Mumbai Court January 1971 Judgments
Vithoba Rama Randive Vs. Dhairyasinharao Bhayasaheb Ghatge and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Bom122; (1971)73BOMLR752; ILR1972Bom882; 1972MhLJ35
ORDER1. This is a Revision Application from the order of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kagal, declining to make a Reference to the authorities under the Bombay Tenancy Act, 1948, under Section 85 - A thereof, of the issue as to whether the present petitioner is a tenant within the meaning of that Act. The plaintiff - landlord had filed the suit in that Court for possession of his half share in land bearing S. No. 84/1 and for mesne profit. By his written statement, the first defendant - tenant had, inter aliaa, contended that the court had no jurisdiction to decide whether he was a tenant under the Bombay Tenancy Act and hence an issue in that behalf should be referred to the competent authorities under that Act for decision. The trial court declined to make the Reference on the ground that that issue had already been decided against the present petitioner on 18-10-1960 by the authorities under the said Act in proceedings under Section 88 - C between the same parties in respect of ...
Tag this Judgment!Gool Rustomji Lala Vs. Jal Rustomji Lala and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Bom113; (1971)73BOMLR600; ILR1972Bom1210; 1971MhLJ1038
ORDER1. This is a dispute between the sister and her brother. The petitioner and Respondent No. 1 are respectively the daughter and son of late Rustomji Lala, who was the tenant of a flat on the fifth floor of the building known as 'Joshi House.' Cumballa Hill, Bombay 26. Rustomji Lala was the contractual tenant. He was residing in the flat with his wife and three children. His wife died in 1942. His one son Sohrab left India and went abroad in 1948, Since that time Rustomji stayed in the flat with petitioner and Respondent No. 1. It appears that in 1947 Rustomji gifted away his another building 'Jor Mahal' to the petitioner. In 1952 he transferred his business to his son the Respondent No. 1. On 19-2-54 Rustomji made a Will. Under that Will he gave away all his moveables and the tenancy right in the suit flat to the petitioner. Rustomji died on 12-3-1958. The petitioner obtained the probate of the Will on 17-9-1964. The landlord had given notice terminating the tenancy of the petition...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Poona Vs. Sunderlal N. Daga and ors. (No. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-1971
Reported in: [1971]81ITR73(Bom)
Mody, J.1. This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The assessment year relevant to this reference is 1946-47, the corresponding previous year being the year which ended on Diwali of 1945. 2. One Sodradevi, widow of Narsinghdas Daga, and her three major sons constituted certain partnerships and her three minor sons were admitted to the benefits of those partnerships. Narsinghdas Daga died some time in 1945. The eldest son is Dwarkadas and the three minor sons are Gowardhandas, Hiralal and Sunderlal. On 2nd January, 1948, each of the three minor sons filed a voluntary return of income for the above assessment year. The return was signed by Dwarkdas. The return showed the income received by the minor as his share of profits in the said partnerships. The Income-tax Officer made his order dated the 30th March, 1948, under section 23(3) and closed the case of the three assessees as included in the income of his mother, Sodradevi, under section 16(3) (a) (ii) and ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Poona Vs. Sunderlal N. Daga and ors. (No. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-1971
Reported in: [1971]81ITR84(Bom)
Mody, J.1. This is a reference under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The assessment year relevant to this reference is 1947-48, the corresponding previous year being the year which ended on Diwali of 1946.2. One Sodradevi, widow of Narsinghdas Daga, and her three major sons constituted certain partnerships and her three minor sons are Gowardhandad, Hiralal an Sunderlal. On 3rd January, 1949, each of the three minor sons made a voluntary return of income for the above assessment year. The return was signed by Dwarkadas. The return showed the income received by the minor as his share of profits in the said partnerships. The Income-tax Officer, however, has passed no order whatever on that return. He, however, included the income of the 3 minors shown in the returns in the assessment of their mother, Sodradevi, treating the same as being includible under the provisions of section 16(3) (a) (ii).3. Sodradevi filed an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against the inc...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Poona Vs. Sunderlal N. Daga (No. 1)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-1971
Reported in: [1971]81ITR52(Bom)
Padhye, J.1. This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, and relates to the assessment years 1949-50, 1950-51, 1952-53 and 1953-54. The question that is referred for our answer is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the initiation of action under section 34(1) (b) read with the second proviso to section 34(3) against the assessee, for the assessment years 1949-50, 1950-51, 1952-53 and 1953-54 by the Income-tax Officer by notice dated October 4, 1960, legal and valid ?' The few facts which are relevant and necessary for answering the question are these : One Narsinghdas Daga with his wife, Sodradevi, and six sons, of whom three were majors and three were minors, formed a Hindu undivided family. There was a partition in the family on October 18, 1944 amongst the aforesaid eight members. After the said partition, the mother, Sodradevi, and her three major sons entered into a partnership and the three minor sons were admitted to the b...
Tag this Judgment!Shivamurti Vs. Vijaysing Vinayakrao Dudhe
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Bom152; (1971)73BOMLR709
1. The respondent is a minor represented by his mother as his guardian ad litem. Some time in the year 1957, there was a partition as between the members of the joint family of which he was a member till then, in which the land in dispute in the present proceedings came to the share of the respondent. It appears that thereafter it was the mother of the respondent who acted as the natural guardian in respect of his property. On the 7th of February 1962, an agreement for Sale of the land now in dispute was executed in favour of the appellant by the respondent's father as the constituted attorney of the respondent's mother acting as the natural guardian of the respondent for the price of Rs. 6000/-. A fresh agreement for Sale of the said land for a higher price was thereafter executed on 17th July 1962 by the respondent's father, as such constituted attorney, under which it was stipulated that a Sale Deed was to be executed on or before 11th December 1962. Payments aggregating in all to R...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Maharashtra Vs. Moreshwar Govinda Chinchalkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-1971
Reported in: (1971)73BOMLR823; 1971MhLJ852
Khan, J.1. The short point involved in this reference made by the Sessions Judge of Chandrapur is whether sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is necessary to prosecute the office-bearers and members of a Municipal Council, established under the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965.2. Admittedly, Shankar Deshmukh and Sambayya (opponents Nos. 2 and 3) were respectively President and Vice-President of the Municipal Council of Rajura, whereas opponents Nos. 4 to 7 were members when the incident took place on June 9, 1969. It is alleged that they entered the house of complainant Moreshwar (opponent No. 1) along with some labourers on that day and directed the labourers to demolish the complainant's latrine. Accordingly, this was done and a portion of compound wall was also demolished, thereby causing damage to the complainant to the tune of about Rs. 2,000. Describing this act as illegal and unlawful, complainant Moreshwar filed a private complaint against opponents...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Jankibai Prahladrai Brijlal Seksaria Vs. Kashinath Raghunath Kelk ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Bom199; (1971)73BOMLR729; 1972MhLJ92
ORDERGatne, J.1. This civil revision application has been directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court at Bombay on 16-2-1970 in Suit No. 1362 of 1960 on his file.2. The suit in question was filed by two plaintiffs, who happen to be the trustees of the Bhagoji Balooji Keer Public Religious and Charitable Trust.This trust was created under a Deed of Trust made by Bhagoji Balooji Keer on 15-5-1930. This Trust has been duly registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. The properties included in this Trust admittedly include the property bearing Cadastral City Survey No. 657 situate at Mahim, Shortly after this Trust was made--in fact within seven days thereafter Bhagoji Keer acquired another property bearing Cadastral City Survey No. 656. This property is adjacent to the property bearing Cadastral City Survey No. 657 and some structures have been constructed thereon. One of them is 'Dnyan Mandir' now known as Shree C...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Maharashtra Vs. Vinod S. Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-1971
Reported in: (1971)73BOMLR838; 1972MhLJ84
Vaidya, J.1. The above appeal is filed by the State of Maharashtra against the order of acquittal passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, IInd Court, Thana, on April 15, 1969, acquitting the respondent Vinod S. Shah, Manager of Mukund Iron and Steel Works Ltd. at Kalwa, District Thana. The only question which arises in this appeal is whether the pit in respect of which the Inspector of Factories had filed a complaint against the accused was a pit in the factory within the meaning of Section 33 of the Factories Act, 1948.2. It is undisputed that the pit was being dug 400 feet away from the sheds including the stores and offices in which the factory of Messrs Mukund Iron and Steel Works Ltd. has been working. The entire area of land belonging to the factory consists of 150 acres. It is clear from the sketch exh. 8 in the case that the sheds comprising the factory proper cover an area of only 5 acres. In the complaint filed by the Factory Inspector on September 2, 1968, it was all...
Tag this Judgment!Karsondas Ranchhoddas (Legal Heirs of Late Ranchhoddas Jethabhai) Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-1971
Reported in: [1972]83ITR256(Bom)
Chandrachud, J.1. The assessee, Karsondas Ranchhoddas, filed three applications before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal asking it to refer to the High Court certain questions of law said to arise out of the consolidate order of the Tribunal in I. T. As. Nos. 7181, 7182 and 7183 of 1962-63. By its order dated the 9th of October, 1964, the Tribunal has drawn up a statement of the case and has referred the following question for the opinion of the High Court under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the losses amounting to Rs. 602, Rs. 91,778 and Rs. 9,897 suffered by the assessee on sale of shares in the account years relevant to the assessment years. 1956-57, 1958-59 and 1959-60, respectively, could be allowed as deductions as business losses while determining his total income for the relevant assessment years ?'2. The assessee was a partner in three registered firms at the relevant time and received income from proper...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »