Mumbai Court February 1969 Judgments
Ramkrishna Ramnath Vs. G. Lakshmi Narsimhan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Bom30; 1969MhLJ574
Padhye, J.1. This petition concernsthe tax liability of the petitioner during the assessment years 1951-52 to 1957-58 that is, Diwali ending 1950 to Diwaliending 1956. During the said period, the petitioner was being assessed as a Joint Hindu Family Firm. With respect to the assessment years 1951-52, 1952-53 and 1953-54 the Income Tax officer made the assessment orders on 30th March 1956, 9th March 1957 and 7th March 1958 respectively. These orders were challenged by the assessee in appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax and were disposed of by him by orders dated 20-10-1958, 23-10-1958 and 31-10-1958 respectively. Further appeals were taken by the petitioner before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, which- decided all these three appeals by order dated 22-1-1960. All the three appeals were consolidated as they related to the same assessee and involved common contentions. Before the Tribunal, the Department had also filed appeals relating to the assessment yea...
Tag this Judgment!Ramkrishna Ramnath Vs. G. Lakshmi Narasimhan, Income-tax Officer, Cent ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1969
Reported in: [1970]77ITR456(Bom)
Padhye, J. 1. This petition concerns the tax liability of the petitioner during the assessment years 1951-52 to 1957-58, that is, Diwali ending 1950 to Diwali ending 1956. During the said period, the petitioner was being assessed as a joint Hindu family firm. With respect to the assessment years 1951-52, 1952-53 and 1953-54 the Income-tax Officer made the assessment orders on 30th March, 1956, 9th March, 1957, and 7th March, 1958, respectively. These orders were challenged by the assessee in appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax and were disposed of by him by orders dated October 20, 1958, October 23, 1958, and October 31, 1958, respectively. Further appeals were taken by the petitioner before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, which decided all these three appeals by order dated January 22, 1960. All the three appeals were consolidated as they related to the same assessee and involved common contentions. Before the Tribunal, the department had also filed app...
Tag this Judgment!Radhabai Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Bom232; (1970)72BOMLR369; ILR1970Bom841; 1969MhLJ933
Kotval, C.J.1. The short question that arises for decision in this reference is whether the interpretation of the amended Sub-section (7) of Section 38 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1958 (XCIX of 1958) (hereinafter referred to as the new Tenancy Act), in the decision of this Court in Salubai v. Chandu, : AIR1966Bom194 is correct, and if not, what is the correct interpretation.2. The circumstances under which the reference came to be made are as follows: One Mohanlal was a landholder of survey No. 74/3, area 9.17 acres, In village Uttar Wadhona in Yeotmal District. Mohanlal had a wife Radhabai and a son Lakhanlal who was born on 29-4-1937. Mohanlal died on 15-4-1938 and on that date Lakhanlal was a minor. Lakhanlal attained majority on 29-4-1958, the age of majority in his case being twenty-one years because a guardian had been appointed. After he attained majority, the property belonging to the joint family came to be partitioned between Radhabai and Lakhanlal. This...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdishprasad Kashiprasad and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra and an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Bom166; (1969)71BOMLR536; 1970CriLJ660; ILR1969Bom1191; 1969MhLJ433
1. This is an appeal filed by four of the original seven accused persons against their conviction by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Khamgaon, which was confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon, on appeal. 2. The short facts of the case are that on the 16th of January 1967 the complainant Mahadeo found that one of his bullocks was missing from the Kotha and he ultimately traced the bullock to the cattle pound fromwhere it was got released. The prosecution story is that he was then proceeding by bus to Shegaon to report the matter to the police when he was waylaid by the four applicants before me, along with original accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3, who fell upon him and started beating him with sticks, with the result that he received a number of injuries and fell down unconscious on the road. According to the prosecution, when he regained consciousness, Mahadeo found Semadhan, Vishanu, Shriram and Deorao near him, and he was carried to the police station where he lodged his ...
Tag this Judgment!Dhirajlal Valji Kotak Vs. Ramchandra Janglaji Gujar and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Bom290; (1970)72BOMLR436; 1970CriLJ1062; ILR1970Bom1074; 1970MhLJ93
Kotval, C.J.1. Two questions have been referred for our decision as follows:(1) Whether the definition of 'sale' contained in Section 2(xiii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, is confined to the sale of articles of food for human consumption or human use alone or extends to the sale of an article of food regardless of the purpose for which it is sold ? (2) Whether the word 'sale' used in. Rule 44-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, is used in its general sense or in the restricted sense, meaning the sale of Kesari dal for human consumption only? 2. After arguments had proceeded in the reference before us, we felt that in order to bring out the particular points which have been urged on behalf of the applicant accused and the State, it would be necessary to modify the first question, and with the consent of counsel for both the parties, we have modified it as follows:(1) Whether the definition of 'sale' contained in Section 2(xiii) of the Prevention of ...
Tag this Judgment!Anna Raghu Patil Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1969
Reported in: (1969)71BOMLR496; 1969MhLJ736
Kamat, J.1. The petitioner Anna Raghu Patil is a resident of Vasagade, Taluka Tasgaon, District Sangli. During the month of December 1966, he demolished a portion of his old house and erected a new building thereon, without the previous permission of the Village Panchayat. The Panchayat Committee, in its meeting held on February 27, 1967, passed a resolution unanimously that the petitioner should be prosecuted for having erected a new building without the previous permission of the Village Panchayat. Accordingly, the Sarpanch of the Panchayat filed a complaint under Section 52(4) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958, against the petitioner in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First 'Class, Tasgaon. The petitioner admitted that he had demolished a portion of his old house and erected a new building thereon without the previous permission of the Village Panchayat, but contended that he had made an application to the Panchayat for the necessary permission and the erection of the...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesh Shrawan Chaudhari Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1969
Reported in: (1969)71BOMLR643; 1970MhLJ75
Nain, J.1. These proceedings have been sent up by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for confirmation of the sentence of death passed by him on the accused Ganesh Shrawan Chaudhari. The accused has also filed an appeal under Section 418, Criminal Procedure Code, Both these proceedings have been heard together.2. The accused was charged with murdering his wife Sharadabai aged 23 years, two sons named Tushar aged 4 years and Rajan aged 2 years, and a daughter by name Gitanjali about 15 days old on the afternoon of Sunday June 30, 1968, in the village of Dambhurni, taluka Yawal, District Jalgaon. The accused was convicted by the learned Sessions Judge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to death. The accused had pleaded guilty to the charge against him. The learned Judge, however, directed that he should be tried on the charge. The accused has shown unwillingness to engage a lawyer, or to have one appointed for him...
Tag this Judgment!Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. Vs. the Joint Chief Controller of Imports
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1969
Reported in: (1974)76BOMLR26
Nathwani, J.1. [His Lordship after dealing with points not material to this report, proceeded.] Against the background of woollen industry and the relevant rules which governed the grant of actual users' licences before the impugned new policy came into force in November 1967, I may now deal with the various contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners. Their first contention is that they are entitled to a licence for import of raw materials under the Import and Export (Control) Act and the Import (Control) Order, 1955, read together with the rules of the Import Trade Policy for the financial year 1967-68 contained in the Red Book and the Hand Book for the said year. It is urged by the petitioners that the provisions contained in the Red Book and the Hand Book are law or have the force of law, and that as actual users of raw wool/wool tops the right to import licences accrued to them upon the publication of the said import trade policy in the Gazette of India (Extraordinary) dated M...
Tag this Judgment!Vazirboo and ors. Vs. Keshavlal Narshidas and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Bom242; (1969)71BOMLR745; ILR1970Bom704
ORDER1. These two petitions arise out of the same order of the Court of first instance and raise an interesting question of law for decision.2. One Kurban Hussein Rahamatalli owned a building called Tayeb Building' at Nagdevi Cross Lane, Bombay. Shop premises in that building were let out by him to a firm doing business under the name and style of Messrs. Keshavlal Narsidas. The agreed rent of the premises was Rs. 245.54 per month. As the firm fell in arrears of rent, Kurban Hussein gave notice to it on 16-11-1961 demanding the arrears of rent from 1-11-1959 and purporting to terminate the tenancy on the ground of non-payment of rent. To that notice Kurban Hussein received a reply dated 15-1-1962 wherein the firm asked for time to pay the arrears. No payment was, however, made even thereafter and on 15-2-1962 Kurban Hussein filed the suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent, leading to the present petitions.3. In answer to the summons of the suit one Ramanlal Shah claiming to ...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Ganesh Dastane Vs. Sucheta Narayan Dastane
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Bom312; (1969)71BOMLR569; ILR1969Bom1024; 1969MhLJ798
1. This second appeal raises novel and difficult points with regard to the relations between a modern educated husband and his wife in Hindu Society.2. The appellant in this appeal is the husband Dr. Narayan Ganesh Dastane. The respondent is his wife Mrs. Sucheta Narayan Dastaoe. They were married according to Vedic rites on May 13, 1956 in Poona. A daughter Shobha was born on March 11, 1957, a second daughter Vibhavari was born on March 20, 1959, and before the third daughter. Prabha was delivered, the husband and wife unfortunately fell out as it is undisputed that they have been living separately from each other since March 1961.3. On February 19, 1962, the appellant filed the petition from which the present second appeal arises. In that petition the appellant prayed in the first instance for a declaration annulling the marriage under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground that the consent of the husband for the marriage was obtained by fraud. According to the husb...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »