Mumbai Court April 1926 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Ratanchand Khimchand Motishaw and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-06-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Bom566
Macleod, C.J.1. An order was made by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax in this case on May 13, 1924, in the matter of the appeals against income-tax, and super-tax assesments, levied against R.K. Motishaw and Co., by the Senior Income-tax Officer for the year 1923-24, Under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act (XI of 1922) the assessee, within, one month of the passing of an order under Section 21 against him, may require the Commissioner to refer to the High Court any question of law arising out of, such application, draw up a statement of the case and refer it with his own opinion thereon to the High Court. The assessee, therefore, had time till June 13, 1924, to require the Commissioner to state a ease. No, such requisition was made on. the Commissioner, but it appears that an application was made to the Commissioner to revise the order of the Assistant Commissioner.2. On July 3, 1924, the Commissioner passed an order that, on perusal of the record and proceedings, he d...
Emperor Vs. Madhav Raghvendea Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR671
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The three accused were convicted by the First Class Magistrate of Bagevadi of an offence under Section 352, Indian Penal Code. Accused No. 1 was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 30. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were ordered, under a. 562, Criminal Procedure Code, to enter into a bond of Rs. 50 each to appear and receive sentence when called upon during six months, and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.2. All the three accused appealed to the Court of Session. As the sentence on accused No. 1 was not originally appealable, it became appealable under Section 415A, Criminal Procedure Code, if the order against accused Nos. 2 and 3 was appealable.3. The Sessions Judge raised the following issue :-Does an appeal lie against the conviction under Section 332, Indian Penal Code, and the order under Section 562, Criminal Procedure Code, passed against accused Nos. 2 and 3?4. He held that no appeal lay, He referred to Section 413, Criminal Procedure Cod...
Madhav Raghvendra Kulkarni Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Bom382
Macleod, C.J.1. The three accused were convicted by the First Class Magistrate of Bagevadi of an offence under Section 352, Indian Penal Code. Accused No. 1 was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 30. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were ordered under Section 562, Criminal P.C. to enter into a bond of Rs. 50 each to appear and receive sentence when called upon during six months, and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.2. All the three accused appealed to the Court of Session. As the sentence on Accused No. 2 was not originally appealable, it became appealable under Section 415A, Criminal P.C. if the order against Accused Nos. 2 and 3 was appealable. The Sessions Judge raised the following issue:Does an appeal lie against the conviction under : Section 352, Indian Penal Code, and the order under Section 562, Criminal P.C., passed against Accused. Nos. 2 and 3?3. He held that no appeal lay. He referred to Section 413, Criminal P.C. which states:Notwithstanding anything hereinbefor...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›