Mumbai Court December 1935 Judgments
Madhavjee Damodar Thackersay and Another (Executors) Vs. Commissioner ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-31-1935
Reported in: [1935]3ITR457(Bom)
BEAUMONT, C. J. - In this case the assesses were assessed under Section 23(4) of the Income Tax Act and in that assessment interest on securities were treated as Rs. 31 thousand and odd, dividends at Rs. 44 thousand odd and 'other sources - Interest' at Rs. 85,000. Subsequently it transpired that interest on securities should have been Rs. 58 thousand odd instead of Rs. 31 thousand and odd and dividends should have been Rs. 68 thousand odd, and instead of Rs. 44 thousand odd. The income tax authorities therefore proposed unders powers conferred by Section 34 of the Act to levy tax on these two items so far as they had escaped assessment. The contention of the assesses is that the item 'other sources - Interest' should have been assessed at Rs. 55 thousand and odd instead of Rs. 85,000, and they say that they should be allowed credit for the difference between these figures. Mr. Engineer has referred us to the decision of the Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Satyendramohan Roy C...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Hirabai D. Desai and Sons Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bom ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-31-1935
Reported in: [1936]4ITR95(Bom)
BEAUMONT, C.J. - In this case the Income Tax Commissioner raised a question which he was directed by this Court to raise under section 66(3) of the Indian Income Tax Act, the question being 'whether the Income Tax Officer was, under the circumstances of the case, free to adopt the basis and manner of computing the income of the assessee, which he did not adopt'. The assessee holds a license from the government to sell liquor at a shop in Ahmedabad and the question is how she ought to be assessed in respect of the income of that liquor shop. The basis on which the accounts are kept is to enter the amount of liquor purchase, which can be easily checked as all liquor is purchased from the Government depot, and then to calculate the amount sold, not by the cash received, but by charging the market price for the day for the amount by which the stock of liquor was diminished that day. There is no fixed market price, and it becomes a question of fact, not always easy to answer, what was the p...
Tag this Judgment!Kissondas Premchand Vs. Jivatlal Pratapshi and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Bom423; (1936)38BOMLR864
Rangnekar, J.1. This is an action the like of which I have never heard of and in support of which no precedent can be or has been produced. Counsel in the case tell me that one of the questions raised by it has not yet come up for decision in any Court. The claim in the suit is for a redistribution of the fund paid over by the Court to the creditors of a deceased person whose estate was under its administration, and it is made by one creditor who has not received his rateable share in the distribution of the fund against the other creditors.2. The plaintiff was carrying on business in Bombay till 1927. He had entered into various transactions for the sale and purchase of cotton for April-May-December, 1926, and January, 1927, vaidas with one Noorani in Bombay. Noorani committed suicide on or about October 8, 1926. At the time of his death he was indebted to the plaintiff, as a result of the transactions, in the sum of Rs. 18,762-3-6.3. Three days after Noorani's death, defendants No. 1...
Tag this Judgment!Nathu Lal Vs. Babu Ram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-1935
Reported in: (1936)38BOMLR462
George Rankin, J.Buddhi|----------------------------------------------------------| | |Ram Sahai. Ji Sukh Ram. Sita Ram.| ||Shiam Lal. Mussamat Jamna, widow.|------------------------------------------------------------| | |Mussammat Mullo, wife Musammat Ram Dei, Musammat Naraini, widowof Durga Prasad. wife of Ram Dayal. of Chiranji Lal (paternal| | uncle of Nathu Lal,| | plaintiff No. 1 | Nanak Chand.| || Musammat Laraiti, widow.|-----------------------------------| -----------------------------------------------------------------| | | |Babu Ram, Lachmi Narain, Har Narain, Raghubar Dayal,defendant No. 1 defendant No. 2 defendant No. 3. defendant No. 4.1. The plaintiffs, on March 22, 1927, sued the defendants in ejectment to recover possession of certain zemindary property and a share in a house (haveli). The defendants had obtained mutation of names from the revenue authorities on the death of Musammat Naraini who held possession during her lifetime. Plaintiff No. 1, Nathu Lal, is the ...
Tag this Judgment!Basawanewa Balappa Gandigwad Vs. Balappa Shivappa Gandigwad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Bom289; (1936)38BOMLR502
Macklin, J.1. The plaintiff in this case sued for restitution of conjugal rights and made his wife defendant No. 1 and her mother defendant No. 2. He alleged that he had been married to her for many years and that she had borne him five children but was now living with another man by name Bhimappa and refused to return to him. The wife contended that she had been divorced by her husband many years ago and since then she married Bhimappa and had borne him four children. The trial Judge held that the divorce was proved and that therefore the plaintiff could not bring this suit. In appeal the District Judge held that there was no custom of divorce proved among Jains, to which caste the parties belonged, that the fact of this particular divorce was not proved, and that the plaintiff must therefore get a decree. The defendant comes in second appeal.2. It is contended as a point of law that the learned District Judge has overlooked certain important evidence in the case and that that evidenc...
Tag this Judgment!Cora Lillian Mcpherson Vs. Oran Leo Mcpherson
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-1935
Reported in: (1936)38BOMLR468
Blanesburgh, J.1. Questions of wide general importance-of interest in some of their aspects to the whole Dominion and even beyond-are raised by this appeal from the Supreme Court of the Province of Alberta, The questions discussed in the judgments appealed from are concerned with the degree of publicity called for at the trial of divorce suits-in particular undefended divorce suits in the Province : their Lordships, however, will have to deal, in addition, with the effect upon a decree nisi made at such a trial and upon a decree absolute following thereon when it is shown-as in this case is alleged, that the proceedings at the trial were devoid of sufficient publicity-were, in short, not held in ' Open Court'.2. The facts which raise these questions are not in the present case in dispute and may be stated as follows :-The appellant and the respondent-they will throughout be generally so referred to-were married on April 17, 1908, in the United States. Their subsequent matrimonial domic...
Tag this Judgment!Narshingappa Parasappa Chavan Vs. Tippanna Bhimjeppa Santanavar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Bom276; (1936)38BOMLR499
Macklin, J.1. The simple question at issue in this second appeal is whether the proper defendant in the case is the present appellant or whether he ought to have been the person who originally contracted to sell the land in suit to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs had a contract for the purchase of certain land belonging to Usufsab, and in spite of the existence of that contract and the payment of earnest money Usufsab subsequently sold the land to the present defendant. The plaintiffs were compelled to bring a suit on September 12, 1927, for specific performance of their contract, and in that suit they made both Usufsab and the present defendant parties. They obtained a decree for specific performance and they got possession of the property in July, 1929. They now sue the defendant for mesne profits for the period September 12, 1927 to July, 1929. Both the Courts have given them a decree. The learned District Judge who heard the appeal held that though the plaintiffs were not entitled t...
Tag this Judgment!Bomatu Bhadu Ghatole and ors. Vs. Govardhandas Nanabhai Gujarathi and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Bom268; 163Ind.Cas.937
Broomfield, J.1. These appeals have been heard together as they involve a common question as to the law o limitation applicable to instalment decrees where the whole amount is made payable in default of one or more instalments. In the case from which Second Appeal No. 568 of 1933 arises, there was a consent decree for Rs. 769-2-9 with costs and future interest payable in four equal instalments, the first being due in January 1928. The decree also provided that 'if any instalment remains unpaid, the defendants to pay all the moneys due in one sum after deduction of the payment already made, and in case the defendants fail to pay accordingly, the plaintiff may recover the amount due by sale through Court of the property under attachment.' The vernacular expression for 'the defendants do pay' is dyavi; the vernacular for 'plaintiff may recover' is vasul Karun qhyavi. On the point of the construction of the decree we take the view that the use of this subjunctive form implies that the judg...
Tag this Judgment!The Bundi Portland Cement Ltd. Vs. Abdul HusseIn Essaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-09-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Bom418; (1936)38BOMLR894; 166Ind.Cas.138
Rangnekar, J.1. The plaintiffs are an incorporated company registered in Bombay under the Indian Companies Act of 1882. The defendant is a merchant carrying on business in Bombay. The plaintiffs manufactured cement, and it is sold in Bombay and other Indian markets in bags bearing three letters ' B B B ' on them with the word ' Portland ' above such letters and the word ' Cement' below them. The plaintiffs' cement is well known in the market as the ' B B B ' brand, or the ' tin B' or ' tun B' brand, and with this trade mark their cement has attained a high reputation and commands a large sale all over India, and their dispatches from the works during the five years have averaged over eighteen lacs of bags per annum.2. About the beginning of the year 1931 the plaintiffs came to know that the defendant was importing into Bombay and selling large quantities of Japanese cement in bags bearing the letters 'RRR' with the word ' Portland ' above such letters and the word ' Cement' below the s...
Tag this Judgment!The Gujarat Ginning and Manufacturing Company Limited Vs. Motilal Hira ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1935
Reported in: (1936)38BOMLR353
Maugham, J.1. The appellant company-the Gujarat Ginning and .-appeal from an injunction granted by the District Judge at Ahmedabad and affirmed by the High Court of Bombay restraining them from interfering with the passage of railway wagons between the respondents' land and the line of the Bombay Baroda and Central India Railway upon railway lines laid down in the appellants' premises. Part of the order complained of requires the appellants to replace certain rails which they had taken up. The suit was brought by the Motilal Hirabhai Spinning, Weaving and Manufacturing Company, Limited (the respondents) in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Ahmedabad on June 29, 1923. The trial Judge had dismissed the suit.2. A third company, the Gujarat Spinning and Weaving Company, Limited, has to be referred to and as its name is very similar to the name of the appellants, it will be referred to in this judgment as the 'third company'. The three companies just mentioned appear all to have been en...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »