Mumbai Court January 1931 Judgments
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Major K.C. Goldie
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1931
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR776; 136Ind.Cas.170
Beaumont, C.J.1. This is a reference by the Commissioner of Income tax under Section 66 asking for our opinion on three questions which he states in paragraph 8 of the case.2. It appears that the assessee, Major Goldie, is entitled to income derived from four sources set out in paragraph 4 of the case. The first is dividends paid in India by companies registered in British India. The second source is dividends paid in the United Kingdom by companies doing business in British India but registered in London and having their head offices in London, and, I understand, also having their share register in London, though that fact is not stated. The third source is interest earned in British India and the fourth source is income accruing, arising and received outside British India.3. The questions arise in respect of the second source, i.e., dividends paid in the United Kingdom by companies doing business in British India, but registered in London and having their head offices in London. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Bhogilal Chimanlal Nanavati
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-1931
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR648
John Beaumont, C.J.1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Ahmedabad in which he raises the question whether the sentence is a proper one. The two accused were charged under Sections 47(c) of the Bombay Salt Act, 1890, and 17(J) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act XIV of 1908, and they were sentenced to a fine of Rs. 100 on each charge. The facts as appearing from the reference are these that the accused about half past eight on the night of October 21 were stopped by a head constable in a gharry in which they were traveling and they were found to be accompanying two boxes of salt stamped with the words 'Gujerat Prantik Samiti' and 'Swarajya Sabras.' The 'Gujerat Prantik Samiti' was declared an unlawful association by the Government of Bombay in a notification dated October 10, 1980, and the accused were, therefore, convicted, first of all, of being in possession of contraband salt under Section 47(c) of the Bombay Salt Act, and, secondly, under Section 17(1) of the Criminal Law ...
Tag this Judgment!G.F.C. Ariff Vs. Rai Jadunath Majumdar Bahadur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-1931
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR913
Russell, J.1. By this suit the appellant sought to recover possession of a parcel of land from the respondent, upon an allegation that the respondent was a monthly tenant at will thereof, whose tenancy had been effectively determined before suit.2. The action was tried in the Court of the Munsif of Sealdah. He found, in favour of the appellant, that a notice to quit had been duly sarved; but ha also found, in favour of the respondent, upon other issues, that the respondent was a permanent tenant, and dismissed the suit. An appeal to the District Judge was dismissed.3. (The relevant facts as found in both these Courts may be shortly stated.4. In 1913 a verbal agreement was made between the appellant; and respondent for the grant to the respondent by the appellant of a permanent lease of a small parcel of land at a total rent of Rs. 80 per month. In anticipation of the execution of the lease, the respondent was let into possession in June 1913, and shortly thereafter he erected certain s...
Tag this Judgment!Kodoomal J. Wadhwa Vs. Mangatram Sugnichand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom269; (1932)34BOMLR640
Blackwell, J. 1. [His Lordship after dealing with matters not material to this report continued :] When this case was called on before me, Mr. Tendulkar informed me that he appeared under protest for three alleged partners, (1) SugnichandMangatram, (2) Radhelal Hanandlal, and (3) Raghubarsing Oomarsing, who had been duly served as such.2. At the close of the case, he asked me to reserve him liberty to apply in the suit for the costs of entering an appearance under protest in twoevents (1) the event of the plaintiffs not applying under Order XXI Rule 50, for leave to issue execution against these three persons, and (2) the event of the plaintiffs so applying for leave and the execution Court holding that these three persona were not partners.3. The difficulty involved in a case, where an alleged partner enters an appearance under protest as regards the costs incurred by him in doing so, appears to me to be this, that unless some provision is made in the decree which finally disposes of ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Abla Isak
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-1931
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR349
Mirza, J.1. [After setting out the facts of the case his Lordship proceeded:] An objection is taken on behalf of the accused to the second and fourth counts in the charge-sheet and it is urged that a trial on those points is not now competent. Reliance is placed upon Section 403 of the Criminal Procedure Code which provides:--A person who has once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not he liable to be tried again for the same offence, nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made under Section 236, or for which he might have been convicted under Section 237. 2. Section 236 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides:--If a single act or series of acts is of such a nature that it is doubtful which of several offences the facts which can be proved will constitute, the accused may be cha...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Narsinha Narayan Chandur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-1931
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR353
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Dharwar who invites us to set aside the conviction of the accused on the ground that the trial was illegal inasmuch as the case was dealt with as a summons case whereas in the view of the learned Sessions Judge it should have been dealt with as a warrant case. The accused was convicted under Section 117 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 17(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act XIV of 1908, the offence being that he was a member of unlawful associations, viz., the Congress Committee and Seva Dal at Hubli, and as such member spoke at a meeting convened under the auspices of the said associations on November 30, 1930, exhorting the audience numbering more than ten to break the census laws, Clause (c) of Section 10 of Act X of 1929. The associations in question had been declared unlawful on November 10, 1930, so that there is no question that the accused committed an act of membership after the declaration of illegal...
Tag this Judgment!Narsinha Narayan Chandur Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-1931
Reported in: 131Ind.Cas.472
Beaumont, C.J.1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Dharwar who invites us to set aside the conviction of the accused on the ground that the trial was illegal inasmuch as the case was dealt with as a summons case whereas, in the view of the learned Sessions Judge, it should have been dealt with as a warrant case. The accused was convicted under Section 117, Indian Penal Code and Section 17 (1), Criminal Law Amendment Act, XIV of 1908, the offence being that he was a member of unlawful associations, viz., the Congress Committee and Seva Dal at Hubli, and as such member spoke at a meeting convened under the auspices of the said associations on 30th November, 1930, exhorting the audience numbering more than ten to break the census laws, Clause (c), Section 10, Act X of 1929. The associations in question had been declared unlawful on 10th November, 1930, so that there is no question that the accused committed an act of membership after the declaration of illegality.2. With regard...
Tag this Judgment!Poona Bank Ltd. Vs. Kachhi Dasa Oswal JaIn Temple
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom31
Patkar, J.1. This was a suit brought by the plaintiff, the present vahivatdar of the Mahajan of the Oawal Jain Temple, to recover Rs. 7,078 by sale of the ornaments belonging to the bank, defendant 3, and the deficit from defendants 1 and 2 personally or in the alternative, if the pledge was not valid for recovery of the amount from defendants 1 and 2.2. It is not disputed that the ornaments in dispute were pledged with defendant. 3, the Poona Bank, which had a branch at Hubli, and had appointed defendant 2 as manager of the bank under a power-of-attorney Ex. 71. Defendant lisa partner in the firm of Hirji Jivraj & Co., who are brokers in cotton, doing business at Hubli and also on behalf of defendant Section in respect of cotton transactions. It is clear from the evidence that the ornaments were pledged with the Hubli branch of defendant 3 between July 1922 and March 1923, by Balwant Rajerao Ex. 75 for Rs. 7,000 on 29th July 1922, by Abdul Karim, Ex. 77, for Rs. 3,000 on 7th February ...
Tag this Judgment!Dawood Sashim Esoof Vs. C. Tuck Shein
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1931
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR897
George Lowndes, J.1. The parties to this appeal are the owners of rival saw-mills on or adjacent to the northern end of a tidal creek communicating to the south with the Rangoon River, through which the tide flows into the creek. The value of the creek is as a means of floating logs up from the river to the mills.2. The appellants are admittedly the owners under grant from the Government of the soil of this part of the creek, which ex-tends for about two hundred feet to the north of the Strand Road, They are also the owners of land on the north and east sides of it. Their predecessors-in-title had reclaimed a considerable portion on the east, and at the time when the suit out of which this appeal arises was instituted, only a narrow strip from forty to fifty feet wide was left to which the tide had access.3. It will be convenient to refor to the part of the creek to the north of the Strand Road, with which alone the dispute is concerned, as the upper creek.4. The Strand Road crosses th...
Tag this Judgment!Bishamberdas Bodhraj Vs. Brijlal Arora
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1931
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR1385
Wadia, J.1. In the year 1924 the plaintiffs were carrying on business as commission agents in the name of Bishamberdas Bodhraj in Bombay and in the name of Bishamberdas Mulraj at Hoshiarpur in the Punjab. Defendant No. 1 is the father of defendants Nos. 2 to 5 of whom defendants Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are minors. The plaintiffs originally alleged that defendants Nos. 1 to 5 were members of a joint and undivided Hindu family who carried on a joint family business at Hoshiarpur and Amritsar. They say that they acted as the pakka adatias for the defendants in J 924, and as such effected certain transactions on their behalf for the sale and purchase of silver for forward delivery, and they have filed this suit to recover a sum of Rs. 3,315-1-0 with interest from the defendants in respect of the said transactions. Defendant No. 1 denies that he carries on any joint family business with his sons or any one or more of them, and says that he had no dealings with the plaintiffs. Defendant No. 2 also d...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »