Mumbai Court October 1967 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.
Josephy Santa Vincent Vs. Ambico Industries and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-1967
Reported in: AIR1969Bom49; (1968)70BOMLR224; 1968MhLJ532
ORDER1. This petition has been filed with a view to challenge the legality of a decree passed by a Judge of the Bombay Small Cause Court and confirmed by an Appellate Bench of that Court. The property in dispute consists of a godown at Ballard Estate in Bombay. The godown is a part of an extensive estate which belongs to the Bombay Port Trust and which has been leased by the Port Trust to the first respondents Messrs. Ambico Industries. The first respondents let out the godown to the second respondents Messrs. William Jacks and Company Limited. In January 1957 the petitioner Josephy Santa Vincent went into the possession of the godown under an agreement with the second respondents. On August 1, 1959 the second respondents surrendered their tenancy to the first respondents. In April 1960, the first respondents filed a suit against the second respondents in the Bombay Small Cause Court for possession of the godown. The petitioner was not made a party to that suit. An ex parte decree for ...
Hindustan Embroidery Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. K. Ravindra and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-1967
Reported in: (1974)76BOMLR146
Vimadalal, J.1. This is a Notice of Motion taken out by the plaintiffs for an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants from using the trade mark HEMLA in respect of embroidery goods or any other similar marks so as to infringe the registered trade marks of the plaintiffs, as also for an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants from using the said trade mark on embroidery goods so as to pass off their goods as the goods of the plaintiffs.2. The plaintiffs' case is that they were registered under the Companies Act some time in the year 1941 and started using the trade mark HEMLA right from that time on the goods embroidered by them in their factory near Amritsar. It is the plaintiffs' case that, in the year 1943, they got their trade mark HEMLA in cruciform, as shown in annexture 'A' to the plaint, registered under the Trade Marks Act in respect of embroidery goods, tapes, laces and edgings. Some time in the year 1965, the plaintiffs also got registered the said tra...
Abdul Sultan Hussainbhai Velji Vs. Collector of Ahmednagar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Bom390; (1968)70BOMLR203; 1968MhLJ483
Patel, J. (1) In these two cases the question that arises is whether in an appeal against an award made in a land acquisition reference court fee on the amount of 15 per cent solatium payable on the award that may be made by the appellate Court must be paid by the Appellant.(2) The facts of the case in C. R. A. 185 of 1967 are given in my referring judgment dated July 27, 1967. The question depends upon the construction of relevant provisions of the Court-fees Act and the Land Acquisition Act, Section 7 of the Court-fees Act consists of two sub-section, sub-section (2) not being relevant. Sub-section (1) reads as follows:'(1) The amount of fee payable under this Act on a memorandum of appeal against an order relating to compensation under any Act for the time being in force for the acquisition of land for public purposes shall be computed according to the difference between the amount awarded and the amount claimed by the appellant.'All the authorities indicate that this section is a c...
West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-1967
Reported in: [1968]67ITR640(Bom)
V.S. Desai, J.1. The question raised on this reference arises out of an order made against the assessee treating it to be under default under section 18 (7) of the Indian Income-tax Act, in respect of the taxes that should have been deducted and paid but not paid by it. The assessee is a public limited company incorporated on the 25th March, 1955. Part of its paid up capital consists of 60,000 6% (free of tax) cumulative preference shares of Rs. 100 each. The company's year of account ended on the 30th of June of each calendar year and in the first three years of its existence, viz., in the years ended on 30th June, 1956, 30th June, 1957, and 30th June, 1958, the company did not make any profits out of which it could distribute dividends and, therefore, no dividend was declared on the preference shares with reference to those three years. In the next year thereafter, which was the year ended on the 30th June, 1960, the company made profits. During the course of this year, on 9th Februa...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City I Vs. Associated Cement Co. Lt ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1967
Reported in: [1968]68ITR478(Bom)
Kotval, C.J. 1. Two items claimed by the assessee have been allowed to them and in regard to them two question have been framed. The first item is of Rs. 53,634, which the assessee claimed for depreciation on their assets for the assessment 1956-57. The other is an item of Rs. 6,600, in respect of which the assessee claimed exemption under section 15B of the Income-tax Act. We will separately state the facts relating to each item as we deal with it. 2. Regarding the sum of Rs. 53,634, on account of depreciation, the facts in brief are that the Cement Marketing Co. of India Ltd., which is a subsidiary of the assessee, the Associated Cement Co. Ltd., was at one time appointed a common sales manager for the assessee and several other companies, namely, the Patiala Cement Co. Ltd., and the Dalmia group of cement companies. This was by an agreement dated 4th June, 1942. In 1948, however, the Dalmia group dropped out of the arrangement and since then the Cement Marketing Company was only att...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Ii Vs. Dadabhoy G. Broach
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-1967
Reported in: [1968]68ITR614(Bom)
Kotval, C.J.1. The main question that arises in this reference is as to the construction and effect of two documents of trust dated 12th October, 1941, and 13th November, 1941, executed by one Mrs. Bhikhaiji H. Bennet transferring certain properties in trust to the trustees named in the said instruments. The assessee is Dadabhoy G. Broacha, a relation of the settlor. Under the trust deeds, which were in identical terms (only a copy of one of them and that too an attenuated copy was placed before us), the life interest was given to Dadabhoy in the income from one-fourth of the properties transferred to the trustees under the two trusts. After the lifetime of Dadabhoy his interest was to go to his widow and children provided they continued to profess the Zoroastrian faith and were not married to non-Parsees. Under the said trust deeds the assessee was receiving the income from the assets being one-fourth of the properties transferred by Mrs. Bhikhaiji and that income was being assessed a...
Deochand Durlabhji Jogi Vs. Madanlal Gopikisan Sharma
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-1967
Reported in: (1968)70BOMLR280; 1968MhLJ113
Deshmukh, J.1. This is a revision application by the accused against the framing of the charge under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Akola.2. The facts of this case are not being disputed for the purpose of this revision application. The complainant Madanlal was a servant in the shop of the accused Seth Deochaud. According to the complainant, his services were abruptly terminated by the accused on or about October 19, 1965. The accused called the complainant twice or thrice for the purpose of receiving his salary after making his accounts. The complainant claimed, in addition to salaries, two amounts of deposits kept by him, with the accused. The first item was of Rs. 2,000 deposited on July 30, 1965. The second item was of Us. 850 deposited on September 11, 1965. The terms of the deposit alleged in the written complaint, as well as the oral evidence, are that the deposit was not to carry any specific interest, but the accused agreed to giv...
Jagu Anyaba Adhav Vs. Bajrang Auba Jadhav and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-1967
Reported in: AIR1969Bom90; (1968)70BOMLR412; ILR1969Bom19
Chitale, J.1. This revision application arises out of an application by the judgment-debtor under O.21, R. 89, C. P. C.2. The relevant facts are as follows; In execution of a money decree certain property belonging to the judgment-debtor was put up for sale. The amount for which the property was sold was Rupees 412.91. The sale was held on 19-4-1961. On 16-5-61 the judgment debtor deposited in the executing Court Rs. 412.9l. The summer vacation for the executing court commenced within thirty days of the date of the sale and the Court reopened after summer vacation on 5th June 1961. On 5th June 1961 the judgment-debtor deposited in the executing Court Rs. 25 more and applied for setting aside the sale under O.21, R. 89 C. P. C.3. This application was opposed by the auction purchaser and the decree- holders on the ground that the conditions laid down by Order 21 Rule 89 C. P. C. were not complied with, hence the sale could not be set aside.4. The executing Court took the view that the ti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›