Skip to content

Mumbai Court May 1930 Judgments

May 30 1930

Sunitabala Debi Vs. Manindra Chandra Roy Chowdhury

Court: Mumbai

Decided on: May-30-1930

Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR1553

Blanesburgh, J. 1. This appeal will, it is to be hoped, bring to its close a prolonged litigation between near relatives, carried on at enormous expense for nearly twenty-seven years, that is to say, since shortly after the month of November, 1903, when one Sarat Chandra Boy Chowdhury died leaving him surviving the appellant, his daughter by a predeceased wife, and two widows, of one of whom the respondents, cousins of the appellants, are the successors in interest.2. The litigation has been concerned with the property of Sarat Chandra Roy. His widows propounded a will in their favour, alleged to have been executed by the deceased on the day of his death. Their application for probate of that will was opposed by the appellant, who claimed to have succeeded to her father's property under an earlier will of his, dated September 21, 1892. The District Judge to whom the widows' application was made rejected as a forgery the will they put forward, and refused to admit it to probate. The wid...

Tag this Judgment!

May 26 1930

Raja Probhat Chandra Barua Vs. Emperor

Court: Mumbai

Decided on: May-26-1930

Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR1541

Russell, J. 1. The appellant is zamindar of the permanently settled estate of Gouripur, and he appeals to His Majesty in Council in the circumstances herein set forth.2. By an assessment note of the Income Tax Officer of Dhubri dated August 28, 1925, the appellant was assessed under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, to income tax in respect of income arising from his said estate. On appeal the assessment was confirmed by order of the Assistant Commissioner dated December 22, 1925.3. At the request of the appellant the Commissioner of Income Tax, Assam, acting under Section 66 of the said Act, submitted certain questions for the decision of the High Court.4. The questions so submitted were three in number, and (as amended in the course of the hearing) they were in the following terms:--I. Whether the following sources of income are agricultural and therefore exempted from assessment to Income tax under Section 4 (3) (viii) of the Act? [Then follow ten items which it is unnecessary to set...

Tag this Judgment!

May 19 1930

Mohammad Ibrahim Riza Malak Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Mumbai

Decided on: May-19-1930

Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR1538

Tomlin, J.1. In this case the appellant seeks to displace an assessment to income tax made upon him in respect of property vested in him as the head of a community which is a sect of the Dawood Borah tribe, located at Nagpur. The community have, apparently, a common stock, all the property being vested in the head of the sect. The property is utilized in part in carrying on a series of shops, the profits of the trade being treated as part of the income of the community.2. In the Courts below the appellant rested upon certain trust deeds executed, one on August 25, 1917, and the other on November 25, 1922. By the first deed the then head of the community declared the trusts of the property vested in him, and by the second deed the trusts of the same property were explained and expanded.3. Their Lordships think that the short point which this appeal raises is, whether, having regard to the terms of those deeds, the income of the property vested in the head of the community is exempt from...

Tag this Judgment!

May 01 1930

Ahidhar Ghosh Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council

Court: Mumbai

Decided on: May-01-1930

Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR1163

Tomlin, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree, dated May 23, 1927, of the High Court of Judicature at Fort; William in Bengal, by which a judgment and decree dated March 18, 1925, of the Special Land Acquisition Judge at Alipur was varied.2. The nature of the. case is this: The Municipality of Calcutta required certain land in Michael Dutt Street in Calcutta, and accordingly invoked the machinery of the Land Acquisition Act, 189', for the purpose of securing the property. Under that Act anybody seeking to acquire land sets the Government Collector in motion; by means of a number of declarations and notifications which need not be specifically referred to. Under Section 11 of the Act, on a day which the Collector fixes, the Collector proceeds to inquire into the objections, if any, raised by the persons interested. He inquires into the value of the land and the nature of the interests therein. It is his duty to make an award as to the true area of the land, the compensation ...

Tag this Judgment!

  • ‹ Prev
  • Next ›


Save Judgments · Add Notes · Store Search Results · Organize Client Files Start your Free Trial