Mumbai Court March 1934 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.
Narayan Atmaram Patkar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Bom378; [1934]2ITR486(Bom)
BEAUMONT, C.J. - 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, Income Tax Act. The parties in this case have not followed the 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 no satisfied of the correctness of the Commissioners decision, may require the Commissioner to state a case and to refer it. In our opinion the proper course for the parties to adopt when they desire the Commissioner t...
H.H. Chimnabai Saheb Maharani Gaekwar of Baroda Vs. Kasturbhai Manibha ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Bom225; (1934)36BOMLR454
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.,1. In this case the plaintiff in Suit No. 3989 of 1924 has applied for an order for execution under Rule 387 of the Rules of the Bombay High Court (Original Side). That rule and the preceding Rule 386 are in these terms. Rule 386 provides:The Sheriff shall ordinarily execute the process of the High Court in the Island of Bombay, Cross alias Gibbet and Butcher's Islands and the coasts and harbours thereof, respectively, and shall not be compellable to execute process beyond the said limits.2. Then Rule 387 provides:Upon occasions when it shall be necessary to execute process beyond the said ordinary limits, the Sheriff shall grant his special warrant to such person or persona as a Judge shall direct; and in order to prevent any improper use or abuse of the process of the Court, the party issuing the same shall give such security or indemnity for its proper execution as the Judge shall direct.The plaintiff in this suit obtained a money decree for a sum of over on...
Sopana Appa Awatade Vs. Dattatraya Krishnappa Hundekari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Bom383; (1934)36BOMLR804; 152Ind.Cas.589
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal in execution proceedings, and the question is whether the appellants, who were held to be non-agriculturists in the suit from which this appeal arises, can claim the status of agriculturist in execution proceedings. The suit was filed on March 16, 1931, and it was to recover a large sum of money in connection with dealings in cotton. There was an issue as to whether the defendants were agriculturists, and the finding was in the negative. The suit was accordingly decreed on February 20, 1932. On March 7, 1932, the judgment creditor filed a darkhast and attachment was ordered to issue on March 9, 1932, and on April 21, 1932, the Court ordered that the attached property should be sold. Subsequently, in reply to the notice issued under Rule 66 of Order XXI, Civil Procedure Code, the principal defendant put in a written statement contending that he was an agriculturist and that his property could not be attached or sold by reason of Section 22 of...
Sakarlal Jamnadas Vs. Jerbai Sorabji Patel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Bom348; (1934)36BOMLR681; 153Ind.Cas.899
N.J. Wadia, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Thana refusing to set aside a sale of certain property held in execution of three darkhasts, Nos. 366 of 1924, 447 of 1924 and 271 of 1925, which had been filed by respondents Nos. 1 to 8 against the appellant and respondent No. 11, Balkisandas Tulsidas. A considerable amount of property was to be sold. The bulk of it, consisting of lots Nos. 1, 2, 4 to 12 and 14, was sold in the year 1929. The remaining lots Nos. 3 and 13, with which this appeal is concerned, were sold on December 31, 1931. The appellant sought to have the sale set aside cm various grounds. His first contention was that the proclamation of sale with regard to the properties wrongly mentioned that there was a charge of Rs. 31,035 odd on the whole of lots Nos. 3 and 13, whereas as a matter of fact this charge really subsisted only on the property of respondent No. 11 Balkisandas, i.e., the whole of lot No. 3 and half of lot No. 1...
The Secretary of State for India Vs. Rajaram Parashram Deshpande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Bom47; (1934)36BOMLR1055; 155Ind.Cas.763
N.J. Wadia, J.1. Respondent No. 1, Rajaram Parashram Deshpande, is the inamdar of the village of Padamale in the Tasgaon taluka of the Satara District. The village was originally granted to his ancestors in Deshpande inam by the Mahratta Government in the year 1739, the inam being a grant of the soil of the village and conferring full proprietary rights exclusive of hakdars and inamdars. The inam was continued by the British Government. In 1902 a sanad was granted to the inamdar under Section 15 of the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act (Bom. III of 1874) by which the holders agreed to pay to Government a fixed annual judi in lieu of service. There were certain lands granted as inam in the village for shet-sanadi service. In 1920 Government ordered a discontinuance of the service of shetsanadis and imposed full assessments on the lands. The respondent contended that the sanadi inam lands had been given by his ancestors to the sanadis for the performance of police duties, that they were Jadi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›