Mumbai Court March 1965 Judgments
Sabita Bhagwandas Shah and ors. Vs. K.P. Majumdar, 2nd Income-tax Offi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-1965
Reported in: [1966]59ITR652(Bom)
1. This petition has been filed for a writ or direction under article 226 of the Constitution to quash and set aside a notice dated 30th October, 1963, issued by the respondent, an Income-tax officer in Bombay, under section 34(1) (a) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The notice is in respect of an amount of Rs. 56,000, which was received by the petitioner on or about 23rd March, 1944, and which, according to the department, was the undisclosed income of the petitioner. As the amount was less than Rs. 1,00,000, a notice under section 34(1) (a) of the said Act ought to have been issued, as laid down in the proviso to section 34(1), within eight years of the expiry of the assessment year in which the said amount should have been brought to tax. In view of the fact that the amount of Rs. 56,000 was received by the petitioner on or about 23rd March, 1944, the accounting year for the said amount was 1943-44 and the assessment year was 1944-45. It follows that no notice under section 34(1)...
Tag this Judgment!Dattatraya Sadashiv Dhond Vs. Ganpati Ranghu Gaoli
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-29-1965
Reported in: (1965)67BOMLR521; 1965MhLJ881
H.K. Chainani, C.J.1. These three applications raise questions relating to the interpretation of the provisions of the Hyderabad Abolition of Inams and Cash Grants Act, 1954, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 1174 of 1963 was the holder of two Madam Mash Inam (Personal Inam) lands. Opponent No. 1 was the tenant of the lands. As the lands were not service inam lands, the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act) applied to them. On July 20, 1955, the Inam was abolished by the Inams Abolition Act. All the provisions of the Act did not however come into force on that date. On December 16, 1958, the petitioner gave a notice to opponent No. 1 terminating his tenancy under Sub-section (1) of Section 44 on the ground that ho required the lands bona fide for cultivating them personally. On March 31, 1959, he made an application to the Tehsildar for obtaining possession of the lands. On July ...
Tag this Judgment!The Union Bank of India Ltd. Vs. M. Pachappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-29-1965
Reported in: (1967)69BOMLR782
Tarkunde, J.1. This petition has been filed by the Union Bank of India Limited for a writ or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash and set aside an order of confiscation passed by respondent No. 1, the Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay, under Section 167(5) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, in respect of property which had been pledged with the petitioner Bank.2. The facts leading to the order of confiscation are not in dispute. On April 16, 1962, one Hansraj Chopra, the sole proprietor of Paramount Steel Industries, Varanasi, applied to a Calcutta branch of the petitioner Bank for opening an Irrevocable Letter of Credit in favour of a certain Japanese party, and agreed that the shipping documents and the goods imported under his import licence shall remain pledged with the petitioner Bank as security for amounts advanced in the transaction. An Irrevocable Letter of Credit was accordingly opened in favour of the Japanese party through a Japanese agent of the petiti...
Tag this Judgment!indubai Vs. Vyankati Vithoba Sawadba and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Bom64; (1965)67BOMLR612; ILR1966Bom214
Patel, J.(1) This revisional application arises out of an order made under the provisions of Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil procedure in a suit.(2) That short facts are that the one Balajis left two sons vithoba and Pandurang after his death who were members of the joint family. Vithoba died in 1912 leaving behind him Vyankati, defendants No. 1and Gopalam defendants No. 2 Pandurang died in 1941 levying behind him his widow Sarubai and daughter behind him his Indubai who was married. At the time of this death the joint family was posed to the suit property. In August 1961. Pandurang's widow Sarubai filed a suit claiming partition of the her share in the property against the defendants. After issue were framed, sarubai was examined on commission. Thereafter she died on 20th October 1962. Before the her death she hand excited a will and bestowed her properties in favor of her daughter India. Indubai then made an application under the provisions of Order 22 R. 3 for being brought or ...
Tag this Judgment!Chaitram Dagadu Sonavane Vs. the Malegaon Panchayat Samiti
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-1965
Reported in: (1965)67BOMLR516; 1965MhLJ663
H.K. Chainani, C.J.1. The petitioner and respondents Nos. 2 to 4 are the members of the Panchayat Samiti of Malegaon. Respondent No. 2 was the Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti. On May 7, 1964, respondents Nos. 3 and 4 and 12 other members of the Panchayat Samiti gave a notice of a motion of no-confidence in respondent No. 2 under Sub-section (1) of Section 72 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act. This notice was received by respondent No. 2 on May 7, 1964. On May 16, 1964, he issued a notice calling a meeting of the Samiti for the purpose of considering the motion of. no-confidence on June 27, 1964. A meeting was accordingly held on June 27, 1964, in which the motion of no-confidence in respondent No. 2 was carried by a majority of 14 to 9. The petitioner thereafter filed the present special civil application, in which be has contended that the meeting, which was held on June 27,1964, at which the motion of no-confidence was passed, was illegal, as it was not he...
Tag this Judgment!Jagannath Ganbaji Chikhale Vs. Gulabrao Raghobaji Bobde
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-1965
Reported in: (1965)67BOMLR609; 1965MhLJ426
Patel, J.1. Last week these letters patent appeals were before us but as we felt some doubt whether any such appeal could lie we directed that these matters be placed before us for hearing on the question, whether an appeal lies under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the decision of a Single Judge given in a special civil application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution.2. Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of this High Court which is in similar words as that of Calcutta and Madras High Courts, is as follows, so far as is relevant to the present case:-And we further ordain that an appeal shall lie to the said High Court of Judicature & Bombay from the judgment (not being a judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction by a Court subject to the superintendence of the said High Court and not being an order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction and not being a sentence or order ...
Tag this Judgment!Salubai Ramchandra and ors. Vs. Chandu Saju and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Bom194; (1966)68BOMLR295; 1966MhLJ289
Abhyankar, J.(1) This order will dispose of a batch of 28 Special civil Application which raise a common question of law and also interpretation of the constitution. These special civil applications are:-(2) The common question of law that arises in all these case is whether a landholder who has commenced proceedings for terminating the lease of a tenant under section 38(1) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands [Vidarbha Region and Kutch Area] Act, 1958, and for possession of that land is not entitled to any relief in respect of the land held by this tenant if the said tenant of was a protected lessee whose rights as such protected lessee , had come into existence's of before the landholder acquired such and by the partition., and such Acquistion of land by partition took place after the first day of the August 1953.(3) It is common ground in all these cases that the landholder who claims possession of the land claims this rights on the ground that as a result of partition of in...
Tag this Judgment!Sahebrao Anna Ritpure Vs. Dattatraya Krishnajee Patel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1965
Reported in: (1965)67BOMLR774; 1966MhLJ17
Naik, J.1. This Revision Application raises a somewhat ticklish point under the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. Respondent No 1, who is hereinafter described as the plaintiff, filed a suit in ejectment against the petitioner, who is hereinafter described as defendant No. 2, in respect of survey No. 292/D and No. 293/D at village Mangrul, Taluka Kallam. The plaintiff contended that while he was enjoying' the land as owner, the husband of defendant No. 1, Sahebrao, forcibly dispossessed him. According to him the date of dispossession is March 15, 1950. It is common ground that Sahebrao died on September 19, 1950, leaving his widow as the only heir. The plaintiff alleges that defendant No, 2, in collusion with defendant No. 1, entered into possession of the land in suit. The plaintiff has, therefore, claimed possession and mesne profits from both the defendants.2. Defendant No. 1 appeared and admitted the plaintiff's claim. Defendant No. 2 contended that the land in di...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagirthibai Shankar Jadhav Vs. Popat Shankar Bhusal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-1965
Reported in: (1965)67BOMLR468; 1965MhLJ629
H.K. Chainani, C.J.1. The petitioner had made an application for obtaining possession of the land S. No. 380/1 held by opponent No. 1, hereinafter referred to as the opponent, under Section 29 read with Section 31 of the Tenancy Act. In that application an order for possession of half of the land was finally made by the Deputy Collector on October 26, 1962. Before then, on March 30, 1962, the petitioner had also made an application for obtaining possession of the land under Section 33B of the Act. In this application the Tenancy Aval Karkun made an order on August 21, 1962, that possession of the whole land should be given to the petitioner. Against this order the opponent appealed to the Deputy Collector. The Deputy Collector held that as an order for possession of half of the land had been made in favour of the petitioner under Section 29 read with Section 31 of the Act, the application made by the petitioner under Section 33B of the Act was not tenable. He, therefore, allowed the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Rukmanibai Khimji Cooverji Vs. Shivnarayan Ram Ashre
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-1965
Reported in: (1965)67BOMLR692
K.K. Desai, J.1. In these revisional applications and also in several other revisional applications on the file of this Court, the question of considerable interest under the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), that has arisen is-whether in connection with premises first let after September 1, 1940, the standard rent should be ascertained as regards the land involved by determining fair return on the basis (i) of the market value of the land at the time of the first letting, or (ii) of the price paid and/or investments made at the time of purchase of the land at anterior date. On behalf of the landlady, petitioner No. 1 in the present revisional applications, it is contended that the basis should be the market value of the land at the time of the first letting after September 1, 1940. On behalf of the respondents-tenants, it is contended that the basis must be the price paid and/or investments made for ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »