Mumbai Court March 1934 Judgments
Vadilal Lallubhai Mehta Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (11.091934 - Bo ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Bom170; (1935)37BOMLR89
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application made to the Court under Sub-section (3) of Section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act asking the Court to require the Commissioner to state a case and raise certain points of law. In substance the points of law are said to arise in this way. The assessee was assessed as an individual for the year 1932-33 in respect of his income for the previous year. He alleges that in May 1932 a son was born to him, and he says that having regard to the construction of two documents, the business in respect of which he was assessed was, as between himself and his son, a Hindu joint-family business. His contention is that the effect of the two documents is to show that he acquired his share in the business from his own father by a surrender of his interest in certain ancestral immoveable property, and that in that way his interest in this business is the interest of a joint Hindu family. The Income-tax Officer in the first instance, and the Assistant Comm...
Tag this Judgment!Ratansey Virji Vs. Meghji Hirji Jangeali
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Bom431; (1934)36BOMLR901; 153Ind.Cas.283
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of Mr. justice Mirza. The plaintiff was a member of the Cutchi Dassa Oswal caste. Defendant No. 3 is the acting President of the caste, and the other defendants are prominent members of the caste. The caste have authorised defendants Nos. 2, 3, and 4 to defend the suit. The plaintiff claims a declaration that the resolution dated August 26, 1932, expelling him from the caste is invalid and of no effect, and an injunction to restrain the defendants from giving effect to the resolution. The material facts can be shortly stated. In the month of August, 1932, namely, on August 3 and 9, the plaintiff wrote two letters to defendant No. 3, which are exhibits A and B, in which he criticised the conduct of defendant No. 3, when he was acting as President of the Mahajan or caste meeting. The letters are couched in quite courteous terms, and the criticism is not, I should have thought, of a very serious character, and I am disposed to a...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. TamkIn Hiu Ah Chung
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-1934
Reported in: (1934)36BOMLR495
Murphy, J.1. The appellants in this matter have been convicted by the learned Presidency Magistrate, 6th Court, under Sections 14(a) and 21, 10B and 14(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act, and have been sentenced to imprisonment and fine. They are all three Chinamen living, in the case of two of them, in a house at Suklaji Street, and that of the third, in Frere Road, Mazgaon. Two of them are ships' carpenters, and the third describes himself as secretary of a Chinese Club.2. The case against them was that No. 1 was in possession of about two find a half ounces of cocaine worth about Rs. 248, that No. 2 was in possession of five tolas of chandul (a preparation of opium) and twenty-three tolas of madat (opium residue after the preparation of chandul) and that No. 3 was in possession of four grains of cocaine.3. The unlicensed possession of any cocaine is prohibited by the Act, while Under the rules, chandul prepared from opium lawfully acquired within the limit of weight allowed, may only be ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramkumar Potdar Vs. the Sholapur Spinning and Weaving Co. Ld.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Bom109; (1934)36BOMLR907
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. In this case the plaintiff sues on behalf of himself and the other shareholders of the Sholapur Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd., and he asks, first, for a declaration that certain resolutions passed by the directors, which resolutions were for the dismissal of the company's agents, are in contravention of the memorandum and articles of association of the company, and are not binding on the members of the defendant company, and, secondly, for an injunction to restrain the defendants from acting upon the resolutions. Defendant No. 1 is the Sholapur Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd., and the other defendants are the directors. It is a well-settled principle in company law that the Court does not generally interfere with the internal management of the affairs of a company, and, if the majority of the shareholders consider that a particular contract of employment should be terminated, the Court would not as a rule consider the matter at the instance of a minority of sha...
Tag this Judgment!Pandit Someshwar Dutt Vs. Pandit Tirbhawan Dutt
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-1934
Reported in: (1934)36BOMLR652
Alness, J.1. The suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Gonda out of which this appeal arises was brought by two plaintiffs (1) Pandit Tirbhawan Dutt, and (2) Thakur Jai Indar Bahadur Singh, with whom plaintiff No. 1, before its institution, entered into an agreement, whereby plaintiff No. 2 undertook to pay the costs of the suit, on the footing that he should receive half of the property recovered in the proceedings. The Chief Court of Oudh, from which this appeal comes, have held that that agreement was not in the circumstances champertous. It is unnecessary that their Lordships should express any opinion on this point, and they refrain from doing so. The suit was directed against Pandit Sotneshwar Dutt, the elder brother of plaintiff No. 1. Its object was to recover possession of certain properties which the plaintiffs allege are being wrongly retained by the defendant. The learned Subordinate Judge, by decree dated September 9, 1929, dismissed the suit. On appeal, the Chief ...
Tag this Judgment!Lallubhai Chakubhai Jarivala Vs. Shamaldas Sankalchand Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1934
Reported in: (1934)36BOMLR881
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Broomfield in a patent action. The material facts are that in the year 1927, the plaintiff, who is a chemist, started a business in partnership with one Girdharlal, who is the brother of the defendant, the name of the firm being Jarivalla Shah & Co. The defendant was a clerk in the employment of the firm. The firm had an experimental branch which carried on business in the name of Jasco & Co., that firm being in charge of one Dr. Patel. In August, 1928, the plaintiff left for Europe, leaving Dr. Patel in charge of the chemistry department. In February, 1929, the plaintiff returned to Bombay, and shortly thereafter Dr. Patel left the employment of the firm. In or about October, 1929, a firm called Harak-chand Shivji & Co. approached the plaintiff and asked him whether he could introduce a system of producing white almonds by some process of bleaching the shells. On November 9, 1929, the plaintiff commenced exper...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Karim Haji Dagubhai Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Bom489; (1934)36BOMLR1064
Divatia, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal against the Government in a suit for recovery of possession of certain property on the ground that the plaintiff was illegally dispossessed of the same by the defendant, and for further ancillary reliefs.2. The defendant's case, among other things, was that the suit was barred under Section 11 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act inasmuch as the plaintiff did not file a proper second appeal to the Government against the decision of the Commissioner in appeal presented by the plaintiff against the original order of the Collector.3. The trial Court found on the issues that the suit was not barred under Section 11 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act, and that on the evidence the plaintiff had succeeded in proving his ownership of the plaint property, and, therefore, he was entitled to the reliefs claimed by him. The finding about the maintainability of the suit was based on the ground that all that Section 11 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdicti...
Tag this Judgment!Hiranand Khushiram Kirpalani Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Bom379; (1934)36BOMLR820; 153Ind.Cas.142
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the Chief Judge of the Small Cause Court at Bombay, given on a matter referred to him under Section 503 of the City of Bombay Municipal Act, 1888.2. The facts are not in dispute. The Secretary of State for India is the owner of certain land fronting, adjoining or abutting on a private street; off Colaba Road, Bombay, and a notice was served upon him requiring: him to do certain work in connection with the levelling, metalling, draining and lighting of the private street. That work was not done by the respondent, but was carried out by the appellant, the Municipal Commissioner of Bombay; and in these proceedings the Commissioner seeks to recover the proportionate costs of that work from the respondent as the owner of premises situate in the private street. The respondent's contention is that the City of Bombay Municipal Act, 1888, does not bind him as representing the Crown, and that contention was upheld by the learned C...
Tag this Judgment!Rachotappa Ishvarappa Vs. Konher Annarao Deshpande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Bom41; (1934)36BOMLR1083; 155Ind.Cas.516
Broomfield, J.1. The appellants are the present representatives of a family, the Pattars, which has for a long period been in occupation of certain lands at Kurankop in the Dharwar district under a permanent tenancy. Some of these lands belong to the respondent Konher Annarao Deshpande as representative of the Deshpande family. The rest are devasthan lands held by the Deshpandes under a permanent tenancy and sub-let by them to the Pattars. As long ago as 1865 there was litigation between the predecessors of the parties in which it was settled by a compromise decree that the lands should be allowed to continue permanently in the occupation of the Pattars on payment of the assessment as fixed by Government from time to time. In 1923 the respondent brought two suits against Ishvarappa, the father of appellant Rachotappa, and Rachotappa himself, claiming to evict them as being merely annual tenants. In one suit, No. 58 of 1923, which related to those lands covered by the 1865 decree which ...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Atmaram Patkar Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-1934
Reported in: (1934)36BOMLR818; 152Ind.Cas.972
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a petition asking us to direct the Commissioner of Income-tax to submit a question of law for the decision of this Court under Sub-section (3) of Section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act. The parties in this case have not followed the correct procedure under Sub-section (2) of Section 66. That section empowers the assessee to require the Commissioner to refer to the High Court any question of law arising out of the order of the Assistant Commissioner, and the Commissioner is then directed to draw up a statement of the case and refer it with his opinion thereon to the High Court. Then Sub-section (3) provides that if the Commissioner refuses to state a case on the ground that no question of law arises, the assessee may apply to the High Court, and the High Court, if it is not satisfied of the correctness of the Commissioner's decision, may require the Commissioner to state a case and to refer it. In our opinion the proper course for the parties to adopt...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »