Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1959Bom421; (1959)61BOMLR380; ILR1959Bom1368
S.T. Desai, J.1. A short but interesting question of construction of Section 15C of the Income-tax Act arises for our determination on this reference, which come before us at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax Bombay, under Section 66(1). The facts may be briefly stated. A partnership firm consisting of three partners started doing business of manufacturing shoes from 1-7-1948 in the firm name of 'Coral and Co.' There was another concern -- The Gaekwar Foam and Rubber Co. which was a limited liability company registered on 21-7-1949. Owing ti devaluation of currency, this latter company had difficulties in carrying on its business of foam rubber. It came to the notice of this company, which is the assessee company before us, that the firm of Coral and Co. wanted to sell its business. The assessee company took over all the assets of the business of Coral and Co. including its goodwill for the consideration of Rs. 1,50,000/-. The payment was not made in cash but was by allott...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1959]35ITR662(Bom)
S.T. Desai, J.1. A short but interesting question of construction of section 15C of the Income-tax Act arises for our determination on this reference, which comes before us at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay, under section 66 (1). The facts may be briefly stated. A partnership firm consisting of three partners started doing business of manufacturing shoes from 1st July, 1948, in the firm name of 'Coral & Co.' There was another concern - The Gaekwar Foam & Rubber Co. which was a limited liability company registered on 21st July, 1949. Owing to devaluation of currency, this latter company had difficulties in carrying on its business of them rubber. It came to the notice of this company, which is the assessee company before us, that the firm of Coral & Co. wanted to sell its business. The assessee company took over all the assets of the business of Coral & Co. including its goodwill for the consideration of Rs. 1,50,000. The payment was not made in cash but was by a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1959SC223; [1959]Supp1SCR160
Das, C.J.1. By each of these 32 petitions under Article 32 of our Constitution, which have been heard together, the respective petitioners challenge the constitutional validity of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953 (Himachal 15 of 1954) which is said to have been passed by the Legislative Assembly of the State of Himachal Pradesh created by the Himachal Pradesh and Bilaspur (New State) Act (32 of 1954). 2. On November 23, 1954, the President of India gave his assent to the Bill which on being so assented to became the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953, (Himachal 15 of 1954) (hereinafter called the Abolition Act). On January 26, 1955, this Abolition Act was brought into force by a notification issued under section 1(3) thereof. It will be convenient at this stage of refer to some of the relevant sections of the Abolition Act. Section 11 confers a new right on the tenants to acquire the interests of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1960Kant310; AIR1960Mys310; ILR1960KAR892
ORDER(1) This revision petition relates to a suit brought by the petitioner for the cancellation of two sale deeds executed in favour of respondents 1 and 2.(2) That suit was originally instituted in the District Court, Payaga, in the erstwhile state of Hyderabad. But, after the abolition of the Jahgirs, the suit was transferred to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bidar. On March 6, 1953, the suit was dismissed by that Court on the technical ground that the suit was brought on behalf of the plaintiff, who although, a major was represented to be a minor. From that decree, the plaintiff appealed to the High Court of Hyderabad and when that appeal was still pending in the High Court of Hyderabad, there was the reorganisation of states which took place on November 1, 1956. (3) Under the provisions of Section 62(2) of the States Reorganisation Act, such proceedings pending in the High Court of Hyderabad, as were certified by the Chief Justice of that High Court, having regard to the plac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1959Raj121
Jagat Narayan, J. 1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution against an appellate order under the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter called the Act) granting 5 further permits along the Ajmer-Beawar route to respondents Nos. 2 to 6. The petitioners are the existing operators on the route. Members of the Automobile Transport Ltd., petitioner No. 1, hold 6 permits on this route. Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 hold one permit each.2. The facts which have given rise to this application are these. In its meeting held on 25-2-56 the Ajmer State Transport Authority decided to increase the number of buses operating on this route from 14 to 17. Applications for the grant of three permits were consequently invited by means or a notice published in accordance with the Rules prescribed by the Ajmer Government for publishing the applications for grant of permits under Setion 57 of the Act.No less than 102 bus owners filed applications for the grant of further permits for the route. Thes...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1959AP437
P. Chandra Reddy, C.J.1. This petition is filed for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings relating to selection of candidates for admission into the First year M.B.B.S., course in Osmania Medical College and Gandhi Medical College, Hyderabad for the academic year 1958-59 by deleting the G.O. Ms. No 1071, (Health) dated 26-5-1958. The petitioners, four in number, are Graduates of the Osmania University who have passed B. Sc. Examination. In that examination, the 1st and 2nd petitioners have secured 61.2% marks in the Optionals, the 3rd petitioner 59% and the 4th 58.7% marks. In answer to a notification D/-1-6-1958 calling for applications for admission into the first year M.B.B.S. course in the aforesaid Medical Colleges commencing from July, 1958, the four petitioners sent in their applications to the Principal of the Osmania Medical College.They were not called for the interview held by the Selection Committee for selecting candidates. This was obviously for the r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1959All393
V.G. Oak, J.1. Sri Banarsi Das Kankan is a retired Civil Judicial Officer. He retired as a District Judge in 1942. He brought this suit against Government in 1944 for various declarations with respect to his service and pension, for the recovery of arrears of his pay, and for damages.2. His case is that, he was appointed to the United Provinces Civil Judicial Service, Agra Branch, in April 1917, and was confirmed as Civil Judge in 1936. He was promoted to the selection grade of Civil Judge in 1936. He was promoted to the selection grade of Civil Judges with effect from the 10th of May, 1940. From 1935 to 1938 he officiated as a Civil and Sessions Judge four times. For the fifth time he was appointed as a Civil and Sessions Judge on 5-12-1938. The appointment continued for over three years. He was confirmed as a Civil and Sessions Judge with effect from the 1st of July, 1941.3. A listed post of District and Sessions Judge in the Indian Civil Service cadre of the United Provinces fell va...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1960Kant65; AIR1960Mys65; (1960)ILLJ210Kant
S.R. Das Gupta, C.J.(1) The Petitioner before us was by an order of the Government of Mysore dated 4th February 1957 appointed as Principal, B. Education. Training College, Gulbarga. The said order of appointment reads as follows:'Sri Ramachandra M.A., M.Ed., Lecturer, Government Teachers College, Gulbarga, is appointed as Principal, B.Ed., Training College Gulbarga. He will be on probation for one year with effect from the date he takes charge of the post.'The said B.Ed., Training College, Gulbarga was originally affiliated to the Osmania University. Prior to the appointment of the Petitioner as the Principal of the said College the 2nd respondent who was the Inspector of Schools, Gulbarga, was acting as Principal. On the 25th July 1956 the Government of Hyderabad issued a notification whereby the method of recruitment and qualification for the post of Principal, B.Ed., Training College was prescribed.As the 2nd Respondent did not possess the prescribed qualifications for the said pos...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1959)ILLJ308Bom
ORDER1. The questions which have been referred to this Full Bench are : (1) Whether the State industrial court which entertained the present reference applications was validly constituted and had jurisdiction to entertain them (a) Whether the present State industrial court is properly constituted and in entitled to deal with these references (2) Whether no jurisdiction is conferred upon the State industrial court by enacting S. 38A of the Act to entertain these references and proceed with them in the absence of expressly conferring jurisdiction by rules made or in any other manner (3) Whether proceedings by way of conciliation are sine que non to a reference under S. 38A of the Act (a) Whether in the matter of references before this Court mentioned above, there were valid and proper conciliation proceedings both as to the identity of the parties and as to the identity of the subject-matter in dispute (b) If the reply to either or both is negative, what is the effect upon the present re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1959)ILLJ187Bom
Acts/Rules/Orders: Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 10(1)AWARD1. This Industrial dispute between the workmen and employers of the Osmanshahi Mills, Ltd., Nanded, was referred to the Industrial tribunal constituted under the Labour Department notification No. I/37/55/30, dated 23 May, 1955, under S. 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (XIV of 1947), by the Rajpramukh (Hyderabad) by their order No. I/137/54/(S)/94, dated 30 September 1955. The dispute is regarding the matters specified in Sch. I in respect of workmen mentioned in Sch. II annexed thereto. Schedules I and II are as follows :- Schedule I (1) Whether the suspension and subsequent dismissal of the said workmen is justified (2) If not to what relief are they entitled * * * 2. After the statement of claim and written statements were filed, the Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad, consisting of Sri B. A. Patel, heard the matter at length and recorded considerable evidence. After the evidence of both workmen and the...
Tag this Judgment!