Mumbai Court July 1963 Judgments
Miss Aninha D'costa Vs. Smt. Parvatibai M. Thakur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1963
Reported in: (1964)66BOMLR744
Naik, J.1. The suit giving rise to this appeal was filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for the following reliefs:(1) That the defendant be directed by a mandatory injunction to remove herself and her belongings and her agents and servants from suit premises.(2) That the defendant be ordered and decreed by an injunction restraining her agents and servants to enter upon and remain on the suit premises.(3) That the defendant be ordered to pay compensation at the rate of Rs. 235 p.m.The plaintiff alleged that the premises, which she had taken on ownership basis, were given to the defendant on November 15, 1959, on leave and licence basis and that the plaintiff had revoked the licence. The defendant resisted the suit on several grounds. She contended that, in the first place, no suit for mandatory injunction would lie and it was incumbent on the part of the plaintiff to have asked for actual possession. Secondly, she contended that since the relationship between the parties is one ...
Tag this Judgment!R.B. Bansilal Abirchand Firm Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, M.P.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-1963
Reported in: (1963)65BOMLR859; [1964]53ITR536(Bom); 1964MhLJ45
Kotval, J. 1. We are concerned in this reference with a notice issued under section 34(I)(b) of the Indian Income-tax Act whereby the department sought to bring to tax an amount of Rs. 5,10,788 paid as interest in the assessment year 1947-48. The circumstances in which the notice came to be issued may be briefly stated as follows : 2. The assessee is a partnership consisting of four partners (the four Daga brothers) who were referred to in the arguments before us as the Kamptee firm. They had also admitted to the benefits of the partnership three minor members of their family. This firm was known as 'R. B. Bansilal Abirchand Firm, Kamptee'. We shall refer to it hereafter as the assessee or the 'Kamptee firm.' There was also another firm known as the 'Bisesar House Firm' in which the four Daga brothers, the major partners of the Kamptee Firm, were partners along with a fifth partner, the late Sir Manekji Dadabhoy, who owned an eight annas' share, while the Daga Brothers owned the remain...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Ghoraishi (Qureshi) Sayed Mohomed
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Bom235; (1964)66BOMLR216; 1964CriLJ399; ILR1964Bom278
1. This is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of the respondent, who was prosecuted for having committed an offence under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, read with paragraph 7 of the Foreigners' Order, 1948. The case of the prosecution is that the respondent is an Iranian National and he failed to depart from India within the prescribed time limit, which expired on the 10th of February, 1962. The prosecution alleges that the Residential permit which was granted to him was valid only up to the 10th of February, 1962. The prosecution have produced a certificate at Registration issued to the respondent under the Registration of Foreigners Rule, 1939 (Exh. 4). This certificate seems to have been issued on the 10th of February, 1949. It shows the year of arrival of the respondent in India was '1935'. The address of his East residence outside India has been stated as 'Tezd Iran'. The manner of acquiring his nationality has been mentioned as, 'By birth'. The prosecution has ...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Premchand Kubchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Bom155; (1963)65BOMLR870; 1964CriLJ660; ILR1964Bom257; 1964MhLJ102
Chandkachud, J. 1. The question which arises in this appeal ia whether Section b clause (b) of the Suppression, of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act (Act 104 of 1956) applies only to the prostitute herself 01 whether it also applies to those others who solicit a person for the purpose of prostitution.2. On the night of the 7th of December 1961, Inspector Patkar and Sub-Inspector Mehta of the Vigilance Branch were accosted by the respondent with a suggestive inquiry as to whether he could be of any use to them. Sub-Inspector Mehta asked the respondent as to what he could do for him, and on the respondent saying that he could supply a girl for Rs. 40/- for the night, the two Police Officers disclosed their identity and put the respondent under arrest. The respondent was thereafter put up for trial before the learned Presidency Magistrate, 4th Court. Bombay for an offence under Section 8(b) of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, which will hereinafter be referr...
Tag this Judgment!Rajputana Textiles (Agencies) Private Ltd. Vs. Das Gupta, Income-tax O ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-1963
Reported in: [1964]52ITR1(Bom)
1. In this petition under article 226 of the Constitution the petitioners claim writ of prohibition and/or directions against the respondents preventing them from enforcing against the petitioners two reassessment orders dated July 29, 1961, made respectively under the provisions of section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act and section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act. The petitioners' main contention is that these orders are illegal, because there is patent want of jurisdiction in the matter of these orders. The substance of the petitioners' contention is that they had disclosed all facts in the first instance and that there was no new information on the basis of which reassessment proceedings could be commenced. 2. The facts leading to this petition may be shortly summarised as follow : The petitioners are a private limited company which was incorporated on May 6, 1943, with a paid up capital of Rs. 20,00,000. The Apollo Mills Co. Ltd. of Bombay with a capital of Rs. 50,00,000 divided ...
Tag this Judgment!Namdeo Chimnaji Tapre and anr. Vs. Govinddas Ratanlal Bhatia and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Bom137; (1963)65BOMLR843; ILR1964Bom114; 1964MhLJ51
Kotval, J.1. This is another election appeal. It relates to theelection to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly fromconstituency No. 164 of Khamgaon, including Khamgaon town.2. The following dates out of the programme announced for the election are material for our purposes:(1) The last date for filing of nominationswas ... 20th January 1962 (ii) The scrutiny of nominations wasto take place on ... 22nd January 1962 (iii) The date on which the poll wasto be taken was ... 22nd February 1962 (iv) Counting took place on ... 26th and 27thFebruary 1962. (v) The result was declared on 27th February 1962. At all material times during the process of election theReturning Officer and the Election Officer under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, were one and the sama person. Mr. M. B. Lawale.3. The respondents Nos. 1 to 6 to this appeal were candidates for election and the respondents 7, 8 and 9 had filed nomination papers for election but their nominations came to be rejected and sev...
Tag this Judgment!Kamani Engineering Corporation Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Societe De Traction E ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-1963
Reported in: AIR1965Bom114; (1964)66BOMLR758
ORDER (1-10) X X X X X X X(11) This matter must, therefore, be considered as if the 1937 Act was applicable to the agreement for arbitration as contained in Art. X of the contract between the parties. The contention of Mr. Parpia for the Defendants is that admittedly there is an agreement between the parties to which the Protocol set forth in the First Schedule to the Act of 1937 applies and that the Plaintiffs are parties to that agreement and the plaintiffs have commenced this suit. He contends that for that reason the Defendants are entitled to stay of this suit. Mr. Banaji for the Plaintiffs, however, argues that the Plaintiffs are not parties to 'a submission' as mentioned in the section. The legal proceedings by way of this suit have not been commenced by any party to the submission as required under the section. There is no submission in respect of the matter that is contained in the plaintiffs' suit. The matter that is contained in the plaintiffs' suit has not been agreed to be...
Tag this Judgment!Eastern Machinery Trading Co. Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Bom127; (1963)65BOMLR812; 1964CriLJ643; ILR1963Bom778
1. This revision application is in respect of an order made by the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate, Bombay, permitting the Assistant Enforcement Officer. Enforcement Directorate, Government of India, Bombay, to retain in his possession certain documents which were seized as the result of a search warrant issued by the Chief Presidency Magistrate under Section 19(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. It appears that the Assistant Enforcement Officer made an application on the 23rd of June 1962, to the Chief Presidency Magistrate for the issue of a search warrant under Section 19(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The search warrant was' directed to be issued on the same day, and it is common ground that it was in fact executed on the 25th June 1962. Certain documents were seized from the Eastern Machinery and Trading Company, who are the present petitioners. Applications were made for retaining the documents with the Enf...
Tag this Judgment!Shreelal Kajaria Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Bom165; (1963)65BOMLR772; 1964CriLJ15; ILR1963Bom698
1. This revision application is against an order made by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bombay, by which he directed certain witnesses to be examined as Court witnesses under Section 540 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioner is the accused before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The allegation of the prosecution is that the petitioner entered Into a contract on the 5th of September 1959, with the State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. for the supply of 7000 tons of Manganese Ore to be exported through the said State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. to Messrs. Ironside Ltd., London, through their agents in India. The first instalment of about 3000 tons of Manganese Ore was brought in the port premises In the year 1959, and after the petitioner received the Intimation to lift the load. It was actually loaded in the month of July 1960, In a ship specially assigned for the purposed The prosecution allegation further is that the petitioner received part payment on the stren...
Tag this Judgment!Hiralal Gulabchand Shah Vs. Keshavlal Parekh and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Bom180; (1963)65BOMLR765; 1964CriLJ146; ILR1964Bom248
ORDER1. This application is filed by the complainant against the order of the learned Presidency Magistrate, 24th Court, Borivli, dismissing his complaint against the opponents under section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. The complainant has filed a complaint against the opponents charging them with offences under sections 384, 385, 387, 220, 467 and 166 read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. In this complaint it was alleged that Opponents Nos. 1 and 2 (who will hereafter be referred to as accused Nos. 1 and 2) were brothers doing kariana business at Carter Road, Borivli, in the name and style of Shashikant Suryakant Parekh and that the complainant himself did similar business and had business dealings with the shop of accused Nos. 1 and 2 through their Mehta by name Nemichand. The complainant alleged that Nemichand used to bring the goods bought by him from the shop of accused Nos. 1 and 2 with the bills prepared by those two accused and take his signature on the count...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »