Mumbai Court January 1971 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.
Karsondas Ranchhoddass (Legal Heir of Ranchhoddas Jethabhai - Deceased ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1971
Reported in: [1972]83ITR1(Bom)
Kotval, C.J.1. The facts and the circumstances under which this reference arose have already been stated in our order of 16th July, 1969, and it is unnecessary to repeat them. By that order for the reasons stated in the penultimate paragraph we reframed one of the questions and called for a fresh statement of the case. The questions as reframed are as follows :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the business of dealing in shares was not being carried on by the assessee in the year of account 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to the loss of Rs. 44,190 (Rupees forty-four thousand one hundred ninety) as business loss in the year of account ?' 2. The assessment year with which we are concerned is 1954-55 corresponding to the account year 2009 Samvat year. The dispute concerns an item of Rs. 44, 190 which the assessee claimed as a loss incurred in the year of account fro...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Joseph Anthony Pereira
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-1971
Reported in: (1971)73BOMLR613; 1972MhLJ90
Vaidya, J.1. [His Lordship after setting out the facts, proceeded]. The conviction is not challenged by accused No. 1 before me. It is clear that the learned Magistrate was inclined to hold that the conviction of accused No. 1 is necessary in view of the provisions of Section 34(2) of the Act. It is true that when awarding the sentence, which is less than the minimum sentence, the learned Magistrate has not done his duty of specifying the special reasons, which he ought to have stated under Section 27 of the Act. It is also true that the offence under Section 18 is a serious offence, as the drugs which are not of standard quality or mis-branded are dangerous to public life and harmful to the community. So far as the offence of absence of licence was concerned, the offence charged against the accused is regarding failure to renew the licence. He originally had a licence; and it appears that he made an application for renewal after the time had expired and obtained the licence in April 1...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Joseph Anthony Pareira
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-1971
Reported in: 1972CriLJ274
ORDERVaidya, J.1. This isan application in revision filed by the State of Maharashtra for enhancing the sentence passed against the respondent. Joseph Anthony Pareira. The respondent was tried along with three others in the Court of the Presidency Magistrate, 28th Court. Esplanade, Bombay, for the offences under Sections 18 (a) (i) and 18 (c), all read with Section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 : ' The respondent was the Director and Chief Chemist of M/s Edison's Continental-Laboratories Private Ltd. Among other products the said company produced certain tablets known as Prednisolone tablets Batch No. 8659. The officers of the Intelligence Branch drew several samples of the said tablets from 5 or 6 dealers in Bombay and on analysis the Government Analyst reported that the samples did not conform to the standard prescribed by law. It was also found that the company's licence for manufacturing drugs had expired on December 31, 1967 and had not been renewed. The case of the accu...
Champalal Ganeshmal Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-1971
Reported in: (1971)73BOMLR540; 1971MhLJ763
Palekar, J.1. This appeal comes before us on a reference by Kamat J. The appellant Champalal Ganeshmal had been convicted by the learned Presidency Magistrate, First Additional Court, V.T., Bombay, under Section 124 of the Bombay Police Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 100.2. The brief facts in the case are that on October 4, 1960, at about 5 p.m., the appellant was seen standing near the crossing of Yusuf Meherally Road and Abdul Rahman Street near Crawford Market. P.S.I. Bhambre accompanied by Police Constable Vithal Bapu Kamble (P. W. I.) was passing that way to make certain inquires. The movements of the appellant-accused excited their suspicion, and so they accosted him and asked him why he was standing there. The appellant stated that he was waiting for a friend. That did not satisfy the officers and so the appellant was searched in the presence of panchas. In the course of the search, two paper-packets were found in both the trouser-p...
Balakrishna Pillai and ors. Vs. Anant Engineering Works Private Limite ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-1971
Reported in: (1974)76BOMLR575; (1975)IILLJ391Bom
Sawant, J.1. This is a petition by 34 workmen of the first respondent concern against the decision of the Second Additional Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, in Applications Nos. 229 to 262 of 1967. 2. Briefly the facts leading to the petition are as follows : 3. Sometime in the year 1968 the workers were laid-off for ten days and they were paid wages to the extent of 50% of their normal wages for the said period of ten days. The workers, therefore, filed the aforesaid applications before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act claiming full wages for the period of ten days on the ground that the Model Standing Orders which enabled the employer to lay-off the workmen did not apply to them, since at the relevant time the workers employed in the first respondent-concern were less than 100. The contention of the workmen before the Authority, therefore, was that under the contract of service they were entitled to full wages for the said period and the payment of half wages onl...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›