Mumbai Court July 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.
Sohanlal G. Sanghi Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Nagpur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-1965
Reported in: [1966]61ITR203(Bom)
Tambe, J.1. This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, at the instance of the assessee. The assessee has been assessed in the status of an individual. We are here concerned without the assessment year 1956-57, the relevant previous year being the financial years ending 31st March, 1956. The assessee derived income from various sources including salary for the services rendered by him to the Sanghi Brothers, Indore, a private limited company, and business. The first questions relates to certain special allowance received by the assessee from the Sanghi Bros. in the year of account, in accordance with the resolution dated October 10, 1951, of the board of directors of Sanghi Bros. Limited, and the second question relates to a sum of Rs. 29,500 received by the assessee under an agreement of April 21, 1956, from Shri Jagannath Dhand. It would be convenient to state the facts relating to each question separately. 2. Now, the resolution of the board of direct...
Indian Hume Pipe Company Ltd. Vs. Bhimarao Baliram Gajbhiya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-1965
Reported in: [1967(14)FLR92]
Chainani, C.J.1. The facts giving rise to this application are that respondent 1, hereinafter referred to as the respondent, had been employed by the petitioners sometime in 1960. After about two years' service, he was retrenched on March 10, 1962 and was paid retrenchment compensation in accordance with the provisions of S. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. At the time when the respondent was retrenched, a proceeding under S. 38A of the central Provinces and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947, was pending before the State Industrial Court in that proceeding, the respondent became entitled to a basic wage of 86 nP in addition to dearness allowance of Rs. 1.75 on the date of his retrenchment. The respondent was reemployed on 1 October, 1962. According to the employment order issued to him he was to be paid a basic wage of 62 nP and dearness allowance of Rs. 1.75. Under the award 63 nP was the basic wage fixed for new entrants. The respondent subsequently made an appl...
Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. Vs. Bhirmrao and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Bom270; (1965)67BOMLR820; ILR1966Bom343; 1966MhLJ318
Chainani, C.J.[1] The facts giving rise to this application are that the respondent No.1, hereinafter referred to as the respondent, had been employed by the petitioners sometime in 1960. After about two years service he was retrenched on 10-3-1962 and was paid retrenchment compensation in accordance with the provisions of S. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. At the time when the respondent was retrenched, a proceeding under S. 38A of the C.P. and Berar Industrial Disputes settlement Act, 1947, was pending before the state Industrial court. Under the award, which was made by that court in that proceeding, the respondent become entitled to a basic wage of 86 Np. In addition to deadens allowances of Rs. 1.75 on the date of his retrenchment. The respondent was re - employment order on 1st October 1962. According to the employment order issued to him, he was to be a paid a basic wage of 62 NP and deadness allowance of Rs. 1.75 np. Under the award 62 np. Was the basic wage fixed for...
Rambhau Jairam Dhamange Vs. Vinkur Co-operative Society Ltd. (by Its P ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-1965
Reported in: [1967(14)FLR27]
Kotval, J. 1. Having heard counsel for both the parties, we find that in this petition not merely a very substantial and important question of law arises affecting the jurisdiction of the two tribunals under the Central Provinces and Bearer Industrial Disputes Settlement Act and the newly enacted Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, but that it is a question which will affect a vast number of industrial matters and also in turn the functioning of co-operative societies. Therefore, we have decided to refer this question to a larger Bench. We may only set forth the respective contentions and the authorities which were relied upon and state what is prima facie our view in the matter. 2. On behalf of the society, the contention is founded upon the provisions of the new S. 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. That section makes a radical departure from the analogous provisions of S. 54 of the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act, 1925, which the new Act repealed. Section ...
Rambhau Jairam Dhamange and ors. Vs. the President, Vinkar Co-operativ ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Bom187; (1965)67BOMLR877; ILR1966Bom616; 1966MhLJ1
Chainani, C.J.1. The question which has been referred to us for our consideration, as re -drafted by us in consultation with the learned counsel for the parties, is as under:Whether S. 91 of the Maharashtra Co - operative Societies act, 1960, operates as a bar to a dispute between a co - operative in regard to a demands or employees in regard to a demand for the a change in the term of employment or for change reinstatement of the employees, whose services had been terminated, being decided under the C.P. and berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947 or the Industrial disputes Act 1947?The facts in special civil Application No. 765, of 1964 which has given rise to this reference briefly are that the petitioners was employed by the respondent No.1 which is a co - operative society ordinarily registered under the Co - operative societies act, 1912. On 14-11-1962 is services were trepanned with effect from 15-12-1962. On 4-6-1963 he made an application of to the Assistant Commissione...
Hajarimal Girdharilalji Shop Vs. Harinarayan Sheonarayan Maheshwari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-1965
Reported in: (1965)67BOMLR816; 1965MhLJ797
H.K. Chainani, C.J.1. The question, which has been referred to the Full Bench, has been formulated as under:-Whether a suit for the recovery of a loan advanced by a moneylender is liable to be dismissed, because the moneylender was not registered under Section 11-B of the C.P. and Berar Moneylenders Act, 1934 (No. XIII of 1034) on the date of the transaction?2. The facts of the appeal, which has given rise to this reference, are that the appellant-plaintiff is a money-lender. He advanced two loans of Rs. 2,000 and Rs. 4,500 to the defendant on April 20, 1952, and June 29, 1952, respectively. On these dates he did not hold a valid registration certificate. These promissory notes were renewed on April 7, 1955, on which date the defendant executed a fresh promissory note for Rs. 8,500 which represented the principal of the original two promissory notes and the interest thereon. In 1958, the plaintiff instituted a suit to recover the amount due from the defendant on the promissory note dat...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›