Mumbai Court March 1965 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.
State Vs. Khan (A.H.)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1965
Reported in: [1967(14)FLR94]; (1966)IILLJ442Bom; 1965MhLJ826
ORDER1. These two references are made by the District Judge, Sholapur, under S. 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, recommending that the conviction and sentences recorded in both the cases should be set aside. The convictions are one under Ss. 66(1)(b) and 92 read with Ss. 66 and 66(1)(d) of the Factories Act. 2. The accused in the case is the owner of what is known as Munshi Bidi Works, which is a factory within the meaning of the Factories Act and is situated at No. 57/60. Gurwar Peth, Sholapur. He owned similar factories at several other places bearing the same name, while he himself stayed in Poona. The factory Inspector visited the factory on 9 October, 1963 at about 8-10 p.m. and found only six women workers out of many working in the factory and doing the work of tying bidis into bundles. Now, the period of work, as stated on the painted board displayed in the factory, was between 10-30 a.m. to 2-30 p.m. and 3 p.m. to 7 p.m. 3. These six women workers were found to be working a...
Vithal Mahadeo Kumbhar Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1965
Reported in: 1966MhLJ725
1. The petitioner, who was formerly a member of the Railway Protection Force, has filed this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution to challenge the validity of an order passed on 21 December, 1961, dismissing him from the Force, and also of an earlier order dated 13 January, 1961, by which he was suspended from service with retrospective effect. 2. At the material time the petitioner was employed as a rakshak in the Central Railways. During the night between 19 and 20 August, 1959, there was a theft of some scrap materials valued at Rs. 415 and the petitioner was one of the persons arrested in connexion with that theft. He was placed under suspension by an order dated 20 August, 1959. He was tried and convicted by a Presidency Magistrate of an offence under S. 381 read with S. 114 of the Indian Penal Code. Following his conviction he was dismissed from service with effect from 16 August, 1960, by an order dated 9 August, 1960. Later, however, his conviction was set aside and he w...
The State Vs. A.H. Khan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Bom107; (1965)67BOMLR566; 1966CriLJ397; ILR1966Bom66
ORDER(1) These two reference are made by the District Judge, Sholapur, under S. 438 of the Criminal procedure code recommending that the conviction and sentences recorded In the both the cases should be set aside. The convictions of are one under S. 66[1][b] and S.92 read with the Ss 63 and 66[1][d] of the Factories.(2) The accused in the case is the owner of what is known as Munshi Bidi Works, which is factory within the meaning of the Factories, act and in the situated at 57/60. Gurwar peth, sholapur. He owned similar factories at several other places bearing the same name while he himself was stated in poona. The factory Inspector visited the factory on the 9th October 1963 at about 8 -10 p.m. And found only six women workers out of may working in the factory and doing the work of tying Bidies into bundles. Now the period of work, as stated on the painted board displayed in the factory, was between 10-30 a.m. to 2 - 30 p.m. and 3-00 p.m. to 7-00 p.m. These six women workers were fou...
Vithal Mahadeo Kumbhar Vs. Union of India, Through General Manager, Ce ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Bom332; (1966)68BOMLR560; (1967)ILLJ639Bom
(1) The Petitioner, who was formerly a member of the Railway Protection Force, has filed this petition under Art, 226 of the Constitution to challenge the validity of an order passed on 21st December 1961 dismissing him from the Force, and also of an earlier order dated 14th January 1961 by which he was suspended from service with retrospective effect.(2) At the material time the petitioner was employed as a Rakshak in the Central Railways. During the night between the 19th and the 20th of August 1959, there was a theft of some scrap materials valued at Rs. 415 and the petitioner was one of the persons arrested in connection with the theft. he was placed under suspension by an order dated 20th August 1959. He was tried and convicted by a Presidency Magistrate of an offence under S. 381 read with S. 114 of the Indian Penal Code. Following his conviction he was dismissed from service with effect from 16th August 1960 by an order dated 9th August 1960. Later, however, his conviction was s...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Nagpur Vs. National Garage
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-1965
Reported in: [1966]60ITR487(Bom)
Tambe, J.1. This is a reference under sub-section (1) of section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, at the instance of the department. We are here concerned with the two assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60, the relevant accounting periods being from November 3, 1956, to October 23, 1957, and from October 24, 1957, to November 11, 1958. The assessee is a partnership firm and the question that falls for consideration arises out of the assessee-firm's claim of its registration under the Indian Registration Act. Facts relevant for both the assessment years are for all material purposes identical. 2. Facts in brief are : Some time in July, 1951, the Premier Automobile Limited, Bombay, entered into an agreement with Messrs. Raoji Deochalnd, Valchand Deochands, Ratanchand Sakharam and Mrs. Shantabai Gulabchand, trading in the name and style of 'National Garage, Nagpur'. Under the said agreement the said four persons were given exclusive rights to sell within certain territories certain c...
Rekhchand Gopaldas Mohta Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissio ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-1965
Reported in: [1966]60ITR699(Bom)
Tambe, J.1. On a requisition made by this court under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the Tribunal has forwarded a statement of the case referring the following question of law of this court : 'Whether the sum of Rs. 1,17,500 claimed by the assessee-company as interest paid to Seth Gopaldas Mohta on the unpaid price of assets purchased can be allowed as an expenditure under section 10(2)(iii) or section 10(2)(xv) ?' 2. The facts relevant are : We are here concerned with the assessment year 1947-48, the relevant previous year being one ending with 30th June, 1946. Seth Gopaldas Mohta owned a spinning and weaving mill and a ginning and pressing factory at Akola. A public limited company styled as R. S. Rekchand Gopaldas Mohta Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. was incorporated under the Indian Companies Act on June 29, 1945. The main object of the new company was to take over the spinning and weaving mills and the ginning and pressing factory as a going concern. By a sale ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City I Vs. Chimanlal J. Dalal and C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1965
Reported in: [1965]57ITR285(Bom); 1966MhLJ37
Tambe, J. 1. This is a reference under sub-section (1) of section 66 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax. We are here concerned with the assessment year 1959-60, the relevant accounting period being calendar year 1958. The assessee is a registered firm carrying on business as share and stock broker, ready and forward. In the earlier year, i.e., for the calendar year 1957, the assessment year being 1958-59 the assessee-firm suffered a speculation loss which was computed at Rs. 2,60,128. The Income-tax Officer made an order under section 23(6) apportioning this loss among the various partners to be carried forward and set off in their respective future assessments against their individual profits from speculation. 2. In the next calendar year 1958, i.e., the assessment year 1959-60, the year with which we are here concerned, there was a speculation profits which was computed at Rs. 2,38,777. The assessee contended before the Income-tax Officer t...
ibrahim Mohammed Issak Vs. Mackinnon Mackenzie and Co. (Private) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1965
Reported in: 1965(67)BLJR735; [1966(12)FLR345]; (1965)ILLJ554Bom; 1966MhLJ220
1. The application filed by the appellant for compensation for the death of his son, a seaman, has been dismissed by the learned Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Bombay, on the ground mainly that neither the fact of death nor that it occurred on account of an accident arising out of employment, is proved. The facts leading to the application are few, and indeed it is a matter of common experience in cases of 'unexplained accidents,' that the paucity of material is due partly to the fact that in the very nature of things the heirs of a deceased seaman can have no personal knowledge of the circumstances in which the death of the seaman was caused and partly due to the apathy of the shippers to lead oral evidence of the relevant facts and circumstances. 2. Shaikh Hassan Ibrahim was employed as a deck-hand, a seaman of category II on the ship S. S. 'Dwarka,' which is owned by the British India Steam Navigation Company, Ltd., of which the respondents Mackinnoon Mackenzie ...
Sk. Ahmad Sk. Abdulla Vs. Giridhar Bhagwansa Jirapure
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1965
Reported in: (1965)67BOMLR845
Wagle, J.1. This is an application in revision under Section 20-A(5) of the C.P. & Berar Municipalities Act, 1.922, The facts which need a mention are the following:2. On June 16, 1962, election for a seat in Ward No. 9 of the Achalpur Municipal Committee was held at which the present petitioner obtained 190 votes, opponent No. 1 obtained 153 votes and opponent No. 2 obtained 59 votes. The petitioner having obtained the largest number of votes was declared elected. Against this declaration of the result, the present opponent No. 1 Girdharsa filed an election petition No. 10 of 1963 before the District Judge, Amravati.3. The ground urged for the contention that the petitioner was not entitled to be elected was that he was an undischarged insolvent. Section 15(j) of the C.P. & Berar Municipalities Act, 1922, mentions that no person who is, under the provisions of any law for the time being- in force, ineligible to be a member of any local authority, shall be eligible for an election or n...
R.R. Khandelwal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Ii
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-1965
Reported in: [1965]58ITR14(Bom)
Tambe, J.1. This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act at the instance of the assessee. We are here concerned with the assessment year 1953-54, the relevant accounting period being October 31, 1951, to October 18, 1952. The assessee has been taxed in the status as an individual. The assessee derives income from dividends on shares. The assessee has been taxed from the year 1948-49. Throughout from 1948-49 to 1953-54, the income from dividend received by the assessee had been assessed in his hands on the basis of receipt, i.e., on the dividend actually received by him irrespective of the dates on which the dividends were declared. In his return for the year 1953-54 which was filed on 2nd October, 1953, the assessee declared a total income of Rs. 58,746. In the assessment made on February 16, 1954, however, his total income was computed at Rs. 1,28,773. 2. In the return filed by the assessee in the next year 1954-55 (accounting period being October 19, 1952, to ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »