Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1921Bom391; (1921)23BOMLR576
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference by the Chief Revenue Authority under Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act VII of 1918 of a certain question regarding the interpretation of Section 9(2)(ix) of the Act in the matter of the income tax assessment of the Tata Iron and Steel Company, which was incorporated and registered in Bombay. For the official year 1919-20 the Company was assessed by the Collector on an income of Rs. 61,84,848 earned in the previous year 1918-19. The Company claimed to deduct from this amount the sum of Rs. 28,00,000 paid to the under-writers on an issue of 7,00,000 preference shares of Rs. 100 each, as expenses which could be deducted under Section 9(2)(ix) of the Act. The Collector decided that the Rs. 28,00,000 were in the nature of capital expenditure and that expenditure incurred in connection with procuring capital was not an allowable deduction from profits for income tax purposes. An appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax was rejected, and a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1921)23BOMLR597
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from the decision of the Assistant Judge of Belgaunm, who allowed an application for a review of the judgment of the District Judge in Appeal No. 1 of 1915 and directed that it should be reheard of its merits.2. The plaintiff's filed the suit in 1913 for possession of the suit property and masne profits. The trial Court dismissed the suit on the 2tith November of 1914. The decree was confirmed by the District Judge on the 9th August of 1915. Thereafter the plaintiffs applied for a review and notice was issued on the 27th September of 1915. On the 15th November of 1915 the plaintiffs filed a second appeal is the High Court which was dismissed under Order XLI, Rule 11, on the 11th February of 1916. An application for & review of the order of dismissal was entertained on the 16th June of 1916 and a rule was granted, apparently on the ground that the plaintiffs' application for a review of the judgment appealed against was pending. The applicat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1922)24BOMLR692
Buckmaster, J.1. The father of the respondent on this appeal was formerly the owner of a small zamindari known as Doddappa Nayakanur, and on September 15, 1893, he executed a mortgage of the property in favour of one Sabhapathi Chetty. The mortgagee took proceedings in 1901 in the Subordinate Court of Madura against the mortgagor and against the respondent, who was his son, to enforce the mortgage, and obtained in October, 1901, a decree for the amount of the mortgage money and, in default, for sale of the mortgaged properties. The mortgagee, in 1906, assigned his decree in favour of the present appellant, who brought the mortgaged properties to sale in execution of the decree, and having obtained leave to bid, purchased them on April 22, 1907. The sale was confirmed on July 1 of the same year, and delivery was made to the appellant on August 3, 14 and 15, 1907. The questions that have arisen upon this appeal depend entirely upon the determination of what was actually purchased by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1921Bom250; (1921)23BOMLR567
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This rule was granted under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The suit was filed by the plaintiff's to redeem the plaint property. The trial Court ordered defendants Nos. 4 and 5 to deliver possession of this plaint lauds in their respective possession free of all incumbrances and charges after removing therefrom the houses and cattle-sheds erected by them. This decree in revision before the District Judge was varied by directing that plaintiffs should pay the amount of Rs. 2,346 as costs of improvements made by defendants with costs within six months from the date of the decree and then take possession of the property, Survey No. 738.2. The principal question in dispute was whether the defendants who purchased from the original mortgagee should be allowed the cost of the improvements. They had improved the property by erecting buildings and a cattle-shed and constructing a pucca well at a cost of over Rs. 3,000 and it is contended that this sum of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1921)23BOMLR563
1. The plaintiff brought this suit as a son of he donee of the plaint property under a deed of gift of the 16th of August 1892 for redemption and an account of the mortgage executed by Hajratbi the donor. The suit has experienced a most unfortunate history. A preliminary issue was raised in The trial Court, whether the deed of gift relied upon by the plaintiff was each as to confer a valid title on the donee in respect of the plaint property. Following Iamal v. Ramji I.L.R (1899) Bom. 682: 1 Bom. L.R. 177. the Court found on that issue in the negative, and that finding was affirmed in appeal.2. In second appeal certain issues were sent down for trial to the lower Court on the ground that the procedure which had been adopted was wrong, and that the Court ought not to have discussed an abstract point of law without first finding on the facts of the case. We have now got the findings on the issues sent down, namely, that the deed of gift relied upon by the plaintiff has been proved; that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1921Bom37; (1921)23BOMLR561
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff tiled this suit to obtain possession of certain Deshpande Vatan land. The last mala holder was one Narayan Dattatraya who died leaving a widow Yamunabai who alienated the Vatan land by executing certain miras patras (permanent leases) to defendants Nos. 1 to 4. Defendant No. 5 has bought some of the alienated land from the other defendants. Plaintiff himself attested the miras patras. Yamunabai died in 1908 and then the plaintiff made an application to the Collector under Section 11 of the Vatan Act.2. The Collector passed an order which is Exhibit 57. He found that the miras patras were alienations under Section 5 of the Vatan Act without sanction of Government and declared them null and void under the powers given him by Section 11 of the Vatan Act. Section 11 A, which lays down the powers of the Collector after he has held that the alienations are null and void, says :The Collector shall either summarily resume possession of all property to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1921)23BOMLR769
Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiff filed this suit in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Ahmedabad, claiming certain relief from the defendants with regard to a deposit receipt for Rs. 10,000 of which he claimed to be the owner. The case came on for hearing on the 5th of February 1918. The pleader for the defendants Nos. 1 to 3 presented an application to the Judge for an adjournment on the ground that the first defendant had gone to Bombay as his son was affected by plague and as he fell ill there, he could not come. That application was refused and the Court proceeded, after hearing the plaintiff's evidence, to pass a decree on the 16th February 1918 in favour of the plaintiff'. The result was that the case was heard ex parte without hearing the evidence of the defendants although their pleader was present.2. The defendants then had three remedies: they might have applied to the trial Judge to set aside the ex parte decree under Order IX, Rule 13; they might have applied fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1921Bom87(1); (1921)23BOMLR749
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff filed this suit to recover Rs. 229-15-6 being the value of the Mamul Inam dues in kind as set forth in the plaint for the years 1915-16' and 1916-17. He alleged that he and some Bhaubands of his had come to acquire a moiety of the village of Kasar Kolwan from the original Inamdars who were entitled to rent in specie and kind from the body of Khots of the village, that plaintiff had a four annas share in the Inam, that the defendant was managing Khot of eight annas for the first year mentioned and four annas for the second year and so was liable to pay the rent, which had consistently been paid from Mamul times.2. The defendant pleaded that plaintiff was an Inamdar of the royal share of the revenue and was therefore only entitled to the survey assessment as the survey settlement had been introduced into the village. It was found in the Trial Court-(1) that the contention of the defendant that plaintiff could only recover survey assessment and no...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 64Ind.Cas.7
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiff filed this suit to obtain possession of certain Deshpande vatan land. The last male-holder was one Narayan Dattatraya, who died leaving a widow Yamunabai, who alienated the vatan land by executing certain miras patras (permanent leases) to defendants Nos. 1 to 4. Defendant No, 5 has bought some of the alienated land from the other defendants. Plaintiff himself attested the miras patras. Yamunabai died in 1908 and then the plaintiff made an application to the Collector under Section 11 of the Vatan Act.2. The Collector passed an order which is Exhibit 57. He found that the miras patras were alienations under Section 5 of the Vatan Act without sanction of Government and declared them null and void under the powers given him by Section 11 of the Vatan Act. Section 11 A, which lays down the powers of the Collector after he has held that the alienations are null and void, says:The Collector shall either summarily resume possession of all property to whic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1921)23BOMLR858
Kanga, J.1. One Jasvir Bhudar died in the month of May 1893, leaving him surviving his widow Bai Divali as his only heir according to Hindu law. He left a will, dated the 2nd day of May 1893, whereof he appointed his widow, the said Bai Diwali, the sole executrix. Bai Divali proved the will and obtained probate thereof on the 11th November 1893, From the schedule to the petition for probate it appears that Jasvir Bhudar owned an immoveable property at Jambli Mohola and another immoveable property at Falkland Road, an outstanding debt of Rs. 36,000, stock-in-trade of the value of Rs. 2,000, and household furniture and apparel of a small value. After obtaining probate of the will, Bai Divali sold the property at Falkland Road to Ratanbai and conveyed the same to her by a conveyance dated the 2nd day of June 1894. On the 28th November 1898, Ratanbai conveyed to N.C. Shroff the said property. The defendants are the heirs and legal representatives of the said N.C. Shroff. Bai Diwali died on...
Tag this Judgment!