Mumbai Court June 1969 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.
Mallikarjun Sadashiv Honrao Vs. Suratram Shivlal and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-1969
Reported in: AIR1971Bom45; (1969)71BOMLR853; ILR1970Bom666; 1970MhLJ207
ORDER1. This revisional application is against an order granting review. The short facts relevant for the present purposes are as follows. The petitioner filed an application B. A. D. Rules No. 1208 of 1950 for adjustment of his debts alleging that the transaction made in favour of the respondents in 1899 was a mortgage and that it was subsisting. The respondents resisted the proceeding. The trial Court found that the transaction was not a mortgage and, therefore, dismissed the application. The petitioner filed an appeal to the District Court being Appeal No. 10 of 1956, which the District Court decided on June 20, 1959. The District Court held that the transaction was a mortgage. Accordingly, it made an award adjusting the debts. The respondents filed a revisional application to this Court being Revisional Application No. 1502 of 1959, which was decided by me on April 19, 1961. I discharged the rule. At the time of the arguments in the revisional application. the learned counsel appea...
Commissioner of Income-tax Bombay City-ii Vs. Bombay Samachar Ltd., Bo ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-1969
Reported in: [1969]74ITR723(Bom)
V.S. Desai, J.1. The following question, which has been raised on this reference under section 66 (2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, arises out of the assessments of the assessee for the assessment years 1953-54 to 1956-57 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the interest paid by the assessee-company on its borrowing during the assessment years 1953-54 to 1956-57 was an admissible deduction under the Indian Income-tax Act ?' 2. The assessee is carrying on business as publishers of a Gujarati newspaper called 'Bombay Samachar'. Two other concerns, viz., M/s. Bombay Chronicle Pvt. Ltd., which was publishing a paper called 'Bombay Chronicle' and M/s. Bombay Associated Newspapers Ltd., which was publishing a newspaper called the 'Bombay Sentinel', were sister concerns of the assessee. In the year 1939, it was considered desirable by these three concerns to incur certain items of common expenditure jointly and allocate th...
Commissioner of Income-tax Bombay City-i Vs. F.M. Chinoy and Co. (Pvt. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-1969
Reported in: [1969]74ITR780(Bom)
Kotval, C.J.1. The dispute in this reference is limited to three items which have been allowed to the respondent-assessee, Messrs. F. M. Chinoy & Co. Private Ltd., as deductions. The assessee were carrying on business among other of acting as managing agent to various companies. One of such companies was a public limited company and doing the business of manufacturing motor car batteries for sale. By an agreement dated the 4th of December, 1942, the assessee-company were appointed managing agents of Amco Ltd., for a period of 20 years from September 1, 1942. They were to be remunerated by payment of a commission of 7 1/2% on the annual profits of the company, which was liable to be increased under certain circumstances. By clause 4 of the agreement they were required 'to promote the interest and welfare of the business of the company (Amco Ltd.) and transact perform and superintend all such matters and things relating to the business and affairs of the company for carrying out its obje...
Govindram Mihamal Vs. Chetumal Villardas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Bom251; (1970)72BOMLR653; 1970MhLJ59
1. This is plaintiffs appeal, whose suit for recovery of an amount under a sarkat note has been dismissed by the two Courts below.2. So far as this appeal is concerned, no dispute on facts survives for consideration. Certain findings have been given by the two Courts below which are normally binding on this Court, Even otherwise, they appear to be in consonance with the facts and circumstances and do not require to be reconsidered. The position of facts that appears to be proved and which could be taken as a basis for the decision of this second appeal is this: Mithamal, the father of the plaintiff, as a karta of the joint Hindu family, advanced a loan to the defendant on 19-6-1950 under a sarkat note. The loan was renewed br acknowledged by another sarkat note, dated 9-6-1953, There was a third sarkat note, dated 9-6-1956. After their renewal Mithamal died in or about February 1958. The plaintiff, who is the eldest son of Mithamal, has filed the present suit on 15-6-1959 for recovery ...
Prabhakar Vishnu Naik Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Bom285; (1970)72BOMLR160; ILR1970Bom527
1. This appeal is filed by the original plaintiff whose plaint has been returned for presentation to the proper Court by the District Court. The short facts leading to the appeal are as follows: The plaintiff was serving in the Post and Telegraph Department as Sub-Post Master at Latur in Osmanabad District from October 8, 1953 to April 5, 1955. It appears that some amounts were misappropriated from the Post Office. He was, therefore, suspended from service on and from April 5, 1955. The postal authorities made an inquiry and had the accounts audited and it was found that a sum of Rs. 2925.56 appeared to have been misappropriated by the plaintiff. First Information Report (Ex. 55) was filed at the Police Station at Latur against the plaintiff. Later on, a charge-sheet was filed against him in the Court of the Special Judge Osmanabad for offences under Section 5(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 477A of the Indian Penal Code. At the trial, only three items were select...
Dr. G.D. Bendale Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-1969
Reported in: (1970)72BOMLR47; 1970MhLJ313
K.K. Desai, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner trust-the seva Educational Union-claims that in connection with a hostel for students that it is running at Jalgaon, the trust being a consumer, is entitled to exemption from levy of electricity duty under the provisions of Section 3(2)(iii) of the Bombay Electricity Duty Act, 1958. The contention on behalf of the State Government is that electricity duty is being recovered lawfully from the trust as the exemption claimed is not justified.2. The facts relevant to be noticed in connection with the above question are as follows:The petitioner trust is registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. The aims and objects of the trust are '(1) to promote the educational and cultural advancement of the society in all ways; (2) to conduct 'the Fakira Hari seva Boarding House' at Jalgaon; (3) to establish and conduct educational institutions; and (4) to spread education; ... '. The petitioner trust has ...
Chandrakant Ramrao Saraf and ors. Vs. Punde and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Bom221; (1970)72BOMLR89; ILR1970Bom654; 1970MhLJ343
K.K. Desai, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the grievance of the six petitioners who were members of the Turkabad Village Gram Panchayat is that their membership of the Panchayat had been illegally treated as vacated and cancelled and consequently on July 19, 1967 their names were illegally deleted from the voters' list for Gangapur Gat Panchayat Samiti, Turkabad. The grievance of the first petitioner is that on the basis of deletion of his name from the voters' list on July 19, 1967, the Tahsildar, as Returning Officer, Panchayat Samiti Election. Turkabad Gangapur had illegally rejected the first petitioner's nomination for contesting the election for the membership of Panchayat Samiti,2. The only facts which need to be noticed are as follows:The petitioners were elected as members of the Gram Panchayat for village Turkabad in December 1966. As elected members of the Gram Panchayat, the petitioners were eligible to vote and contest the elections for Panchay...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i Vs. Mehboob Productions Pvt. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-1969
Reported in: [1969]74ITR676(Bom)
Kotval, C.J. 1. The question stated for our decision at the instance of the Commissioner is : 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the amount of Rs. 95,148 representing the loss on conversion of the unmerited profit in Pakistan from Pakistani rupee to Indian rupee was an allowable loss in the assessments ?' 2. The question arises under the following circumstances : 3. Mehboob Productions Private Ltd. of Bombay carries on the business of film production in Indian and earns profits by distributing the films for exhibition in different parts of India and Pakistan. The assessment year with which we are concerned is 1956-57, the account year ending on 30th September, 1955. In the relevant year of account the assessee had a distribution office at Karachi in the name of Mehboob Pictures. The distributors used to regularly send statements of accounts and as the statements were received by the assessee in India the profit or loss was accounted for in the books of the asses...
Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-1969
Reported in: [1969]74ITR762(Bom)
V.S. Desai, J. 1. The assessee is a public limited company. Out of the total of 30,000 shares of the assessee-company's capital, 29,893 shares are held by its parent company known as the Premier Construction Co. Ltd. The parent company is admittedly a company in which the public are substantially interested. The shares of the assessee-company held by the Premier Construction Co. Ltd. were not the subject of any dealings in any stock exchange and according to the finding of the Tribunal they were freely transferable.2. In the account year of the assessee ended 30th June, 1953, for which the assessment year was 1954-55, the assessee's total computed income was Rs. 23,17.722. Income-tax and super-tax payable by the company excluding super-tax payable under Section 23A was Rs. 9,94,834. The assessable income of the company of the previous year as reduced by the amount of income-tax and super-tax payable by the company in respect thereof was, therefore, Rs. 13,22,988. The company had declar...
Kashiram Shriram Doble Vs. Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal at Nagpur and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-12-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Bom366; (1970)72BOMLR838; ILR1971Bom298; 1970MhLJ462
Kotval, C.J. 1. This reference raises an important question as to the jurisdiction of the Collector under Section 120 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (Bombay Act No, 99 of 1958), and it arises in this way.2. Survey No. 39/1, area 19.34 -acres of village Wadegaon, District Akola belonged to Madhao, the respondent No. 2 in the petition. On 20th October 1964 Madhao the respondent No. 2 made an application for possession under Section 120 of that Act against Kashiram the present petitioner alleging that he Madhao was cultivating the fields in the years 1962-63 and 1963-64 but that the petitioner Kashiram took unlawful possession without any right in the year 1964-65. Kashiram was merely appointed to help Madhao and his family in the cultivation of the lands and taking advantage of his position he entered into wrongful possession over the lands. The respondent No. 2 alleged that the petitioner was a mere trespasser. The application was filed before t...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »