Mumbai Court August 1931 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.
Appaji Waman Kulkarni Vs. Motiram Supdu Mahar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom204; (1932)34BOMLR109; 137Ind.Cas.760
Tyabji, J.1. This case arises out of a dispute between two brothers. The younger brother, who is the plaintiff, it has been held by the Mamlatdar, was in possession of a certain field. The elder brother (defendant No. 2) conceiving himself entitled to possession of it under a deed of release, Exhibit 1A, authorised defendant No. 1 to take possession of the land, and to dispossess the plaintiff. The Mamlatdar also found that the plaintiff (the younger brother) was in possession within six months of the suit, and that he was dispossessed, not in due course of law, by defendant No. 1 (the elder brother's tenant); and accordingly ordered that possession should be restored to the plaintiff. This order was set aside by the Collector in appeal. He purported to do so in virtue of the explanation to Section 5 of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act (Bom. Act II of 1906).2. Section 5 of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act provides that a Mamlatdar's Court shall have power to give immediate possession of lands etc....
Balkrishna Vishvanath Deo Vs. Vinayak Narayan Babre
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom191; (1932)34BOMLR113
Tyabji, J.1. The petition out of which these applications arise was made to the District Judge, Thana. It was dated November 2, 1929. There is no doubt that it was entirely misconceived, The learned District Judge made an order to which, he considered, the parties had consented. But immediately on this order being made, an application was made to him stating that the executors had not consented, and asking Mm to revise the order. He did so to a certain extent, but not to the full extent.2. Before me there was no question about the parties agreeing as to what was to be done. A considerable amount of the Court's time has been wasted, What I fail to understand is the basis on which the petition was made. What evidence was placed before the Court to enable it to give directions to the executors in contravention of the directions contained in the will Executors are bound to carry out the direction of the will, It is very unseemly on their part to obtain probate of a will, and then, instead ...
Shankar Narayan Timmanna Vs. Puttu Bhatta Manju Bhatta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom175; (1932)34BOMLR125
Tyabji, J.1. The facts of this case attract attention by their naivete.2. There was an agreement between the first plaintiff and the first defendant. By it the first defendant was to transfer to the first plaintiff certain property, which I shall ca11 property A; and the first plaintiff was to cause a third person to transfer to the first defendant the property, which I shall call property B. At least, it was assumed before me that the Latter is the effect to be given to the third clause of Exhibit 31.3. The first defendant carried out his part of the contract to the extent that the property A was conveyed to the plaintiff by a conveyance made on April 13, 1919. The plaintiff did not obtain possession : the present suit was brought on June 19, 1925,-more than six years alter the conveyance-not for possession, but for a declaration under 8. 42 of the Specific Relief Act, that the first plaintiff had become entitled to property A.4. The first and obvious objection to this suit would appe...
In Re: the Provident Investment Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom94
Beaumont, C.J.1. This reference raises a question of considerable importance, and one, I think, involving some difficulty. The case has been well argued on both sides, and I do not think any useful purpose would be served by reserving judgment, because the point, though difficult, is quite a short one. The assessee company is what may be sailed a finance company, and as part of its business it invests moneys in various parts of the world. It appears from the facts found in the case that in June 1926 the company borrowed a sum of 32 lakhs of rupees odd, and with that, and some other moneys which formed part of the capital of the company, it purchased large sums of sterling securities, something over 76 lakhs of rupees. It further appears that about five lakhs of rupees more has been invested in sterling securities out of the interest received on the securities purchased with the capital and borrowed moneys.2. Now the point which arises for decision is this: The company say that they are...
In Re the Millowners Mutual Insurance Association Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom104; (1931)33BOMLR1581
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. In this case the Commissioner asks for our ruling as to whether the surplus of the calls or premiums and further sums mentioned in Article 5 of the articles of association of the assessee company received from its members over the expenditure of the year 1929-30 is liable to be assessed to income-tax as profits or gains of business under Section 6 (iv) and Section 10 of the Indian Income-tax Act, XI of 1922. Then he asks whether such income or any part thereof is liable to be assessed to income-tax under any other and if so under which of the provisions of the said Act.2. Now, apart from one article, to which I shall refer later, it is quite clear that the assessee company is what is called a Mutual Insurance Company. The company was established by various millowners in Bombay for the purpose of insuring themselves against claims under the Workmen's Compensation Act. It was laid down by the House of Lords in the case of New York Life Insurance Company v. Styl...
In Re: the Saraspur Mills Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom216; (1932)34BOMLR104; 137Ind.Cas.898
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. In this reference the facts are simple and not disputed. There was a company called Saraspur Manufacturing Company, Limited, which I will call the old company, which went into liquidation in the year 1924, and in the year 1928 its assets were sold to the assessee company, and a valuation was placed for the purposes of the sale on various assets. The only asset to which referenceneed be made is the machinery and plant which were valued and purchased at Rs. 16 lakhs. The question which has arisen is this. The assessees have claimed a deduction on their assessment for income-tax is respect of depreciation of machinery, and the question is whether that deduction should be based on the cost of the machinary to the assesses or on the cost to the old company. Section 10(1) of the Indian Income-Tax Act provides thatThe tax shall be payable by an asse83ae,..in respect of the profits or gains of any business carried on by him.2. Section 10(2)(vi) provides thatSuch prof...
In Re: Bai Sakinaboo
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-1931
Reported in: (1932)34BOMLR100
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. In this case the learned Commissioner has referred to us two questions, viz.,(1) Whether the partnership in question is not legal and the members thereof do not constitute a firm within the provisions of the Indian Contract Act and as contemplated by the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ?and(2) if the answer to the above is in the affirmative, whether the Income-tax Officer is justified in refusing to register the firm as applied for by one of its partners, vide Section 2(14) of the Indian Income-tax Act and Bales 2 to 6 there under?2. The framing of these questions certainly suggests to my mind that the learned Commissioner was not quite certain as to whether the questions which he was raising were questions of fact or of law. It is the duty of the Income-tax Officer to find facts clearly, and the duty of the Commissioner to state the facts and then to formulate the questions of law which arise upon them. In this particular case the question is whether there is a...
Lakshman Mahadev Banker Vs. Ramchandra Kisan Mohite
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-1931
Reported in: (1932)34BOMLR117
Tyabji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a claim in execution proceedings. The claimant is the appellant.2. I will shortly state the facts which lead up to the question that I have to decide. There was an agreement, on June 4, 1922, between the claimant and the judgment-debtor. By it the judgment debtor agreed to execute a mortgage in favour of the claimant for Rs. 700. Rs. 500 out of this amount had already been paid. He was to pay an additional Rs. 200. No such mortgage was executed. The claimant then brought a suit, about three years after his agreement; and, on February 26, 1925, obtained a decree for specific performance of his agreement.3. Nearly two years after the claimant's decree, i.e., on December 10, 1926, the defendant (respondent) also obtained a decree against the judgment debtor. The defendant's decreewas a money decree, He was as prompt to take steps in execution, as the claimant was dilatory. On December 23, 19 26, the defendant attached, in execution of his decree, the...
Lakshminarayan Hiralal Vs. Laduram Onkar Agarwala
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom96; (1931)33BOMLR1557; 136Ind.Cas.486
Baker, J.1. In order to understand this appeal, it is necessary to set out the facts in some detail. The present respondent Laduram obtained a decree against the present appellant and his partners in Suit No. 474 of 1919 on September 6,'1921. The decree was for Rs. 3,307 principal, and Rs. 295 for interest, and Rs. 24 for commission, in all Rs. 3,626, and the costs of the suit, to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff, and it was provided that the said amount should be a charge on nineteen bales of cotton belonging to the defendant which were lying with the plaintiff, who was a commission agent for sale. The value of the nineteen bales was not stated. In execution of this decree the plaintiff presented a darkhast in which he gave credit to the defendant for Rs. 143-2-6, being the price of the nineteen bales of cotton which he had sold. The defendant objected to this price, and in execution proceedings an issue was framed regarding the value of the nineteen bales of cotton, and it w...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. the Trustees of the Sir Currimbhoy ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom106; (1931)33BOMLR1549; 136Ind.Cas.488
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a case which the Income-tax Commissioner has referred to this Court under Section 66 (2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, and the question which he asks as in his amended case is whether notwithstanding the payment already made of income-tax by the corporation they were properly assessed to income-tax and super-tax or either of them for the year 1928-29 by the Income-tax officer as per his orders of October 11, 1928, and March 11, 1929, in view of the circumstances of the case and the provisions of ss. 40 and 55 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.2. The corporation referred to are the trustees under a private Act No, IV of 1913 which was passed by the Governor General of India in Council entitled 'an Act for settling certain properties belonging to Sir Currimbhoy Ebrahim, Baronet, so as to accompany and support the title and dignity of a Baronet and for other purposes connected therewith'. Shortly before the passing of the Act Sir Currimbhoy Ebrahim had ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »