Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: income tax act Court: mumbai Year: 1958 Page 10 of about 121 results (0.033 seconds)

Mar 13 1958 (HC)

Jubilee Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-13-1958

Reported in : AIR1959Bom51; (1958)60BOMLR920; ILR1958Bom1153; [1958]34ITR30(Bom)

..... mr. palkhivala which seems to us to be not very substantial , and that is that the income-tax officer in the first instance gave a rebate of one anna on the amount of income-tax which the company was liable to pay under the provisions of the finance act of 1948 and mr. palkhivala says that this rebate could only be granted to a company ..... to that decision. 9. it is urged by mr. joshi, who realises that the department has not acted with its usual efficiency and competency in this case, that we should order a remand. now, 'remand' is not the exact word that is appropriate in income-tax references. all that we can do is to call for a supplemental view of the case under ..... were not members of the public, what would have to be established was that shareholder or shareholders acted in concert with the shareholder who had the controlling interest. but it must be remembered that the case which the privy council was considering in commr. of income-tax v. bjordal 195528 itr 25(b), was rather a peculiar case. it was a case of ..... to which section 23a had no application and mr. palkhivala urges that in granting this rebate the income-tax officer cam to the conclusion that section 23a had no application and having once come .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 30 1958 (HC)

Rajlaxmi Textiles Vs. Surat Silk Mills Workers' Union

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jun-30-1958

Reported in : (1958)IILLJ522Bom

order1. this is an appeal against the order of sri m. n. nagrashna, judge, second labour court, ahmedabad, declaring that the change made by the appellants in the practice of paying kharchi to its workers for two days in a month was an illegal change. it appears that this concern was started sometimes in november 1953. kharchi was paid twice a month during all the months from december 1953 till it was stopped in july 1957. it was paid more or less round about 13, 14 or 15 and again round about 23, 24 or 25. it was paid once only in november 1953, february 1954, december 1954 and february 1956. thus out of a total of 42 months during which the concern was in existence, the payment was made twice a month on 38 occasions and once a month on 4 occasions. the limited question for consideration before me is whether the payment of kharchi in the manner in which it was done amounted to a customary usage or privilege and the withdrawal thereof amounted to a withdrawal of a privilege or a change in usage. there is no doubt that in order to acquire a right to such payment or in other words in order that it can be claimed that it had become usage, the practice must be existing for a long time. there does appear to me to be a fairly wide practice of paying kharchi twice a month existing in surat though it is not clear whether such a practice prevails in the majority of concerns or not. the same practice of paying kharchi twice a month appears to have been adopted by this concern almost .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 30 1958 (HC)

Kamalakar Shankar Kate Vs. Principal, Training College for Men, Sangam ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jan-30-1958

Reported in : (1958)60BOMLR624; (1958)IILLJ692Bom

dixit, j.1. the petitioner in this case was in service of the education department of the government of bombay on or about 6 december 1948. according to the petitioner he was made permanent on the expiry of the probationary period. in about 1950 the petitioner was transferred as a clerk in the office of the educational inspector, ahmednagar, where he served for about a year. the petitioner was then retransferred to sangamner and at the latter place he worked in the office of the principal, training college for men, for about three years. the petitioner was again transferred to the office of the educational inspector, ahmednagar, and the petitioner's next assignment was that of a clerk in the government girls school, ahmednagar, where the petitioner worked for about seven or eight months. in april 1956 the petitioner was again posted as a clerk in the office of the principal, training college for men, at sangamner. 2. it appears that while the petitioner was working at that place, the petitioner was alleged to have committed an offence of forgery. it would appear that the explanation of the petitioner was then taken and the petitioner admitted his guilt. but the petitioner now disputes that he ever admitted having committed the offence of forgery. on 27 may 1957, a notice of discharge was given to the petitioner and it is in the following terms : 'as per d. e. poona's instructions conveyed in his no. s. 26(d) -b of 3-5-1957 you are hereby given one month's notice of discharge .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 16 1958 (HC)

State of Bombay Vs. Giridharilal Shankerlal Patel

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Apr-16-1958

Reported in : (1958)60BOMLR1137; (1958)IILLJ700Bom

..... given without affording to him any opportunity to render explanation or to show cause, absence of such opportunity did not affect the termination of the plaintiff's employment; that the act of the government bombay in not absorbing the plaintiff in the bombay medical service and discharging him from service was not illegal an ultra vires, and that the plaintiff could ..... the union of india, and that the plaintiff had no right to sue for the relief claimed by him, as the termination of employment of the plaintiff amounted at an act of state. the defendant further contended that rule 1(a)(1) of the rules framed by the government, under which the plaintiff was discharged, was properly framed and that as .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 31 1958 (HC)

National Industrial Works, Bombay Vs. Jamnadas Bhanji and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jul-31-1958

Reported in : (1958)IILLJ518Bom

order1. the facts leading to these applications for approval of the applicant company's action, under s. 33(2) of the industrial disputes act, 1947, are briefly as under. by a notice dated 17 may 1958, the company notified its operatives that on account of non-availability of raw materials it was impossible to .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 03 1958 (HC)

Wasudeo Vs. Nagpur Corporation (by the Executive Officer)

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : May-03-1958

Reported in : (1958)IILLJ519Bom

..... a quasi-permanent service.'it has further been observed in the same decision : 'it follows from the above discussion that both at the date of the commencement of the 1935 act and of our constitution the word 'dismissed,' 'removed' and 'reduced in rank,' as used in the service rules, were well understood as signifying or denoting the three major punishments which ..... is temporarily appointed in a clear vacancy. there is no doubt that his reversion would result in a reduction in wages from what he was drawing for the period he acted as a filter attendant. but, in my opinion, it is not in every case where a man's wages would be affected that a notice of change is necessary but .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 31 1958 (HC)

Chhaganlal Textile Mills (Private) Ltd. Vs. Its Employees (Chalisgaon ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jul-31-1958

Reported in : (1959)ILLJ83Bom

..... stand. if the company so feels, it may give a notice of change according to law and then proceed as required under the above provisions of the bombay industrial relations act. the compensation which has been ordered to be paid does not appear to be either excessive or inadequate. i therefore find no reason to interfere in the order under appeal ..... application that the retrenchment was an illegal change; if the company wanted to retrench them, it should have proceeded in accordance with s. 42(1) of the bombay industrial relations act. the company in its written statement says that these workers were being retrenched on account of the closure of the second shift and because on account of this closure no ..... sabha and others 1954 i l.l.j. 678. in addition to the requirements of ss. 25f, 25g and 25j of the industrial disputes act, sub-section (1) of s. 42 of the bombay industrial relations act lays down that in regard to all matters specified in sch. ii if an employer intends to effect any change he should give a notice .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 07 1958 (HC)

Sawatram Ramprasad Mills Company Ltd. Vs. Kundanmal

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : May-07-1958

Reported in : (1958)IILLJ513Bom

..... aspect of the question is concerned, the definitions are in pari materia and the decisions would equally apply to the definition under the central provinces and berar industrial dispute settlement act, 1947. 9. i, therefore, hold that the application is not bad because it was filed by the respondent herein after he was retired as he still could raise an ..... mentioned therein. their lordships of the supreme court negatived this contention observing that : 'the question whether a dismissed employee is an employee as defined in s. 2(10) of the act must be held to be practically concluded by the decision of the federal court in western india authomobile association v. industrial tribunal, bombay.' 1949 l.l.j. 245. in my ..... work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this act in relation any such person who has been dismissed, discharged, or retrenched in connexion with, or as a consequence of, that dispute or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led ..... in any industry and includes an employee dismissed, discharged or removed on account of any industrial dispute.'the definition is similar to the definition of workman under the industrial disputes act (central) which is as follows : 'section 2(s) - 'workman' means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any skilled or unskilled manual, supervisory, technical or clerical .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 24 1958 (HC)

Parshuram Pottery Works, Dhrangadhra Vs. Its Workmen

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jun-24-1958

Reported in : (1958)IILLJ523Bom

..... of the industry such workmen would also be the 'workmen' as defined in clause (s) of the owner of the industry. therefore, after this amending act no. 28 of 1955 has come into force from 28 may 1955, the workmen employed through the contractor have also become the workmen of the owner of ..... at lower wages. even therefore assuming that the workmen employed by the contractor for this work are not the workmen of the company as defined in the act, the workmen who have raised this dispute being admittedly the workmen of the company have a right to raise it, because, as i have stated, ..... dispute. even, if therefore, it be assumed that the workmen employed by the contractor are not the workmen of the company as defined in the act, the workmen who have raised the dispute are interested in raising the dispute about the abolishing of the contract system inasmuch as all the workmen employed ..... persons who are not strictly workmen of the employer as defined in the industrial disputes act, 1947. according to that decision, an industrial disputes can be raised about any person provided the workmen who have raised the dispute have direct or substantial ..... of the union, and also because they were not the workmen of the company within the meaning of the definition of 'workmen' in the industrial disputes act, 1947. but after the decision of the supreme court 14 f.j.r. 41, it is well settled that an industrial disputes can be raised about .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 11 1958 (HC)

New Jehangir Vakil Mills Ltd., Bhavnagar Vs. Industrial Tribunal, Rajk ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Feb-11-1958

Reported in : (1959)61BOMLR137; (1958)IILLJ573Bom

..... , ltd., bhavnagar. now the point which falls to be determined in this petition is a point of construction of s. 33 of the industrial disputes act, 1947. section 33 provides : 'during the pendency of any conciliation proceedings or pending before a tribunal in respect of any industrial dispute, no employer shall ..... s. 33 would not be attracted, and accordingly the tribunal would have no jurisdiction to entertain the workmen's complaint under s. 33a of the act. 3. the industrial tribunal at rajkot, upon the abovementioned preliminary objection being taken by the mills, held that although it was true that the ..... ringframe department of the mills, the mills raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the workmen's application under s. 33a of the act. the preliminary objection which was taken by the mills was that the three workmen were not concerned in the disputes which were pending before ..... new jehangir vakil mills, ltd., and also its workmen were concerned, were pending before the tribunal, and therefore, it was obligatory under the act, for the mills to have sought the previous permission of the tribunal before the dismissing the workmen. it may be noted that the three workmen ..... no. 196 of 1956. this petition raises an interesting question, and the question raised is the one of constructing s. 33 of the industrial disputes act, 1947. this question has arisen in this way. miscellaneous application no. 196 of 1956 was an application which was filed by certain three workers .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //