Mumbai Court June 1964 Judgments
Shri Adinath Tirthankar JaIn Mandir and ors. Vs. Shantappa Dada Madnai ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-1964
Reported in: AIR1967Bom86; (1965)67BOMLR49; ILR1965Bom266
(1) These are appeals by the trustees of defendant 'Shri Adinath Tirthankar Jain Mandir' and the Charity Commissioner against the order of remand passed by the learned Assistant Judge, Kolhapur. (2) These appeals arise in this way. The suit property, which is land, originally belonged to one Devappa. After the death of Devappa and his son Annappa, Devappa's property was inherited by his widow Ratnabai. she donated the suit land to 'Shri Adinath Tirthankar Jain Mandir' which is defendant No. 1 in the present suit. The gift-deed was executed on 23rd July 1945. After the execution of that gift-deed Ratnabai died sometime later during the same year. The plaintiff alleges that he and defendants Nos. 2 to 4 are reversioners to the estate of Annappa. The plaintiff filed the present suit for partition and separate possession of his one fourth share in the suit land. According to the plaintiff, Ratnabai as a widow in the joint Hindu family had a limited estate and she had no right to donate the...
Tag this Judgment!Bombay Gas Company, Ltd. Vs. Kulkarni (R.N.)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1964
Reported in: (1965)ILLJ137Bom
Kotval, J. 1. The judgment and order in Special Civil Application No. 1404 of 1962 will also govern the disposal of Special Civil Application No. 1460 of 1963. In both these applications, the petitioner, the Bombay Gas Company, Ltd., is an employer within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act. Respondents 2 in both the application are the two employees who originated the proceeding before the first labour court, Bombay, out of which these petitions arise. Respondent 1 in both these petitions is the first labour court itself presided over by Sri R. N. Kulkarni. 2. Sometimes in the year 1953, disputes arose between the employer and his workmen, and the disputes were referred to the arbitration of Sri S. H. Naik. Sri Naik made an award on 28 December 1953, and in the present petitions we are concerned with one part of that award which deals with the benefit given to the workmen of privilege leave. The benefit granted by the award was, as appears from Paras. 25 and 26 of that award, i...
Tag this Judgment!The Bombay Gas Co. Ltd. Vs. R.N. Kulkarni and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Bom172; (1964)66BOMLR734; [1964(9)FLR436]; ILR1964Bom854
Kotval, J.(1) The judgment and order in Special Civil Application No. 1404 of 1962 will also govern the disposal of Special Civil Application No. 1460 to 1963. In both these applications, the petitioner, the Bombay gas Co. Ltd., is an employer within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act. the second respondents in both the applications are the two employees who originated the proceedings before the First Labour Court, Bombay, out of which these petitioners arise. The first respondent in both these petitions is the First Labour Court itself presided over by Mr.R. N. Kulkarni.(2) Sometime in the year 1953, dispute arose between the employer and his workmen, and the disputes were referred to the arbitration of Mr. S. H. Naik, Mr. Naik made an award on the 28th December 1953, and in the present petitions we are concerned with one part of that award which deals with the benefit given to workmen of privilege leave. The benefit granted by the award was, as appears from paragraphs 25 and ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramniwas Kanailal Vs. S.P. Shende, Income-tax Officer, D-1 Ward, Bomba ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-1964
Reported in: [1965]56ITR659(Bom)
1. This petition has been filed under article 226 of the Constitution for the direction that certain notices issued by the respendent, who is an Income-tax Officer, under section 34(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, for reassessment of the petitioner should set aside and the respondent should be permanently restrained from acting in pursuance of those notices. The impugned notices are in respect of the assessment years 1940-41 to 1945-46 (Samvat years 1995 to 2000) and were issued on 19th February, 1962, i.e., nearly 20 years after the period in question. The terms of section 34(1)(a) in so far as they are relevant to the present case, require that the Income-tax Officer should have reason to believe that, by reason of the omission or failure on the part of an assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, income, profits or gains chargeable to income-tax have escaped assessment or have been under-assessee or assessee at too low a rate. It is the...
Tag this Judgment!Popat Ragho Patil Vs. Damu Shankar Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-1964
Reported in: (1964)66BOMLR729; 1964MhLJ78
Kotval, J.1. We are concerned in this special civil application with a resolution of no-confidence sought to be tabled by two members of the Gram Panchayat of Shirpur in Dhulia District. Of the two members the petitioner is one. A notice necessary under Section 72(1) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961, was given on March 2, 1964. It recited several grounds of misconduct on the part both of the chairman and the deputy chairman of the Panchayat Samiti. With these grounds we are not here concerned, because what is in dispute is the subsequent procedure that was followed both by the chairman and by the divisional commissioner. The notice under Section 72(1) was given in the form prescribed by the rules known as Zilla Parishads Presiding Authorities (No-confidence Motion) Rules, 1962, framed under Section 274(2)(x). After reciting the various grounds upon which the signatories desired to move the no-confidence motion, they requested the chairman to convene a ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›