Mumbai Court November 1973 Judgments
The Charity Commissioner Vs. Shri Vishram Bharati Goswami
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-1973
Reported in: (1974)76BOMLR475
Naik, J.1. This appeal and companion appeals raise an important question about the scope and interpretation of Section 8(2) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950--which shall be hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. It arises in this way:--In the vicinity of the famous Mumbadevi temple at Bombay there are temples of Shree Ganapati, Murlidhar and Indrayani. It appears that on some representations being made to the Charity Commissioner, in the matter of these three temples, the managers or trustees of these temples were called upon to apply &r; registration under Section 18 of the Act. They having declined to do so and contended that the temples in question are their private properties, the Assistant Charity Commissioner instituted suo motu enquiry in respect of these three temples. In the course of the enquiry, he sent notices to the managers of the three temples and also to the trustees of the Mumbadevi temple. But the trustees of tie Mumbadevi temple, however, informed the Assistant C...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Iii Vs. Himalayan Tiles and Ma ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-1973
Reported in: [1975]100ITR177(Bom)
S.K. Desai, J.1. This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, BOmbay Bench 'A', Bombay. 2. The reference arise out of the assessment of a private limited company for the year 1959-60, the corresponding accounting year being the calendar year 1958. 3. This country was incorporation on 25th March, 1953. One H. L. Gupta was carrying on various business under several names and styles such as Himalayan Tiles and Marbles, Modern Concrete Art Industries, Hima Spun Pipes Co., Agarwal Overseas Trading Corporation and Himalayan Food Products. The said H. L. Gupta was at all relevant times the managing director of the assessee-company, the other shareholders and directors being Shankuntaladevi H. Gupta. He an agreement dated 25th April, 1953, the assessee-company took over the said business of Himalayan Tiles and Marbles and the other subsidiary business carried on under the name and styles of Modern Concrete Art Industries...
Tag this Judgment!Hemchand Amarchand Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Ii
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-1973
Reported in: [1974]95ITR411(Bom)
S.K. Desai, J. 1. This reference has been made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay Bench 'A', under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. 2. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family deriving income from property assessable under section 9 of the Act. We are concerned with the assessment year 1958-59, the previous year being the year ended on 31st March, 1958. For that year, the Income-tax Officer had determined the property income at Rs. 12,320. It appears that, thereafter, the Commissioner exercising his powers under section 33B of the Act cancelled the said assessment and directed fresh assessment to be made. In order to understand the basis for this order and the fresh assessment a few facts may be stated : The Hindu undivided family of the assessee held a piece of land forming part of an estate known as 'Shanti Kunj', situate at 87, Naigam Cross Road, Dadar, Bombay. The said open plot was divided into six smaller portions and these were let out to six different...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Ii Vs. Raghavji Anandji and Co ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-1973
Reported in: [1975]100ITR246(Bom)
S.K. Desai, J.1. This is a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay Bench 'B', under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.2. The assessee is Messrs. Raghavji Anandji & Co. We are concerned with the assessment year 1959-60, the corresponding previous year being S. Y. 2014.3. Messrs. Raghavji Anandji & Co. is, as per the statement of the case, an old business, but it is not necessary to refer to its history earlier than 10th December, 1945. Prior to that date it consisted of nine partner, viz., Karsondas Mulji Purshottam Mulji, Haridas Mulji, Ratansey Lalji, Naranji Vallabhdas, Narottam Vallabhdas, Virji Vallabhdas, Nensey Goculdas and Bhagwandas Mathuradas. From that date one Vandravan Purshottam joined as a partner. Thereafter, there were changes in the constitution of the firm by partnership deeds dated 20th March 1950, and 27th February 1952, but they are not relevant for purpose of this reference. On 19th February, 1954, Vandravan PUrshottam was allowe...
Tag this Judgment!Amar Dye Chemical Limited Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-1973
Reported in: 1980CENCUS242D
1. This petition was filed on November 11, 1963 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to set aside the order dated August 22, 1963 passed in revision by the Central Government refusing to interfere with the order of the Excise Authorities rejecting the claim of Amar Dye Chem. Limited, the first petitioners (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioners') for the refund of Rs. 1,31,550.80 paid by them as excise duty under protest in respect of 47068.5 kgs. of dyes prepared in their factory, and raises the question whether the said dyes were 'manufactured' before the night of 28th February/1st March, 1961 so as to be excisable under the Finance Bill of 1961.2. By its judgment and order dated January 18, 1965 the Division Bench (Chainani, C.J. and Gokhale, J.) allowed the petition in part and ordered refund of excise duty to the extent of Rs. 47,747.02 ps. levied on 15,109.6 kgs. but rejected the petitioners' claim for refund of the balance of excise duty of Rs. 90,803.78. Against ...
Tag this Judgment!A.D. Shastri Vs. S.D. Patil and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-1973
Reported in: [1975(30)FLR206]; (1975)ILLJ458Bom
Per Nathwani, J.1. These two writ petitions under Art. 227 of the Constitution are disposed of by a common judgment as they raise a common question whether an office-bearer of a registered trade union who also happens to be a legal practitioner is entitled in his capacity as such officer to represent workmen before a Labour Court or Industrial Court under S. 36(1)(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 without obtaining consent of the other party required under S. 36(4) of the Act. 2. Messrs. Caprihans India Private Limited Co. (hereinafter referred to as the company) carries on business as manufacturers and owns factories at several places including Thana. The General Labour Union (Red Flag) and Caprihans Employees' Association, the petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 1960 of 1973, are both trade unions registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1925 and represent respectively. Company's factory workmen and staff employees, Mr. A. D. Shastry, the petitioner in Special Civil Appl...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City I Vs. Polychem Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-1973
Reported in: [1975]98ITR574(Bom)
S.K. Desai, J. 1. The assessee in this reference is M/s. Polychem Ltd., Bombay. The business of the assessee-company is the manufacture of polyester. We are concerned with the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60, the relevant previous years being the year ended on 31st March, 1958, and 31st March, 1959. 2. For the purpose of its business the assessee-company has procured necessary machinery abroad and after importing various items had them erected. In this reference we are not concerned with the cost of the machinery and the erection charges paid by the assessee-company to Messrs. Dodsal Private Ltd. and other companies which helped in the erection. Apart from these sums the assessee-company claimed a further amount of Rs. 3,97,561. Accordingly to the assessee-company, this amount was required to be treated as forming part of the actual cost of the plant and machinery so as to qualify for allowance of depreciation and development rebate allowable under section 10(2) of the Indian Inco...
Tag this Judgment!Baboolal Dalchand Maloniya Vs. the Director of Municipal Administratio ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Bom219; 1974MhLJ451
Dharmadhikari, J.1. Petitioner Babulal Dalchand Maloniya was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the Municipal Indian English Middle School, Saoner, on 2-7-1951. After the necessary training he was appointed on a regular scale from 5-4-1954 and was also confirmed in the said post with effect from 5-4-1954 itself. In the year 1957 the Indian English Middle School run by the Municipal Council was converted into a fullfledged High School and the petitioner was appointed as the Assistant Teacher in the same High School. In the year 1969, the petitioner was selected for training of B.Ed. course and he successfully passed the said examination in the year 1970. Thus, the petitioner was working as a trained Assistant Teacher in the Municipal High School. The third respondent to this petition, namely, Wasudeo Laxman Bharadwaj, was working as a Headmaster of the said High School. On 30-12-1972 respondent No. 3 Bharadwaj was to complete his age of 58 years, which is the age of superannuation acc...
Tag this Judgment!Vasant Sakharam Sanas Vs. Chabildas Sobhagchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-1973
Reported in: (1974)76BOMLR584
Naik, J.1. This is an appeal by the original defendant against the judgment and decree of the learned Extra Assistant Judge, Poona, in civil appeal No. 615 of 1966 confirming the decree passed by the 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Poona, in civil suit No. 207 of 1965 on the file of his Court, whereby the learned Civil Judge decreed the plaintiff-respondent's suit for specific performance of the suit agreement to lease and for possession.2. Briefly stated, the allegations on which the plaintiff-respondent's suit for specific performance of an agreement to lease and for possession was founded are these: It appears that in City Survey No. 122 of Bhavani Peth, Poona, there was a building which was originally owned by one Kamlabai Harilal Pandya. The entire structure being burnt down, the said property was purchased by the defendant. The defendant thereafter constructed a four storied building on the said open site. He secured the completion certificate from the Corporation of Poon...
Tag this Judgment!Ramdas Khimji Brothers Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City I
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1973
Reported in: [1974]97ITR361(Bom)
Vimadalal, J. 1. The facts giving rise to this reference are that there was a firm of the name of Ramdas Khimji & Co. doing cotton mukadami business for a Japanese firm called Gosho Kabushiki Kaisha Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Japanese firm') which was in existence in 1921 and the income from which had been charged to income-tax under the Indian Income-tax Act of 1918. It was first charged to super-tax in 1920-21. The constitution of that firm was changed from time to time and some of the partnership deeds relating to the name are on record. On 11th December, 1933, Ramdas Khimji & Co. ceased to act as mukadams for the Japanese firm, and from that date a firm which bore the name of Ramdas Khimji Bros. was appointed as mukadmi and broker to the Japanese firm. The constitution of the firm of Ramdas Khimji Bros. changed from 1st September, 1935, and it thereafter consisted of two partners, viz., Ramdas Khimji and Gopaldas Khimji, and a partnership deed was executed on 26th March,...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »