Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: mumbai Year: 1956 Page 1 of about 41 results (0.010 seconds)

Jun 27 1956 (HC)

Poona Mazoor Sabha Vs. G.K. Dhutia and anr.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jun-27-1956

Reported in : AIR1956Bom743; (1956)58BOMLR817; ILR1957Bom6

chagla, c.j.1. this petition raises a rather important question with regard to conciliation proceedings under the industrial disputes act. it appears that there was a dispute between the second opponent company and its workers with regard to wages, dear-ness allowance, leave facilities etc. and on 30-1-1955 a meeting of the workers was called where one mahadik was authorised by his co-workers to make representations to the second opponent company with regard to their demands.the second opponent company wanted to negotiate with the workers who had a representative capacity and therefore the government labour officer was approached to hold a meeting at which representatives of the workers would be elected under his supervision. accordingly a meeting was-held on 17-3-1955 at which five workmen were elected by the workers present to be their representatives.on 7-4-1955 the second opponent company and the elected representatives of the workers wrote a letter to the conciliation officer to the effect that they had come to a negotiated agreement in regard to the demand relating to wages, dearness allowance and leave facilities and that they desired to sign a memorandum of settlement before him. accordingly on 11-4-1955 both the parties appeared before the conciliation officer, the first opponent, and produced before him a draft agreement. this draft agreement was considered by the conciliation officer and he explained to the elected representatives of the workers in marathi the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 19 1956 (HC)

Dagadu Dhondu Patil Vs. Trakadu Motiram Patil and anr.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-19-1956

Reported in : AIR1957Bom79; (1956)58BOMLR734; ILR1956Bom844

order1. the petitioner dagdu dhondu patil filed miscellaneous application no. 2775 of 1945 under the bombay agricultural debtors' relief act 1939, in the court of the civil judge, junior division, chalisgaon, alleging that an oral sale by him of s. no. 5/5a of the village of sarwe budruk, taluka pachora to one sampat supdu for a consideration of rs. 550/- by a yardi given to the village officers, was in the nature of a mortgage and that the debt due thereunder had been satisfied & praying an order for return of the land. sampat supdu died during the pendency of the application and his heirs were brought on the record. the heirs of sampat supdu, whom i will hereafter refer to as the opponents, contended that the land was sold on 9th june 1935, by an oral sale to sampat supdu by the petitioner dagdu dhondu and that the transaction was not in the nature of a self redeeming mortgage as alleged by the petitioner. they also denied that there was an agreement to return the land after seven years. they submitted that the petitioner dagdu dhondu was not a debtor within the meaning of the b. a. d. 11. act and that in any event the application having been filed more than 12 years after the date of the sale, sampat supdu had become owner of the land by adverse possession.2. the learned trial judge held that dagdu dhondu was a debtor within the meaning of the b.a. d.r. act & that his debts did not exceed rs. 15,000/-and that he was qualified to obtain the benefit of the b.a.d.r. act. in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 19 1956 (HC)

Arnold Dominic Rodricks Vs. Sunder Vinayak Navalkar and anr.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jan-19-1956

Reported in : AIR1956Bom404

chagla, c.j. 1. this is an appeal against a judgment of desai j. by which he ordered probate to issue to the petitioners of a will of one louisa catherine rodricks. the will was opposed by the appellant substantially on two grounds. one was that the petition for probate was not in we proper form and that proper court-fees had not been paid, and the other ground was that the will had been obtained by undue influence. with regard to the first ground the position is this.in the petition for probate in schedule i the two petitioners have shown the value of moveable properties as rs. 850/-. that is the only property which has been shown in this schedule. then they have annexed schedule iii and in that schedule they have shown the value of immoveable property at rs. 35,000/-, and with regard to this schedule there is an averment in para 9 of the affidavit, in support of the petition that this property is the subject-matter of the suit filed by the deceased testatrix in which suit she claimed this property as belonging to her.admittedly, no court-fees have been paid on the value of this immoveable property viz., rs. 35,000/- and the direction given by the learned judge with regard to this property was that the petitioners should file a statement in the courtshowing the result of the suit and the petitioners should undertake to pay the probate duty if the suit was determined in their favour, and mr. gauba on behalf of the appellant has contended that the order passed by the learned .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 20 1956 (HC)

Gustad Dinshaw Irani Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Aug-20-1956

Reported in : [1957]31ITR92(Bom)

chagla, c.j. 1. the assessee is a partner in several firms doing restaurant business in bombay and on the 6th august, 1945, he applied for a plot of land in the worli scheme of the bombay municipality. his application was granted and under the terms of the grant the assessee had to construct a building on the plot at a cost of not less then rs. 75,000. it was also a term of the grant that he had to pay an annual rent of rs. 3,388 in respect of this plot. when the building was constructed the municipal corporation was to give him a lease for 999 years. on the 30th october, 1950, the assessee assigned his right under the grant for a consideration of rs. 32,011. to bring about this transaction he had availed himself of the services of a broker and that broker was paid commission in the sum of rs. 1,770. two contentions arose for the consideration of the appellate tribunal. one was that the sum of rs. 32,011 was not an assessable profit in the hands of the assessee, and the second contention was with regard to the amount at which the profit should be assessed, assuming the amount realised was profit. with regard to the first contention the tribunal held that the transaction was a single venture in the nature of trade, that its decision was a question of fact, and no question of law arose on that decision. with regard to the second contention, a question has been submitted to us : 'whether, in assessing the profit made by the assessee on the assignment of the plot, the assessee is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 23 1956 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi Vs. Aryodaya Ginning and Manufacturi ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Aug-23-1956

Reported in : [1957]31ITR145(Bom)

chagla, c.j. 1. the assessee is a limited company and it make up its accounts at the end of december every year. in the statement of account for the year ended 31st december, 1948, the profit for that year was shown at rs. 28,56,977-14-2. to this was added a sum of rs. 37,948-11-9 being the profit brought forward from the last year. the directors made the fallowing appropriation of these profits. they allocated a sum of rs. 2,25,000 to depreciation fund, rs. 12,50,000 towards provision for income-tax, corporation tax and business profits tax, rs. 11,08,000 to reserve fund, and rs. 1,50,000 to dividend reserve fund. this left a balance of rs. 1,61,946 and this amount they recommended should be expended in payment of dividend, leaving a balance of rs. 89,134 which they recommended should be carried forward to next year's account. the directors made their report on 27th april, 1949. a general meeting of the shareholder was held on the 27th june, 1949, and they accepted the report and the recommendations of directors assessee company was assessed to business profits tax for the chargeable accounting period 1st january, to 1st march, 1949, and the question that arose for consideration was, what was the capital of the company for the accounting period the company's contention was that the paid-up capital should be increased by the amount of reserves which had been constituted by the recommendation made by the directors and accepted by the shareholders and the company made this .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 23 1956 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Aryodaya Ginning and Manufacturing Co. ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Aug-23-1956

Reported in : AIR1957Bom26; (1956)58BOMLR924; ILR1957Bom38

chagla, c.j.1. the assessee is a limited company and it makes up its accounts at the end of december every year. in the statement of account for the year ended 31-12-1948 the profit for that year was shown at rs. 28,56, 997-14-2. to this was added a sum of rs. 37, 948-11-9 being the profit brought forward from the last year.the directors made the following appropriations of these profits. they allocated a sum of rs. 2,25,000/- to depreciation fund, rs. 12,50,000/- towards provision for income-tax, corporation tax and business profits tax, rs. 11,08,000/- to reserve fund, and rs. 1,50,000/- to dividend reserve fund. this left a balance of rs. 1,61,946/- and this amount they recommended should be expended in payment of dividend leaving a balance of rs. 89,134/- which they recommended should be carried forward to next year's account. the directors made their report on 27-4-1949.a general meeting of the shareholders was held on 27-6-1949 and they accepted the report and the recommendations of the directors. the assessee company was assessed to business profits tax for the chargeable accounting period 1-1-1949 to 31-3-1949, and the question that arose for copsideration was, what was the capital of the company for the accounting period? the company's contention was that the paid up capital should be increased by the amount of reserves which had been constituted by the recommendation made by the directors and accepted by the shareholders and the company made this claim in respect of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 14 1956 (HC)

Karson Ramji Chawda Vs. the State of Bombay

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Dec-14-1956

Reported in : AIR1958Bom99; (1957)59BOMLR136; 1958CriLJ351; ILR1957Bom410

chagla, c.j.1. the petitioner in this case was ordered by the magistrate to pay maintenance to his wife amounting to rs. 30/- per month and maintenance to his daughter amounting to rs. 25 per month. the applicant made a default and failed to comply with this order. the wife made an application that there had been a default in the payment for four months. the magistrate issued a warrant and the warrant could not be executed as the applicant had no property. the wife then made an application under section 488 (3) and on that application the magistrate passed an order sentencing the applicant to be imprisoned for a term of 15 days in respect of each month for which the allowance remained unpaid.2. this sentence has been challenged on the ground that in passing the sentence for two months, the magistrate exceeded the jurisdiction conferred upon him under section 488 (3). the matter came up before mr. justice bavde-kar and mr. justice desai and they referred it to a full bench, as they felt that they were bound by an unveported decision of a division bench of this court reported in queen empress v. pandu mahadu 1885 rat un. cr. c. 801. the contention urged by mr. kotwal on behalf of the applicant is that in respect of one warrant issued, the sentence which can be inflicted by the magistrate can only be one month and not exceeding one month. now turning to the sub-section.'if any person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order, any such magistrate may, for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 07 1956 (HC)

Haridas Mafatlal Gagalbhai Vs. Vijayalakshmi Navinchandra Mafatlal Gag ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Aug-07-1956

Reported in : AIR1956Bom721

1. this suit was filed on behalf of the plaintiff by his next friend during the minority of the plaintiff on 15-9-1951 for a partition of the estate of mufatlal gagalbhai on the ground that the plaintiff was the illegitimate son of the said mafatlal by defendant 7 sushilabai. it is alleged that mafatlal was a shudra by caste and was a kadwa patidar and that the mother the plaintiff, defendant 7 is also a shudra. the deceased mafatlal died as far back as 19-7-1944.it is said that the deceased was introduced to sushilabai sometime in 1925 who was at that time a widow, and that from the year 1927 for a continuous period of 17 years sushilabai was in mafat-fal's continuous and exclusive keeping as a permanent concubine. defendant 8 is a daughter of the said mafatlal by sushilabai. it is alleged further that the plaintiff was born to sushilabai in 1931 and the daughter was born in 1939.it is contended that the plaintiff as the illegitimate son of the deceased is entitled to a share out of the estate of the deceased namely half the share which he would have received had he been a legitimate son of the deceased and therefore he is entitled to a partition of the estate on that footing.2. in para 7 of the plaint it is stated that defendant 7, sushilabai, made certain claims against the estate of mafatlal in the year 1944 claiming maintenance as the avarudha stree of mafatlal and also made a claim to a share in the estate on behalf of the plaintiff who was at that time a minor. the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 08 1956 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i, Bombay Vs. Jagannath Kisonl ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-08-1956

Reported in : [1956]30ITR654(Bom)

chagla, c.j.1. the question that arises on this reference is whether a certain amount is an allowable deduction under section 10(2) (xv) of the income-tax act or in any event it is a business loss which can be deducted for the purpose of ascertaining the true profits of the assessee. 2. the assessee is a commission agent and he along with one kishorilal borrowed a sum of rs. 1,00,000 from a bank on joint and several liability. rupees 50,000 out of this sum were taken by the assessee for his business and rs. 50,000 were taken by kishorilal. kishorilal failed to meet his obligation and was adjudicated insolvent. therefore under the joint and several liability the assessee had to pay to the bank the whole amount of rs. 1,00,000. in the insolvency of kishorilal the assessee received a sum of rs. 18,805 and he therefore claimed the balance of rs. 31,740 for the assessment year 1951-52, after taking into consideration certain interest and insolvency expenses and the tribunal held that this was a permissible deduction under section 10(2) (xv) or in any event it was a business loss which was allowable as a deduction in computing the profits of the assessee's business. 3. certain specific findings which are given by the tribunal must be looked at in order to arrive at a proper conclusion in this reference. the sum of rs. 50,000 was borrowed by the assessee for the purpose of his business and he used to borrow moneys on joint and several liability from the banks. the tribunal finds .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 15 1956 (HC)

Karamchand Pessumal Vs. Madhavdas Savaldas and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-15-1956

Reported in : AIR1956Bom669; (1956)58BOMLR754; ILR1956Bom839

chagla, c.j. 1. a short but rather interesting question as to the proper construction of section 10, displaced persons (debt adjustment) act, 1951 arises on this appeal, and the only facts that are necessary to state for the determination of this question are that the appellant filed an application under section 10 before the tribunal, who was the judge of the city civil court, claiming partnership account from the respondents who were his partners, on the basis of the partnership being dissolved in july 1949, and also claiming to receive moneys found due and payable to him on taking such accounts. now, if this had been a suit the suit would have been obviously described as a suit for taking partnership accounts of a dissolved partnership, and the question that falls to be determined by us is whether under section 10 an application can be made of the nature made by the appellant in this case. the learned judge below took the view that the petition did not lie and dismissed it, and the appellant has now come in appeal.2. section 10, which calls for construction at our hands, is in the following terms :'any displaced person having a claim against a displaced debtor may make an application in such form as may be prescribed, for the determination thereof to the tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the displaced debtor actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, together with a statement of the debts owed to the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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