all the allegations made in the petition. 2. The facts which are material to the contentions raised and which have been stated before us by counsel for the petitioner in brief ar : The petitioner before us is karta of the Hindu undivided family of Laxminarayan R. Rathi, residing at Mangalwar Peth, Sholapur. The Hindu undivided family has been in due course assessed to income-tax for the assessment years 1940-41 to 1948-49. The Hindu undivided family had also been reassessed for the assessment years 1941-42 and 1943-44 under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act (hereinafter called the Act). On 23rd March, 1962, the Income-tax Officer, Special Investigation Circle, Poona, issued nine notices under section 34 of the Act, in respect of assessment years 1940-41 to 1948-49. Al...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›