Mumbai Court February 1968 Judgments
Filmistan (Private) Ltd., Bombay Vs. Syed Taki Bilgrami and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-1968
Reported in: (1969)IILLJ638Bom
Tarkunde, J. 1. The petitioner is a private limited company doing business of producing cine films and hiring its studios to other producers for shooting their films. 2. Respondent 2 in the petition is a trade union which represents the employees of the petitioner. In 1958 the Government of Bombay referred for adjudication to the industrial tribunal (respondent 1) as industrial dispute between the petitioner and its employees relating to classification, wagescales, dearness allowance, gratuity, bonus, etc. During the pendency of this reference the petitioner dismissed 51 workers in 1964 and filed application before the industrial tribunal under S. 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for approval of the action taken by it. At the hearing of these applications two advocates appeared before the industrial tribunal on behalf of the petitioner. An office-bearer of the union, Sri R. J. Mehta, who was to appear for the workmen, was unable to be present. A message was covered by him...
Tag this Judgment!Kedarnath Gangagopal Misra Vs. Sitaram Narayan Moharil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Bom221; (1968)70BOMLR788; ILR1969Bom324; 1968MhLJ762
1. The respondent in this appeal is the landlord plaintiff and the appellant is the defendant tenant. A decree for eviction, rent and mesne profits was obtained by the respondent in the trial Court on April 30 1965. The tenant appellant filed an appeal against the decree in the District Court which came to be dismissed on August 22, 1966. came to be dismissed on August 22, 1966. As soon as decree in the trial Court was obtained the respondent filed petition for execution. Execution was stayed because of the stay order obtained form the appellate Court. Immediately the appeal was dismissed, a decree was produced and execution was revived. 2. On August 31, 1966, plaintiff decree-holder accompanied by the bailiff of the Court and the warrant for execution went to the doors of the present appellant. The plaintiff decree -holder had all the means at that time to throw out the appellant and obtain physical possession of the premises. After some negotiation, it appears that appellant assured ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramtirth Yogashram Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-1968
Reported in: [1968]22STC76(Bom)
Vimadalal, J.1. These are references under section 34 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, by the applicants who are the manufacturers of a commodity called the Ramtirth Brahmi Oil. Each of these three references relates to a different year, but the question which has been referred to us in the three references is identical, and we must, therefore, proceed to dispose them of by a common judgment. That question is as follows :- 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in coming to the conclusion that the Ramtirth Brahmi Oil is a perfumed oil ?' 2. The Sales Tax Authorities have purported to tax the oil in question under entry 39 of Schedule B to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, which is in the following terms :- '39. Toilet articles except such articles as may be specified by the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette.' 3. As the Court is concerned in the present references with the period between the 1st of April, 1954,...
Tag this Judgment!Namdeo Vishwanath Vs. Umbaosingh Sadhuram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-1968
Reported in: (1968)70BOMLR646; 1968MhLJ611
Deshmukh, J.1. This is a creditor's appeal arising out of a petition filed by a debtor for adjudicating himself insolvent under Section 10 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920. At the outset, it must be made clear that this matter is required to be treated as a revision application under law and it is directed that it should be treated as a revision application and an appropriate number be given to it. I would point out that the petitioner had approached this Court by way of a revision application and it is also numbered as such. However, on the view taken by the office, the revision application was renumbered as a second appeal. The present proceeding would be covered by the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 75 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, if at all it should be covered by any provisions of the Provincial Insolvency Act. If the present petitioner-creditor could be held a person aggrieved, then his remedy against the trial Court's order would be in the form of appea...
Tag this Judgment!Hukumchand Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-1968
Reported in: [1968]70ITR450(Bom)
Kotval, C.J.1. Of the three question which were originally referred for the decision of this court, only question No. 2 now survives for decision and question No. 2 is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the applicant's case, the Tribunal was right in holding that in respect of sales of Rs. 14,80,059, the profit was correctly determined by the application of rule 33 and on third of the profits so determined could be said to accrued or arise in British India 2. The circumstances under which this question survives for our decision and the facts upon which it falls to be determined are as follows : The Hukumchand Mills Ltd., Indore, the assessees, were doing business of manufacturing and selling textiles in the account years relevant to the assessment years 1942-43, 1943-44, 1945-46, 1946-47 and 1947-48. In the relevant years of account the assessees were obliged to divert a portion of their production for meeting military requirements and such sales aggregate ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›