Mumbai Court November 1968 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.
Vithalbhai T. Patel Vs. Shyamlal Durgadas Khanna
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Bom101; (1969)71BOMLR372; 1969MhLJ732
1. This is a revisional application on behalf of the original plaintiff from the order dated October 28, 1966, made on the Chamber summons dated October 17, 1966, whereby the City Civil Court directed that the time to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 2,000/-pursuant to the order dated August 5, 1966 be extended till November 1, 1966. The above order dated August 5, 1966 was made on the summons for judgment taken out by the plaintiff. By that order the defendant was directed to deposit the sum of Rs. 7,725/- by three instalments respectively of Rs. 3,308.30 within one week fon or before August 12. 1966), Rs. 2,000/- within eight weeks (on or before October 9, 1966) and the balance of Rs. 2,416.70 within four weeks thereafter. The deposit order was conditional order granting leave to the defendant to defend the suit2. In pursuance of the above order dated August 5, 1966, the defendant duly deposited in trial Court the sum of Rs. 3,308.30 on August 12, 1966. He failed to deposit the sum ...
Engineering Mazdoor Sabha Vs. Aney (D.M.) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-1968
Reported in: (1969)IILLJ296Bom
Madon, J.1. Engineering Mazdoor Sabha, the petitioners, have approached this Court under Art. 227 of the Constitution to set said an order dated 31 August 1965 made by Sri D. M. Aney, the industrial tribunal, Maharashtra, respondent 1, rejecting the petitioners' application to give them a hearing in Reference (I.T.) No. 93 of 1965 and for an appropriate writ, direction or order directing respondent 1 to give the petitioners an opportunity of being heard in the said reference before an award is made and published. 2. The circumstances which have made it necessary for the petitioners to approach this Court are that by an order dated 15 March 1965 made under S. 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Government of Maharashtra referred an industrial dispute between Hind Cycles, Ltd., respondent 2, and their workmen relating to payment of bonus for the years 1961-62 and 1962-63 for adjudication to the industrial tribunal consisting of Sri M. R. Meher. According to the petitioners...
W.T. Suren and Co. (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax Bombay-1
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-1968
Reported in: [1971]80ITR602(Bom)
Kotval, C.J.1. In this reference we are called upon to determine whether certain amounts paid by the assessee-company as pension to two of its erstwhile employees amounted to capital expenditure or expenditure for business purposes on the part of the company. 2. The assessee is Messrs. W. T. Suren & Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. There was previously a partnership firm known as W. T. Suren & Co. The assessee-company was incorporated in February, 1948, and by an agreement with the partnership firm took over the entire business of the firm. W. T. Suren & Co. was carrying on the business of distribution of pharmaceuticals manufactured by a British Company - the Teddington Chemical Factory Private Ltd. They were also importing and selling sundry other goods. 3. In the employment of the firm were two persons, C. R. March and G. D. Dave. When the firm transferred its business to the limited company, theses employees had put in more than 25 years of service each and with the transference of the business the...
Commissioner of Income-tax, City I, Bombay Vs. Kores (India) Private L ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-15-1968
Reported in: [1969]72ITR431(Bom)
Kotval, C.J.1. The short question which arises in this references is whether the proviso to section 23A(1) prior to its amendment by the Finance Act of 1955 applies to the assessee during the two assessment years 1953-54 and 1954-55. 2. It is not in dispute that section 23A applied to the respondent company, Messrs, Kores (India Private Ltd. Accordingly, it did distribute, by way of dividends, more than 60% of its assessable income for the previous years, corresponding to the assessment year in question 1953-54 and 1954-55. The department however, felt that the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 23A applied and 100% of its assessable income in both the years should have been distributed. 3. Originally the paid-up capital of the company was Rs. 50,000, but in 1950, it issued bonus shares worth Rs. 3,50,000 and in 1951, further bonus shares worth Rs. 1,00,000. Thus during the said assessment year its paid up share capital stood at Rs. 5,00,000. In applying the proviso the ratio betwee...
Vasant Vithal Palse and ors. Vs. the Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. and anr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-15-1968
Reported in: (1970)IILLJ328Bom
Abhyankar, J. 1. This is a petition by four workmen under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging certain portions of an award passed by the Industrial Tribunal presided over by Shri M. R. Meher. The petitioners have impleaded to this petition as respondents the employers, namely, the Indian Hume Pipe Co., Ltd. and the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal whose award is challenged. 2. It appears that there was a dispute between the first respondent and its workmen regarding several demands which were raised by the workmen for pay-scales, adjustments, leave to canteen workmen, allowance of work on holidays, transfers, gratuity, etc. The workmen, it appears, were represented before the Tribunal by the Trade Union called the Engineering Staff Union'. The award was passed on December 6, 1965 and was published on December 30, 1965. The petition in this Court was filed by these four workmen on April 12, 1966. In paragraph 55 of the petition the petitioners have made the following averments ...
Laxmidas and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-14-1968
Reported in: [1969]72ITR88(Bom)
V.S. Desai, J.1. This reference arises out of the assessment made upon the assessee firm for the assessment year 1948-49, the previous year for which was the S. Y. 2003 from 25th October, 1946, to the 12th November, 1947. 2. At the material time the assessee was a partnership firm consisting of three equal partners. One of the partners died subsequently in S. Y. 2005 and the firm was dissolved on his death. The original assessment was completed by the Income-tax Officer on the 24th April, 1950, which was after the dissolution of the firm. The total income was determined at Rs. 3,600. The application under section 26A made by the assessee was granted and its registration was renewed for the assessment year in question. 3. Subsequently, the Income-tax Officer received information that the assessee firm had received a sum of Rs. 1,75,000 by telegraphic transfer from Nandlal Bhandari Mills Ltd., Indore, on the 3rd June, 1947. The preliminary enquiry made by the Income-tax Officer on receip...
Western India Paper and Board Mills (P.) Ltd. Vs. Mumbai Mazdoor Sabha ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-14-1968
Reported in: (1970)IILLJ331Bom
Abhyankar, J. 1. The petitioner in this petition, which is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, are the Western India Paper & Board Mills Private Ltd., and they challenge the award made by the Industrial Tribunal in an industrial adjudication on a reference under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Unfortunately respondent No. 1, viz., the Mumbai Mazdoor Sabha, which represents the workmen of the petitioner company, is not represented before us, and the petition has to be decided ex parte. 2. The workers raised demands which, amongst others, were in respect of a claim for additional compensatory payment for work done on Sundays and holidays in the form of double the daily wages for working on those days and a lunch allowance. As there was no conciliation between the parties, the parties made a joint application to the State Government for making a reference for adjudication of the dispute to the proper authorities. Reference was accordingly made by an order dated 7th May, 1964 t...
Vishwambhar Vithalrao Patil and ors. Vs. Madhavrao Piraji Patil and an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-14-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Bom395; (1969)71BOMLR279; ILR1969Bom979; 1969MhLJ445
Patel, J.1. This appeal is filed by the appellants against the dismissal of their suit. The appellants alleged that the property in suit is agricultural land and it is alleged by them that the land was mortgaged by defendant No.2 as the Karta of his family, i.e. the gather of the plaintiffs, to defendant No.1 for a sum of Rs.1505 (Osmania Sikka). They allege that the said mortgage is satisfied and that they are entitled to physical possession of the property. In the suit, therefore they claimed possession. Admittedly the value of the property is Rs.20,000. The case of the 1st defendant is that the property was sold to him for Rs.5000 on Amardad 10,1357 Fasli and that it was false that the property was mortgaged to him for Rs. 1505 (O.S)2. In the trial Court and in this Court the plaintiffs valued the claim for the purposes of court-fees at 121/2 times the assessment under Section 6, Clause (v of the Court-fees Act. Ultimately the suit came to be dismissed. The plaintiffs have filed the...
Manekchand Mohanlal Poonawala Vs. Shah Bhimji Kundanmal and Company
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-13-1968
Reported in: (1969)71BOMLR370; 1969MhLJ698
K.K. Desai, J.1. In this revisional application Mr. Karanee on behalf of the original defendants has contended that the trial Court was wrong in not granting unconditional leave to defend, inasmuch as the trial Court should have accepted the defendant's contention that the plaintiffs' suit was not on a written contract. The writing relied upon by the plaintiffs as constituting the cause of action for the claim in suit did not contain any promise to pay and was merely an entry in the Sahi book and/or an acknowledgement. The trial Court should have, therefore, held that the plaintiffs' suit was not maintainable as a summary suit and should not have directed the defendants to deposit Rs. 7,000 and should have granted unconditional leave to defend.2. A translation of the writing on which the plaintiffs relied is annexed as exh. A to the plaint. A part of the translation is not entirely correct. The writing, when translated, runs ass follows:Rs. 13,000/- Shah Bhimaji Kundanmal and Company.(...
Bombay Labour Union Vs. Industrial Tribunal (K.R. Powar) and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-12-1968
Reported in: [1969(18)FLR246]; (1969)ILLJ232Bom
Madon, J. 1. This is a petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an award made by the industrial tribunal constituted of respondent 1 in an industrial dispute referred to it for adjudication between respondent 2 and its workmen. Respondent 2 is a partnership firm which carried on at the material times the business of preparing and selling ice-cream and other milk preparations and employed about thirty workmen. Four demands were referred to the tribunal for adjudication under S. 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, on 23 July, 1965. The said demands were : 'Demand 1 - Wages-scales - Hamals .... ..... 80-04-120 waiters .... ..... 85-5-135 Pantryman, barman ..... 100-06-160 cooks and cashiers ..... 120-10-220 All the workmen shall be paid point-to-point adjustment while fitting them into above scales in accordance with the number of years service if any by them. Demand 2 - Uniform :- (a) All the workmen shall be supplied with three sets of uniforms per ye...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »