Mumbai Court March 1969 Judgments
R.B. Jessaram Fetehchand (Sugar Dept.) Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-1969
Reported in: [1970]75ITR33(Bom)
V.S. Desai, J.1. The assessee-firm has several kinds of business one of which is dealing in sugar on wholesale and commission basis. It makes large purchases from sugar mills known as Simbholi Sugar Mills Ltd., Simbholi, and gets 2 per cent. commission on the sales of sugar pertaining to such purchases. It also purchases sugar from other sources. In the account year of the assessee ended 31st August, 1957, its trading sugar account extended to total sales of Rs. 33,93,351. The gross profits shown in the said account by the assessee was 1.69%. In its trading account there were cash sales of sugar from time to time totalling to an amount of Rs. 3 lakhs during the year and out of these sales, sales to the extent of about Rs. 2 lakhs were through a firm of brokers called 'M/s. Mahashankar Ambalal & Co.' Since the assessee had made sale transactions in cash, the Income-tax Officer proceeded to scrutinise the said transactions and obtain verification about their genuineness. He selected for ...
Tag this Judgment!Air Corporation Employees' Union and Ors. Vs. G.B. Bhirade and Ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-1969
Reported in: AIR1971Bom288; (1969)71BOMLR707
ORDER1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ in the nature of mandamus against respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 directing them not to proceed with the recognition of the 5th respondent Union, pursuant to the inquiry held by the 1st respondent and the directive contained in the office memo dated 19th December, 1968 issued by the 2nd respondent to the 3rd respondent.2. The facts of the case are quite simple. The 1st petitioner is a Trade Union which was registered some time in the year 1953-- under the Indian Trade Union Act, 1926, and it claims to have as its members an overwhelming majority of the workmen employed by the 3rd respondent-Corporation as well as by the Indian Airlines which is another Corporation. In para 12 of the petition it is stated that, in May, 1958, the 16th session of the Indian Labour Conference ratified a tripartite machinery evolved by the Government of India, the Employers and the Employees for regulating the relations between the emplo...
Tag this Judgment!Shammomal Khajoomal Vs. G.D. Kshetarpal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-1969
Reported in: (1969)71BOMLR673
Patel J.1. This petition arises out of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1954). The petitioner is a displaced person from West Pakistan. The petitioner abandoned his properties in West Pakistan which consisted of (1) agricultural lands in rural area, (2) buildings etc. in rural area and (3) property in urban area. Under the Displaced Persons Claims Act, 1950, the petitioner made claims in respect of these three kinds of properties which he had abandoned in West Pakistan. These applications were heard and the claims were verified by the proper authorities. In respect, of rural properties other than agricultural lands, the claims were numbered as S/KR-5/56, S/KR-15/327/D and S/KB-1/72D and the verified claims respectively were Rs. 21,997-8-0, Rs. 6,200 and Rs. 2,036 total being Rs. 30,233-8-0. In respect of agricultural lands his claim bore the number S/KR-8/72D and the verified claim was 219.10 standard acres which w...
Tag this Judgment!Rangubai Pandurang Joshi Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-1969
Reported in: (1969)71BOMLR624; 1969MhLJ880
Madon, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash an order of requisition under the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948, made on January 31, 1950, and an order of allotment made on June 16, 1'967, and for directing the State of Maharashtra and the Collector of Thana, who are respondents Nos. 1 and 2 respectively, to hand over possession of the requisitioned property to the petitioner as its owner on the ground that the said order of requisition has ceased to be operative or lapsed due to the Government not having made use of it and consequently, therefore, the property was not under requisition at the date when the impugned order of allotment 'was made.2. One P.V. Joshi, the petitioner's husband, was the owner of a building known as 'Joshi Bungalow' situate at Kharkar Ali, Thana. By the said order of requisition dated January 31, 1950, the ground floor of Joshi Bungalow was requisitioned by the then State of Bombay under Sub-section (7) of Section 5 Wedded, Ma...
Tag this Judgment!Manekji Manchersha Javeri Vs. Phiroze Boman Javeri
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-1969
Reported in: (1970)72BOMLR21; 1970MhLJ324
Vimadalal, J.1. This is an application by affidavit for an order that the name of the applicant be substituted as executor in place and stead of Manekji Munchersha Javeri, deceased, and that the necessary amendments be allowed to be made in the petition for Probate filed by the said Manekji Munchersha Javeri in respect of the estate of his brother Bomanji Munchersha Javeri. Bomanji died on June 27, 1967, leaving a 'Will dated February 16, 1958. In Clause 1 of the Will it was stated that the testator Bomanji owned certain moveable and immoveable properties jointly with his brother and sisters as co-tenants. Clause 2 of his 'Will which is material for the purpose of the present order is in the following terms:Clause 2. AFTER payment of all necessary expenses I GIVE AND BEQUEATH all the rest and residue of my property whatsoever and wheresoever and to which I am or may become entitled to absolutely to the same surviving co-tenants referred to above, and in case there is no such surviving ...
Tag this Judgment!Khemchand Dayalji Vs. Mohammadbhai Chandbhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-1969
Reported in: (1970)72BOMLR428
J.C. Shah, J.1. The respondent is the owner of a house in the town of Ahmedabad. The appellants are the tenants of that house at a monthly rental of Rs. 2,171. Under the agreement of lease the appellants were to pay out of the agreed rent Rs. 810 per month, and the balance was to be appropriated towards a loan advanced by them to the respondent for constructing the house. The appellants had also agreed to pay municipal taxes and electricity charges.2. The appellants filed suit No. 1308 of 1963 in the Court of the Small Causes, Ahmedabad, for an order inter alia, determining the standard rent of the permises in exercise of the power under Section 11 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act LVII of 1947. The Court of Small Causes, Ahmedabad, on an application filed by the appellants fixed the contractual rent as 'interim standard rent' and directed the appellants to pay the rent and municipal taxes. Pursuant to this order, the appellants deposited Rs. 2,403 as rent ...
Tag this Judgment!A-i Co-operative Housing Society Limited Vs. Laxminarayan Goel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-1969
Reported in: (1969)71BOMLR616; 1969MhLJ886
Patel, J.1. This is an appeal against an order made by Mr. Justice Tuhzapurkar on March 7, 1969, in a notice of motion. Defendant No. 17 is a Co-operative Housing Society and is registered under the Co-operative Societies Act. It is a building Society and it has got eighty two flats. The plaintiffs are the purchasers of three flats. The suit arises under the following circumstances: Defendant No. 1 is a private limited Company of which defendants Nos. 2, 1 and 10 and other members of their family are the shareholders and/or directors. Defendant No. 16 is a partnership firm of which defendants Nos. 2, 7 and 10 are partners. Defendants Nos. 2, 3, 5, 7, 10 and 11 are closely related and defendants Nos. 4, 6, 8, 9 and 12 are employees and/or nominees of defendant No. 2.2. Defendant No. 1 was the owner of two pieces of lands. On these lands! there were structures and an old bungalow. In September 1963 defendants Nos. 1 and 2 thought of building ownership flats and in order to attract purcha...
Tag this Judgment!Pushkarnarayan S. Maheshwari Vs. Kubrabai Gulamali
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1969
Reported in: (1969)71BOMLR769
Vimadaial, J.1. [His Lordship after stating the facts and holding that the defendants had committed breach of contract on November 23, 1960, proceeded.] Though no issue in regard to whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract by paying the balance of the purchase price under the agreement for sale and tendering an engrossment of the conveyance for execution by the defendants, was framed by me, Mr. Diwan sought to contend that, even in regard to a claim for damages for breach of contract, it was incumbent on the plaintiff, not only to aver but also to prove, readiness and willingness on his part to perform the contract at the material time which, in this case, in view of my finding in the preceding paragraph, would be November 23, 1960. In support of that proposition, Mr. Diwan has cited several authorities. The first and the most important of them is the decision of the Privy Council in the case of Tan Ah Boon v. Johore State . It may be mentioned th...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Mahadev and ors. Vs. F.H. Lala and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-1969
Reported in: (1970)ILLJ68Bom
Madon, J.1. This petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution seeks to set aside an interlocutory order made by respondent 1 who is a member of the industrial court, Bombay, in an industrial reference pending before him. The order which is impugned is an order directing commission to reissue for the examination of one respondent 2 company's witnesses. The reference in question arose out of a dispute relating to the claim of nine employees of respondent 2 company for reinstatement. The case of the petitioners, who represent the workmen of respondent 2 company in the said reference, is that these employees were wrongfully dismissed from service on 3 January 1964, while respondent 2 company's contention is that the termination of the services of these employees was a discharge simpliciter in accordance with the provisions of standing order 19(a). It is not necessary to set out each stage of the long drawn, tortuous and yet unfinished course of this industrial reference. Suffice it to say t...
Tag this Judgment!Adarsha Dugdhalaya Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-ii
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1969
Reported in: [1971]80ITR49(Bom)
V.S. Desai, J. 1. This reference arises out of the assessment made upon the assessee for the assessment year 1958-59, the account year for which ended on 31st October, 1957. The question raised on the reference relate to the disallowance of sum of Rs. 1,65,500 which was claimed by the assessee as deductible under section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act. 2. The assessee is a registered firm of five partners carrying on its business under the terms of a partnership deed dated 15th May 1953. The business which it is carrying on was first started some time in the year 1934, in partnership by three persons, viz., K. G. Patel, P. V. Patel and B. J. Patel in the name and style of Adarsha Dugdhalaya. In the year 1941, the three original partners of the firm took in three more persons, viz., Dahyabhai Morarji Patel, his brother-in-law, Ramjibhai Morarji Patel, and C. V. Mehta. This partnership of six persons commenced from January 1, 1941, and a deed of partnership embodying the terms of this p...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »