Mumbai Court March 1932 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.
Raja Bejoy Singh Dudhuria Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-1932
Reported in: (1933)35BOMLR811
Macmillan, J.1. This appeal relates to the assessment of the taxable income of the appellant for the year 1924-25, under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.2. On the death of his father in 1894 the appellant succeeded to the family ancestral estate. His stepmother, who had survived his father, subsequently brought a suit for maintenance against him in the High Court at Calcutta. The suit was compromised and a decree was by consent pronounced directing the appellant to make a monthly payment of Rs. 1,100 to his stepmother, which he has since regularly done.3. It is unfortunate that the decree has not been made available to their Lordships. The Chief Justice (Rankin), however, in the judgment now under review states that 'it was not disputed that the lady's maintenance was a legal liability of the Raja [the appellant] arising by reason of the fact that the Raja is in possession of his ancestral estate, that it is payable out of such estate and that this Court had declared that the maintenan...
Tulsidas Amanmal Karani Vs. S.F. Billimoria
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Bom490; (1932)34BOMLR910
Broomfield, J.1. This is an application for revision of an order of the Chief Presidency Magistrate made on November 17, 1931, discharging a notice and dismissing a complaint of defamation under Section 600 of the Indian Penal Code, The complainant was Mr. Tulsidas Amanmal Karani, who is a solicitor, and the accused was Khan Bahadur S.B. Billimoria, who is an advocate.2. The material facts are briefly these. One Bharmal or his son-it is not clear which-had rented a certain room in a chawl and the landlord sued the son to recover arrears of rent. A decree was obtained ex parts and in execution of it a warrant was issued for the arrest of the defendant,i.e., the son of Bharmal. The bailiff, however, arrested Bharmal himself on the representation that he was the real tenant and debtor. Bharmal was temporarily released by the Registrar of the Small Causes Court on the ground that he was not named in the warrant. He was given time to apply to the Court. Instead of that, however, he filed a ...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. F.E. Dinshaw
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Bom609; (1932)34BOMLR1235; 140Ind.Cas.749
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference by the Income-Tax Commissioner under Section 66 (5) of the Indian Income-tax Act, in which rather reluctantly he propounds a question for our consideration. The facts are that the assessee is one of the agents for a certain mill company and in his capacity as such agent he has been called upon to pay a sum of Rs. 1,73,500 in respect of liabilities of the company guaranteed by the agent, and his contention is that under Section 24 of the Indian Income-tax Act he is entitled to deduct that payment from his income arising under other heads treating the payment as a loss incurred in respect of his business as an agent. The Income-tax Officer was not satisfied that any loss had been incurred and the matter was then referred by way of appeal on the part of the assessee to the Assistant Commissioner, and he made an order, which is Exhibit C, in which he says:-After hearing the learned Counsel's arguments, I am of opinion thatso long as the mill i...
Emperor Vs. Raghunath Lahanusa Walvekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-1932
Reported in: (1932)34BOMLR901
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. His Lordship went into the facts of the case, and came to the conclusion that the Magistrate was justified in convicting the accused. The judgment then proceeded to sea with the points of law raised in the case. Mr. Velinker then takes certain points of law. He says, in the first place, that the two panchas who took part in the raid were not local people, and, therefore, Section 103 of the Criminal Procedure Code was not complied with. The first answer to that is that Section 103 in terms only applies to searches to be made under the Code, and there is nothing in the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act which requires search made under Section 6 to be in conformity with the provisions of Section 103. No doubt the police often do, and very wisely, carry out a search under the Prevention of Gambling Act in accordance with the provisions of Section 103, but in my view it is not essential to do so, Even if I thought that it was essential, I should say that the fact ...
Maganbhai Nathabhai Vs. Dinkarrao N. Desai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Bom596; (1932)34BOMLR1281; 140Ind.Cas.553
Rangnekar, J. 1. This is an application by one Maganlal Nathabhai who was declared to be a tout by the District Judge of Broach under Section 36 of the Legal Practitioners Act, 1879. He questions the correctness and the validity of the order made against him. On a preliminary objection raised as to whether an application would lie or not, I have held that this Court can entertain the application under its general power of superintendence over all Courts subject to its appellate jurisdiction under s 107 of the Government of India Act. The record is now before me and the application is fully argued on the merits,2. Mr. Mody for the applicant has urged the following points : (1) That there was no meeting as such of the Bar Association as required by Section 36 ; (2) that in any event the meeting was not specially convened for the purpose of passing a resolution declaring the applicant to be a tout as required by Section 36(1) read with the Explanation thereto; (3) that the resolution is t...
Sheoparsan Singh Vs. Munshi Narsingh Sahai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-1932
Reported in: (1932)34BOMLR890
Salvesen, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Patna dated May 29, 1928, reversing a judgment and decree of the Second Subordinate Judge of District Arrah, dated August 2, 1924, and decreeing in full the plaintiff-respondent's suit to recover Rs. 39,855 annas five pies six secured by a mortgage bond executed in favour of his benamidar on behalf of the defendant-respondent Mussammat Dhanwanti Kuer on March 3,1908.2. The only compearing parties at the trial were the appellant who under certain deeds, which it is not necessary to refer to, has acquired all the rights of Dhanwanti Kuer in the mortgaged properties, and the plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter referred to as the respondent).3. The facts of the case may be shortly summarised-Dhanwanti Kuer is the widow of one Sukhdeo Singh, who died prior to the middle of the year 1900, leaving three unmarried daughters. His three brothers Jaideo, Namdeo and Sahdeo survived him, but the two latter ...
The Official Liquidator Vs. Mrs. PerIn R. Burjorjee
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-1932
Reported in: (1932)34BOMLR1021
Tomlin, J.1. This appeal is concerned with the question whether a creditor's proof lodged by the respondent in the liquidation of the company whose liquidator is the appellant and rejected by the liquidator was properly so rejected.2. On December 23, 1929, the trial Judge on the original side of the High Court of Judicature at Rangoon held that the proof was rightly rejected. On August 4,1930, this decision was reversed on appeal to the appellate side of the Court.3. The proof in question was for Rs. 63,219-15-0, damages alleged to have been incurred by the respondent by reason of the failure of the company to complete the purchase of property agreed to be sold by the respondent by an agreement dated July 27, 1921.4. The only question in issue or debated at the hearing before the trial Judge, or on the appeal, was whether the agreement for sale (on the face of which the purchaser was one M.E. Moolla) had been entered into by Moolla on his own account or whether the company was the undi...
Emperor Vs. Bai Lali
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-1932
Reported in: (1932)34BOMLR896
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Surat under Section 307 of the Criminal Procedure Code The accused was tried for murder and acquitted by the unanimous verdict of the jury. The jury consisted of nine men, five of whom are of the schoolmaster class, so that the jury cannot be considered as a body of purely uneducated individuals. The learned Judge disagreed with the verdict of the jury and has, therefore, referred the mater to us under Section 307.2. It has been laid down many times by High Courts in India that on a reference under Section 807 the High Court cannot interfere unless satisfied that the verdict of the juryis perverse, that is to say, the Court must come to the conclusion on a perusal of the evidence that no jury could really have entertained any reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused. It is, I think, important that the principle should be adhered to that the High Court will not interfere with the verdict of a jury merely beca...
X.A. Pinto Vs. Narayan Malhari Mali
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Bom558; (1932)34BOMLR984
Baker, J.1. This appeal raises a little difficulty. The plaintiff sued to recover Rs. 1,400 on a mortgage bond dated September 3, 1918, from the defendant, a minor. The mortgage was passed by the minor'suncle and guardian, and was with possession. Both Courts below have found that the mortgage being with possession, although the plaintiff did not recover anything from the lands he must be debited with the profits which he ought to have received and the mortgage is paid off. The lower appellate Court finds that the amount of consideration of the mortgage is Rs. 550 which is binding on the minor, but as the mortgagee did not use his best endeavours to collect the rents and profits, which according to his own admission are Rs. 148 a year, nothing is due on the mortgage.2. The plaintiff makes this second appeal, and in appeal it is contended that though the mortgage is in form a usufrauctuary mortgage, it contains a clause by which the profits are to be applied primarily towards the intere...
Marghabhai Vallavbhai Vs. Motibhai Mithabhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Bom513; (1932)34BOMLR1015
Baker, J.1. This appeal raises a question of law on which the lower appellate Court has gone wrong. The plaintiff sued to obtain a declaration that he is entitled to build over the land in dispute which has fallen to his share, and to obtain an injunction restraining the defendant from obstructing him in building the same, and to remove the eaves of the defendant's roof abutting on the suit space. There was an open piece of land between the houses of the plaintiff and the defendant over which the defendant claimed ownership. The eaves of his house projected over this piece of ground, and certain windows of his house received light and air. But ultimately the plaintiff obtained a decree, which was confirmed in appeal, to the effect that he was entitled to a one-third share in this ground along with the defendant and one Kashibhai, and in execution of the decree he got possession of his one-third share, which abuts on the defendant's house, but when he desired to build on it, he was obst...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »