Mumbai Court March 1971 Judgments
V.A. Nair Vs. Indian Hume Pipe Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-1971
Reported in: (1973)ILLJ126Bom
Chandrachud, J.1. By this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioning unions challenge an award of the Industrial Tribunal dated January 31, 1969 in References Nos. 290 and 291 of 1965. These references were made by the Government of Maharashtra under S. 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for adjudication of a claim for bonus for the year 1963-64 ending June 30, 1964. 2. Reference No. 290 of 1965 relates to the claim for bonus for made on behalf of the daily-rated workmen employed by the 2nd respondent, the Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd., Bombay, in their Wadala factory. The workmen claimed bonus at the rate of 6 months' total earnings for 1963-64, unconditionally. In Reference No. 291 of 1965, the staff working at the head office in Bombay and the monthly rated staff at the Wadala factory claimed bonus unconditionally at 30 per cent. of their total wages, inclusive of dearness allowance and whether they were in service or not after the close of the yea...
Tag this Judgment!The Sholapur Municipal Corporation Vs. Dhananjay Dhondusa Kolhapure
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-1971
Reported in: (1972)74BOMLR169; 1972MhLJ398
Mody, J.1. This is a Civil Revision Application filed by the Sholapur City Municipal Corporation against the opponent who is the owner of House No. 479, East Mangalwar Peth, Sholapur. Till some time in 1964 there was in the City of Sholapur the Sholapur Municipality, hereinafter referred to as 'the Sholapur Municipality', which was a Municipality under the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925, hereinafter referred to as 'the old Act'. On the 1st of January 1964 the Sholapur Municipality issued a notice to the opponent under the provisions of Section 81 of the old Act intimating that the rateable value of the said house Was sought to he increased from Rs. 380 to Rs. 600 per year. Under the liberty available to the opponent under Section 81 of the old Act, the opponent filed objections against the proposal to enhance the rateable value. The opponent's objections were heard on the 17th of March 1964 by the Appellate Committee which thereafter rejected the objections. On the 30th of April 1...
Tag this Judgment!isabel M. Rebello Vs. Kasarchand Anandram Banthia and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-1971
Reported in: AIR1973Bom35; (1972)74BOMLR114; ILR1972Bom1223; 1972MhLJ349
ORDER1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India raises an interesting point of interpretation of Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.2. The petitioner is the widow of one M. C. Rebello. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are the sons of M. C. Rebello. M. C. Rebello was a monthly tenant of a shop admeasuring 7' X 17' situated in municipal house No. 360, Panvel. The rent of the premises was Rs. 14/- per month. Respondent No.1 is the landlord of the premises. On September 3, 1964, respondent No.1 served M. C. Rebello with a notice terminating his tenancy on the ground that M. C. Rebello had failed and neglected to pay arrears of rent from November 1, 1963. Before the expiry of one month after the notice, on September 28, 1964, M. C. Rebello paid Rs.100/- to respondent No.1 and respondent No.1 accepted the same towards the arrears. Respondent No.1 filed on October 17, 1964 a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Ii Vs. Mimraj Manmal Ruia
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-29-1971
Reported in: [1972]84ITR673(Bom)
Chandrachud, J.1. The assessee, a speculator in cotton and shares, also derives income from salary, properties and dividends. At the end of S. Y. 2014, corresponding to the assessment year 1959-60, his liabilities included an overdraft from the Bank of India Ltd., Kalbadevi branch, in the sum of Rs. 1,63,904 and loans from sundry creditors amounting to Rs. 2,94,206. Among other items of income, he returned an income of Rs. 27,677 from dividends and claimed against it a deduction of Rs. 18,934 which was made up of interest at Rs. 9,408 paid to the bank and interest at Rs. 9,526 paid to the other creditors. 2. The Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the whole of the deduction as a business loss under section 10(2) (iii) and not under section 12(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, as claimed by the assessee. By a cryptic order, the Tribunal has allowed the deduction to the extent of Rs. 9,408 only which amount was paid by the assessee to the bank by way of inte...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax, Bombay City I Vs. Ramgopal Ganpatr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-28-1971
Reported in: [1972]85ITR272(Bom)
Mody, J.1. This is a reference under section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, read with section 21 of the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940. The assessee is a private limited company. The assessments relate to the corresponding chargeable accounting periods ended on 31st March of 1944, 1945 and 1946. An agreement dated 13th July, 1936, was arrived at between the Dhanraj Mills Ltd., hereinafter referred to as 'the mill company', and Raja Dhanrajgir, hereinafter referred to as 'the Raja'. This agreement will be referred to us 'the Raja's managing agency agreement'. Under that agreement the mill company appointed the Raja as its managing agent for a period of fifty years, commencing from the date of the registration of the mill company was Rs. 10,00,000 divided into 10,000 shares of Rs. 100 each. 2. A tripartite agreement dated 3rd September, 1937, was arrived at between the mill company, the Raja and one Ramgopal Ganpatrai, the karta of a Hindu undivided family, hereinafter referred...
Tag this Judgment!Umabai Trimbakrao Talukdar and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Bom293; 1971MhLJ815
ORDER1. Field Survey No. 402, area 30 acres 1 guntha of Jarud was owned by Kashibai wife of Balwantrao Kalamkar. She was a widow having lost her husband in about the year 1951 and herself died on 2-6-1964. The respondent No. 3 Pralhad has been a tenant of this field since the time of Kashibai. After the death of Kashibai, the field was inherited by her three daughters Umabai, Radhabai and Shakuntala, who are the petitioners in this case. Out of them, the petitioner No. 1 Umabai is a widow since about the year 1921. On the death of Kashibai, the petitioners succeeded to the property left by Kashibai in equal shares and under Section 19 of the Hindu Succession Act, inherited the property as tenants-in-common and not as joint tenants. Each of them took the property per capita and not per stirpes, each of them having one-third share in the field in dispute.2. Suo motu proceedings were started by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Morshi after the death of Kashi bai under Section 48 of the Bo...
Tag this Judgment!Aiyasha Begum and ors. Vs. Kapurchand Rahmal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Bom145; (1971)73BOMLR754; ILR1972Bom619; 1971MhLJ987
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the original defendants 1 - A, 1 - B and 1 - C against the judgment and decree dated June 22, 1967, made by the Principal Judge of the City Civil Court declaring that the gala No. 10 mentioned in the plaint had been validly assigned to the plaintiff under the deed of assignment dated September, 19, 1958, and further declaring that these appellants were trespassers and not entitled to remain in possession of a portion of the above gala No. 10 and granting a decree in ejectment as against these appellants and further granting compensation at the rate of Rs. 20/- per month as from April 19, 1958, till delivery of possession and costs of the suit.2. The plaintiff's case was that defendants 2 and 3 i.e., Chhotu Balu and Hansu Murat were joint tenants of the above gala No. 10. These two persons resided at and in a portion of the above gala and also carried on their business of gas welding in the gala. These two persons sold to the plaintiff under a deed of a...
Tag this Judgment!N.N. Rao Vs. Greaves Cotton and Co. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-1971
Reported in: (1973)ILLJ81Bom
Kotval, C.J.1. This special civil application is directed against an order passed by the Industrial Tribunal under S. 33(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act granting permission to Messrs. Greaves Cotton & Co. Limited the employer to dismiss the petitioner N. N. Rao. The petitioner was a clerk serving in the respondent-company. He holds a B.Com. Degree. The ground upon which permission was sought was that the petitioner had during a strike prevented another worker one K. G. Naik from going to work in the 'cone plant' of the company on Sayani Road, Dadar, Bombay at about 7 a.m. on 13th March, 1967. 2. The workmen of the company went on strike in the works of the company and its allied concerns on 13th March, 1967. One K. G. Naik who was willing to work was proceeding towards the cone plant at about 7 a.m. when it is said that the petitioner and two or three others first dissuaded him from going in, they surrounded him and abused and threatened him when he expressed a desire to proceed. A c...
Tag this Judgment!Trimbak Purshottam Patil Vs. Yashodabai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Bom295; 1971MhLJ523
ORDER1. The respondent is the tenure-holder of fields survey Nos. 8/6, 69/1A and 69/1B, total area 16 acres 29 gunthas of mouza Isapur, taluq Akot, district Akola. She gave a notice to the petitioner under Section 38 (1) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, (hereinafter called the Tenancy Act), on 10-2-1961 alleging that the petitioner Is her tenant and she wants the aforesaid lands bona fide for her personal cultivation. This notice was followed by an application on 23-3-1961 under Section 36(2) read with Section 38 (1) of the Tenancy Act.2. Evidence was led in the case and the application was rejected by the Naib Tahsildar on merits holding that her need is not bona fide. In appeal, the order of the Naib Tahsildar was set aside by the Special Deputy Collector by his order dated 22-9-1962 and the case was remanded for fresh trial. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Naib Tahsildar on remand, the respondent withdrew her application for resumption on 6-11-1962...
Tag this Judgment!The Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Bombay Vs. Hirjibhoy Manc ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-1971
Reported in: (1971)73BOMLR880; 1972MhLJ153
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the Charity Commissioner against the order dated December 17, 1965, made by Mr. Judge Zambre directing that clauses 7 and 8 of the scheme framed by the Charity Commissioner be dropped and consequential modifications be made in the scheme.2.Mr. Naik for the Charity Commissioner has submitted that the finding made by the learned Judge that having regard to the scheme in Sections 47 and 47-AA the power vested in the Charity Commissioner under Section 50-A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, to frame a scheme does not include power to appoint trustees, is contrary to the intent of the provisions in Section 50-A and not sustainable. The observation of the learned Judge that a scheme framed in respect of a public trust under Section 50-A by the Charity Commissioner would be a set of rules for guidance of the trustees and may provide for number of the trustees and the mode of appointment of trustees and vesting of the trust properties in trustees so appoin...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »