Mumbai Court January 1968 Judgments
Motilal Hirachand Marwadi Vs. Sadabai and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Bom67; (1969)71BOMLR172; ILR1970Bom37; 1969MhLJ398
Chitale, J.1. The facts giving rise to this appeal, briefly stated, are as follows:2. In Civil Suit No. 131 of 1923 money decree was obtained against Ratanchand Walchand and Hirachand Gambhirmal. It is not disputed that the decree was a joint and several decree against both these judgment-debtors. In execution of that decree, auction sale in respect of the property involved in the present suit was held on 23rd March 1944. The sale was confirmed on 14th October 1944. For some reasons which are not clear on record, the sale certificate was issued as late as 18th March 1953. It is not disputed that judgment-debtor Ratanchand Walchand died on 6th March 1935 i.e., long before the auction-sale in question was held. Judgment-debtor Hirachand Gambhirmal died on 21st April 1944 i.e. after the auction-sale in question, but within 30 days thereof. The plaintiff Manikchand Daulatram Bora filed the present suit on 10th August 1956 to recover possession of the three houses which are the subject-matt...
Tag this Judgment!Onkarmal Meghraj Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City I, Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1968
Reported in: [1969]71ITR51(Bom)
1. This reference arises out of group of 12 assessments, 11 out of which are in respect of the assessment for the assessment year 1944-45 and one for the assessment years 1943-44. Assessments in all these cases were made taking recourse to section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act and the question to be considered is whether the action taken was barred by time. 2. The assessee involved in this reference are some of the partners of the firm of M/s. Narayandas Kedarnath, which was formed in the year 1930. It consisted of 16 partners, 13 out of which belonged to three Hindu undivided families and the remaining three were outsiders. Thus, Narayandas Pokarmal and his three sons, Govindram, Bhagwandas and Vasudeo, formed one Hindu undivided family; Meghraj Pokarmal and his three sons, Onkarmal, Banarasidas and Beniprasad, were the members of another Hindu undivided family and Hanumandas Sewakram and his four sons, Kedarnath, Banarasidas, Durgaprasad and Harkisondas, formed the third Hindu undi...
Tag this Judgment!Bank of India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Ii
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-1968
Reported in: [1969]39CompCas238(Bom)
Vimadalal, J.1. This is an income-tax reference under section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, at the instance of the applicant-bank, which raises an interesting question with regard to the construction of Explanation (i) to Paragraph D of Part II of the First Schedule to the Finance Acts of 1956, 1957 and 1958. The reference relates to the income-tax assessments of the applicant-bank for the assessment years 1956-57, 1957-58 and 1958-59, the corresponding previous years being the English calendar years commencing on 1st January, 1955, 1st January 1956, and 1st January, 1957. The applicant-bank had received as premium on issue of shares in the years prior to the year 1955, an aggregate sum of Rs. 2 crores which stood credited as part of an account called 'reserve fund and other reserves account'. In the year 1956, a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs was transferred from the said amount of Rs. 2 crores to the bonus shares account, as the applicant-bank had issued bonus shares in that year. Unde...
Tag this Judgment!Dinshaw Manekji Petit Vs. G.B. Badkas and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Bom151; (1968)70BOMLR632
1. This is an application under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, for an order directing the first Respondent, who was appointed an arbitrator under S. 19 of the Defence of India Act, 1939, to file in the Court an award made by him on 12th August 1967.2. The first Respondent did not appear at the hearing of the application. The learned Advocate General, however, who appeared for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3, raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the present petition. He submitted that the Court has no jurisdiction to order the first Respondent to file the Award for two reasons, firstly, S. 19(1) (g) of the Defence of India Act excludes the operation of the Arbitration Act to arbitration held under Section 19 of the Defence of India Act, and secondly, even assuming that the Arbitration Act applies to such arbitrations, by reason of Section 46 of the said Act, the provisions of Section 14(2), being inconsistent with the provisions of the said Section 19 and rules...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City I Vs. C.N. Patuck
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-1968
Reported in: [1969]71ITR713(Bom)
Kotval, C.J.1. The question referred for our decision in this reference is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to deduction of Rs. 3,000 paid to the unmarried daughter from his total income of the previous years relating to the assessment years 1957-58 and 1960-61 ?' 2. The circumstances under which this question comes to be referred are as follows : C. N. Patuck was assessed as an individual in the relevant assessment years. He was a partner of a firm known as Messrs. Patuck and Sons. From this firm he derived an income from two sources. He had a one-third share in the profits of the partnership and was receiving Rs. 400 per month as his salary. 3. The assessee was a married man but some time in 1951 his marriage with his wife came to be dissolved and a divorce was granted to him with other consequential reliefs. The suit was Suit No. 16 of 1951, before the Parsi Chief Matrimonial Court at Bombay and it was decreed on 2nd April, 1951...
Tag this Judgment!Otis Elevator Company (India) Ltd. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-1968
Reported in: [1969]24STC525(Bom)
Abhyankar, J. 1. This is a reference at the instance of the applicants referring certain questions to the High Court for decision. 2. An appeal was filed before the Tribunal against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bombay City Division (Adm.) I, Bombay, determining a disputed question, under section 27 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953. The applicants applied to the Commissioner of Sales Tax by their application dated 30th May, 1962, that in response to the letter dated 7th April, 1958, by Messrs T. Manek & Co., they had addressed a letter to that company on 18th April, 1958, submitting their quotations for supply and installation of two passenger lifts, one at Block No. 9, Colaba Causeway, Bombay, and the other at Block No. 10, Colaba Causeway, Bombay. Subsequently, a contract was arrived at between the parties on 10th June, 1958, for supply and installation of the said two lifts. The letter stated that the contract was for furnishing and erecting the elevator...
Tag this Judgment!Greaves Cotton and Cromption Parkinson Ltd. Vs. Commissionero of Incom ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-1968
Reported in: [1968]70ITR181(Bom)
V.S. Desai, J.1. This reference arises out of the assessment of the assessee for the assessment year 1958-59 for which the corresponding previous year was the calendar year ended 31st December, 1957. The assessee, which is an incorporated company, is a manufacturer and importer of electrical equipment. It has its head officer at Bombay and branches at Calcutta, Madras and Delhi. In the relevant account year the assessee paid a sum of Rs. 1,100 as tax in respect of its branch at Madras under section 110 of the Madras City Municipal Act. In the said account year the assessee spent an amount of Rs. 40,788.75nP. for carrying out certain maintenance and repairs work to its Calcutta office premises. In its assessment it claimed a deduction in respect of these two items. The first claim was disallowed by the income-tax Officer on the ground that the tax paid did not fall under section 10(2) (ix) and could not be allowed also in view of the specific provision of section 10(4). As to the second...
Tag this Judgment!Lal and Co. Vs. Kulkarni (R.N.) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-1968
Reported in: [1968(17)FLR438]; (1968)IILLJ518Bom
Per Tarkunde, J.1. This petition has been filed under Art, 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the correctness of an interim order passed by the first labour court at Bombay in an application under S. 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner is a partnership firm which carries on business in cloth and tailoring in Bombay. Respondents 2 to 17 are garment-stitches working with the petitioner. On 15 March, 1966, respondents 2 to 17 applied to the first labour court at Bombay (respondent 1) under S. 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for the computation and recovery of wages for weekly holidays during the period from 1 February, 1963 to 31 December, 1985. Respondents 2 to 17 stated in their application that provisions of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1968, were made applicable to them with effect from 1 February, 1963 by a notification issued by the State Government under S. 5(1) of the said Act and that they were entitled under S. 18(3) of...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Films Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-1968
Reported in: [1969]23STC121(Bom)
Abhyankar, J.1. This order will dispose of all these references. The Sales Tax Tribunal has referred to the High Court the following question for determination :- 'Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the applicant is a dealer within the meaning of section 2(11) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 ?' The applicants in these cases are motion picture producers. Applications were made on behalf of these motion picture producers separately under section 52 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, asking for the determination of the question as to whether they were dealers under the said Act and whether they were liable for registration under that Act. 2. According to the statement of the case, the applicants as motion picture producers do not sell cinematograph pictures which they produce, but they give away the pictures under certain financial arrangements, and a specimen agreement in respect of such arrangements has been placed on record. The ownership in the motion picture, or the...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City I Vs. Merwanji Kola and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-1968
Reported in: [1968]68ITR663(Bom)
Kotval, C.J.1. The two questions which have been referred for our decision arise under the following circumstances : The firm of Messrs. Merwanji Kola and Co., solicitors of Bombay, commenced business in February 1915. When the partnership was formed there were the following partners; (1) Merwanji Kaikhushru, (2) Dinshaw D. Romer, (3) H. K. Kola (4) M. R. Billimoria, (5) B. D. Doctor and (6) R. D. Dallas. In the years 1921 and 1931, there were some changes in the partners constituting the firm brought on by retirement and admission of new partners. The principal partner, Merwanji Kaikhushru, died in 1928. 2. In 1931 two instruments of partnership came to be executed whereby one M. P. Dadachanji was taken in as a partner. Thus, there were five partners. The two deeds of partnership executed at this time were respectively dated 12th October, 1931, and 11th November, 1931. One of the five. H. K. Kola died in December, 1940, and the remaining four partners continued the firm and the busine...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »