Mumbai Court April 1970 Judgments
K.i. Suratwala and Co. Vs. Mahmud Bidi Works Sholapur and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-29-1970
Reported in: AIR1972Bom238; (1972)74BOMLR131; ILR1972Bom317; 1972MhLJ340
Nain, J.1. This is an appeal by the original plaintiffs against the judgment dated 22nd October 1962 of the learned Civil Judge, S. D. , Sholapur, dismissing the plaintiffs' suit for recovery of Rupees 33,909.94.2.The plaintiffs instituted the suit for recovery of the said amount, interest and costs. The plaintiffs are a partnership firm and it has been proved that they were registered under the Indian Partnership Act 1932. The defendants No. 1 are also a partnership firm. The defendant No. 2 is an admitted partner in the said firm. He is the person who executed the agreement, Ex. 42, which is the subject - matter of this litigation. The defendants Nos. 3, 4 and 5 have defined that they were partners in the firm of defendants No. 1 at the time of the accrual of the cause of action.3.The agreement, Ex. 42, which is the subject - matter of this litigation was executed on 25th October 1957. Thereby the plaintiffs advanced to the defendant No. 1 a sum of Rs. 58,000/-. The defendant No. 1 c...
Tag this Judgment!Narayanrao Shamrao Deshmukh and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra Through ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-28-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Bom158; 1970MhLJ913
1. These two petitions raise a common question of law and aredealt with together.2. Special Civil Application No. 163 of 1967 is by the three heirs of one Shamrao Deshmukh who died on 15-6-1957 leaving behind him his son Narayanrao, his widow Sulochanabai and his mother Gangabai, who are the present petitioners. While Shamrao was alive he and the petitioner No. 1 formed a joint Hindu family in which according to the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937, Shamrao's widow and Narayanrao's mother Sulochanabai, had a right to claim partition in the event of the partition between the father and the son and after the death of Shamrao she had a right to claim partition from her son Narayanrao. The Hindu Succession Act which came into force with effect from 17th June 1956 made the mother also an heir along with the son and the widow and in the share owned by the deceased Shamrao during his life time the son, the widow and the mother held equal shares. As per the decision of the Division Be...
Tag this Judgment!Expanded Metal Depot Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bomb ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-28-1970
Reported in: [1971]80ITR483(Bom)
Mody, J.1. The question of law arising for consideration in this reference which is under section 66 (2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, is a short one and it is so far as we are concerned, covered by a judgment of a Division Bench of this High Court which, in our opinion, fully covers the point arising before us. 2. The assessee is a private limited company. The relevant assessment year is 1958-59, the corresponding, previous year being S. Y. 2013, which ended on 22nd October, 1957. A partnership firm of the name of Esoofally Abdulhussein & Expanded Metal Depot was carrying on business in zinc sheets and expanded metals. On the 1st of August, 1947, the firm dispatched certain goods from Bombay to the Controller of Stores, N. W. Railway, Lahore, under an agreement existing between the parties. Shortly thereafter, followed the partition of India. At that time a sum of Rs. 17,617 was due to that firm on account of that consignment. After partition that firm could not recover its clai...
Tag this Judgment!Muralilal Mahabir Prasad and ors. Vs. B.R. Vad and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-27-1970
Reported in: AIR1972Bom15; (1971)73BOMLR249; 1971MhLJ480
Vaidya, J. 1. This is an application for certificate under Article 133(1)(a) and (c) of the Constitution of India filed by the applicants whose Misc. Appln. No. 564 of 1965 (Bom) filed under Article 226 of the Constitution was dismissed by the judgment of this Court D/- 4, 5, 8-12-1969; and the question which arises is whether the said judgment is a judgment in respect of which the High Court can issue a certificate under Article 133(1)(a) or (c).2. Now, it is well established that the words 'judgment, decree or final order' in Article 133 cannot apply to a judgment recording an interlocutory finding or a finding which does not finally dispose of the rights of the parties. See Ramchand Manjimal v. Goverdhandas l Ratanchand 47 Ind App. 124 : AIR 1920 PC 86; Abdul Rahman v. D. K. Cassim & Sons ; Sardar Syenda Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay, : AIR1958SC253 ; Jethanand & Sons v. State of Uttar Pradesh, : [1961]3SCR754 ; Dr. Hori Ram Singh v. Emperor ; Sridhar Achari v. The King ;...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City I Vs. Anglo-french Drug Co. (E ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-27-1970
Reported in: [1971]81ITR593(Bom)
Mody, J.1. This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income tax Act, 1922, made at the instance of the revenue. It is a reference which can be sought and pressed on an assumption that there exists a complete vacuum of commonsense and a complete annihilation of law. It must, however, be stated to the credit of Mr. Joshi, the learned counsel for the revenue, that he has made his best, but very discreet, efforts on behalf of the revenue by merely formulating his points without advancing any argument. The facts have just to be stated to be a appreciated, no reference being necessary even to a text book of law, let alone decided cases. 2. The question of law referred is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 95,620 received by the assessee-company as acquisition-compensation in respect of portion of the lands held by the assessee on a lease agreement, is a capital receipt ?' 3. The assessee is a private limited company which carries on t...
Tag this Judgment!The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Girna Project Vs. Bhogilal Lalch ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-27-1970
Reported in: (1970)72BOMLR857; 1971MhLJ106
Vimadalal, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the learned Joint District Judge, Nasik, dated August 22, 1969, in a Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The land under acquisition comprises of the whole of S. No. 65 of Khayade village admeasuring 16 acres and 53 gunthas, and Potkharaba 1 acre and 34 gunthas, aggregating to 18 acres and 27 gunthas. According to the revenue records, the western part of that survey number was sub-divided into Hissa No. 1 admeasuring 9 acres and 2 gunthas, which together with Potkharaba 1 acre 7 gunthas, totalled to 10 acres and 9 gunthas; and the eastern part thereof was sub-divided into Hissa No. 2 admeasuring 7 acres and 31 gunthas, and Potkharaba 27 gunthas, admeasured in all 8 acres and 18 gunthas. It was the case of respondent No. 1 in this appeal that the whole of the land comprised in Hissa No. 1 of the said S. No, 65 belonged to him and was in his possession till the date of acquisition and he was entitled to compensation ...
Tag this Judgment!Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-24-1970
Reported in: [1971]81ITR777(Bom)
K.K. Desai, J.1. This consolidated reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, arises out of these separate orders of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, the first two dated November 17, 1962, and the third dated November 19, 1962. The above three orders relate, respectively, to the assessment years 1950-51, 1951-52 and 1953-54, the accounting years, respectively, ending with May 31, 1950, May 31, 1951, and May 31, 1953. 2. The question of law arising for decision in respect of each of the above assessment years are mentioned at paragraph 13 of the statement of the case and it is convenient to mention them after relating some of the relevant facts. 3. The facts appear in the regard statement of the case. The facts which must be stated as introductory facts are as follows : The assessee is a public limited company, limited by shares. It derives income from several sources including certain business operations. These operations are carried out in India and abroad and...
Tag this Judgment!Shankar Gopal Jagdale Vs. Prabhakar Dattatraya Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-22-1970
Reported in: (1970)72BOMLR695
Vaidya, J.1. The above Special Civil Application, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the decision of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Poona, dated March 31, 1967. The petitioners are the tenants; and respondents Nos. 1 to 4 arc the heirs of the original landlord Dattatraya Govind Kulkarni, who obtained a certificate under Section 88C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 19.V8, and filed Tenancy Case No, 101 of 1902 praying for possession on the ground of bona fide requirement for personal cultivation under Section 33B of the Act, after terminating the tenancy of the petitioners, in respect of the lands in dispute between the parties situate at Nidhal in Taluka Khatav. The Tenancy Mahalkari by his order' dated July 8, 1904, ordered that the possession of the suit lands should be given by the petitioners to Dattatraya Govind Kulkarni under Section 33B read with Section 29 of the Act. The petitioners carried an appeal under Section 74 of the ...
Tag this Judgment!B.S. Heera Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-17-1970
Reported in: [1971]81ITR140(Bom)
Mody, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has held that a sum of Rs. 58,275 in the hands of the assessee was chargeable to tax under section 4(1)(b)(ii) read with its second proviso. At the instance of the assessee the Tribunal has made this reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. 2. The assessee is an individual. The assessment year relevant to this reference is 1958-59, the corresponding previous year being the year ended on 31st March, 1958. During thus previous year the assessee as 'resident but not ordinarily resident'. The assessee had no business in India during this previous year. During this previous year the assessee had two accounts in India. One of the accounts was with his son, Mulchand Heera, and the other was with Messrs. Heera Traders Private Ltd. Between 20th April, 1957, and 17th December, 1957, various amounts aggregating to Rs. 39,575.25 were credited to the assessee's account with Mulchand by various drafts from Singapore. On 16th Janu...
Tag this Judgment!Dhondiram Dalichand Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Poona
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-14-1970
Reported in: [1971]81ITR609(Bom)
K.K. Desai, J.1. The questions of law that arise for decision in this reference under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, is as follows : 'Was there any material on the basis of which it can reasonably be said that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the method of accounting employed is such that the income, profits and gains cannot properly be deduced therefrom ?' 2. The applicant-assessed carries on business in handloom cloth at Poona and at Bombay. For the assessment year 1958-59, corresponding to the accounting year S. Y. 2013, the Income-tax Officer rejected the assessee's case that he had made gross profits of 7.8 per cent. as disclosed in the return. For the purpose of arriving at the above finding, the Income-tax Officer relied upon the following circumstances : (1) To show that he could only make low profits, the assessee had made a false case that he was a wholesale dealer and not a retail dealer. The fact was the from the above sales of the value of Rs...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »