Mumbai Court February 1970 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.
Wadilal Chunilal Vs. Murlidhar Girdharlal Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-1970
Reported in: (1970)72BOMLR723
Vimadalal, J.1. This is a petition filed by the sole surviving executor of the will of one Girdharlal Nahalehand for review of the Order passed by me in Chambers on March 20,1969 whereby I had ordered that the inventory and accounts filed by the said executor and tendered in Court on that day be taken on file and had given further directions in the following terms:-And I do further order that in the event of accounts being disputed the same be referred to the Commissioner of this Honourable Court for taking accounts and I do further order that the Commissioner do examine the same and certify to this Court whether the said Inventory and accounts represent a true, complete and just account of the administration of the estate of the abovenamed deceased.2. In the proceedings that ensued before the Commissioner of Accounts, on August 12,1969, the applicant, who is a legatee under the Will of the deceased and at whose instance the said Order was made, brought in objections and surcharges to ...
Erandol Taluka Gramodyog, Utpadak Sahakari Society, Erandol Vs. Sunil ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Bom91; (1970)72BOMLR620; (1970)6CompLJ212(Bom); 1970MhLJ923
1. This second appeal arises out of execution proceedings adopted by the Respondent against the Appellant. The Respondent filed a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Delhi, against the Appellant and obtained a money decree in the sum of Rupees 1400 in respect of the amount claimed in the suit and a sum of Rs. 277.99 P. for costs. The decree was passed ex parte. After obtaining the decree the Respondent got it transferred to the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Erandol, and filed an execution application, being Regular Darkhast No. 14 of 1964, in the transferee Court. The Appellant filed objections thereto. The principal contention of the Appellant was that the Appellant Is a registeredco-operative society and the suit was instituted without giving to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies the requisite notice under Section 164 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, and that for this reason, the suit was not maintainable and the decree passed by the subo...
State Vs. Shantilal Vallabhadas Pandya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1970
Reported in: AIR1970Bom240; (1970)72BOMLR905; 1970CriLJ952
ORDER1. This is a reference by the Learned Sessions Judge, Wardha, for quashing the conviction passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, (Second Court). Wardha, on an accused who was found guilty under Section 26(2) of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act. He is alleged to have behaved in a disorderly manner within the premises of a polling station on the day of the election. On 14-6-1967 there was an election going on in the Municipal Town Hall at Pulgaon. On that day accused No. 1 Shantilal for whom the reference is made and another accused Dwarka Prasad were shouting and behaving in a disorderly manner in the premises of that Polling Station and causing disturbances. The Presiding Officer as well as the Polling Officers who were on duty could not, therefore, continue their work. The Presiding Officer, therefore, reported the matter to the Police Officers there and in consequence thereof, both the accused were arrested and charge-sheeted. Both the accused admitted their presence ...
Santdas Moolchand Jhangiani and anr. Vs. Sheodayal Gurudasmal Massand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Bom237; (1971)73BOMLR42; ILR1971Bom457; 1970MhLJ419
Nain, J.1. This is a revision application against an order dated 2nd December, 1969, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur. By this order he has decided a preliminary issue, being issue No. 8 in the suit, as to whether the document which the parties described as a deed of dissolution of partnership, or, in so far as it pertained to payment or certain amounts of money by the continuing partner to the outgoing partners, it was also a bond within the meaning of Section 2 and Article 13 of Schedule I of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958.2. The two plaintiffs and the defendant entered into a partnership under a deed of partnership dated 11th June, 1960 and carried on partnership business in Nagpur and Bhopal in the name and style 'Messrs. Oriental Engineering Company'. They decided to dissolve this partnership with effect from 1st April, 1966, settle the accounts of the partnership, and provide for the defendant continuing the partnership business, payment of amounts found due...
Ramkrushna Gangaram Rathi and anr. Vs. Kisan Zingraji Madke and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Bom305; ILR1971Bom885; 1970MhLJ836
Padhye, J.1. The only question pressed in this petition is, whether the requisition for convening a meeting to pass a resolution to remove a President of a Municipal Council need state the grounds on which the President is to be removed.2. Section 55 provides for the removal of President and Vice-President.This section is the subject-matter of the main controversy in this petition and the construction of this provision is the matter of debate. Portion of Section 55 which is relevant for the purposes of the present controversy needs to be reproduced. It is:'Section 55 (1). A president or a Vice President shall cease to be President or Vice President as the case may be, if the Council by a resolution passed by a majority of the total number of councillors (excluding the co-opted councillors) at a special meeting so decides. (2) The requisition for such a special meeting shall be signed by not less than one-fourth of the total number of councillors (excluding the co-opted councillors) and...
Shah Prabhudas Gulabchand Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-1970
Reported in: [1970]77ITR870(Bom)
K.K. Desai, J.1. This reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, is the result of two separate applications made respectively by Messrs. Shah Prabhudas Gulabchand, hereinafter referred to as 'the firm', being one assessee in the reference, and Chandrakant Prabhudas, being the individual assessee in the reference. The questions relate to the assessment year 1959-60, the corresponding accounting period being Samvat year 2014. The two questions arising for decision are as follows : '(1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of this case, the applicant is entitled to renewal of registration for the year 1959-60 (2) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of this case, the assessment made on the karta of the Hindu undivided family of the income of the business carried on in the name of Shah Prabhudas Gulabchand is justified in law ?' 2. The facts appear in the statement of the case. The facts which require to be noticed are as follows : About six months prior to Oc...
P.D. Ghanekar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City I
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-1970
Reported in: [1971]80ITR236(Bom)
Mody, Actg.C.J.1. This is a reference under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.2. The question referred is : 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the sums of Rs. 42,500 (rupees forty-two thousand five hundred) and Rs. 35,000 (rupees thirty-five thousand) received in the assessment years 1957-58 and 1958-59, respectively, were exempt under section 4(3)(vii) of the Income-tax Act ?' 3. One Dandekar was claiming a sum of Rs. 3,25,000 from Messrs. H. Fischer and Co. Pvt. Ltd. In respect of that claim certain correspondence was exchanged between Dandekar and the company and/or their respective legal advisers, between the end to May and about the beginning of July, 1956. In the course of that correspondence the company disputed the claim and Dandekar threatened to file a suit for recovering his claim. Mr. Vartak was the chairman of the company and one S. G. Pradhan was its managing director at the relevant time. The assessee, Mr. Ghanekar, is a chartered accoun...
Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Bombay Vs. P.K. Badiani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-1970
Reported in: [1970]76ITR369(Bom)
Modi, Actg.C.J.1. This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. 2. The questions referred are : '(1) Whether the development rebate reserve created by the company by duly discharging the amount to the profit and loss account and being allowable under the Act constituted 'accumulated profits' of the company within the meaning of section 2(6A)(e) of the Act (2) If the answer to question No. 1 is in the affirmative, whether the development rebate reserve provided for the accounting year 1957 alone would constitute 'accumulated profits' of the company within the meaning of section 2(6A)(e) of the Act to the exclusion of the development rebate reserve provided in earlier years (3) Whether the debit balance in the mutual, open and current account of the assessee with the company at any point of time could be taken to represent an advance or loan by the company to the assessee within the meaning of section 2(6A)(e) of the Act (4) Whether, on the facts and in the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›