Mumbai Court May 1935 Judgments
Sheonandan Prasad Singh Vs. Abdul Fateh Mohammad Reza
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-31-1935
Reported in: (1935)37BOMLR845
Atkin, J.1. This is sun appeal from the High Court of Patna and raises. i question as to the validity of an alleged compromise on appeal of a suit in which the present appellants were plaintiffs and the respondents, who were not represented before the Board, were defendants. It is unnecessary to go into the details of the case. THE relevant facts appear to be that before the transaction in question the appellants were owners of an eight annas share in the mauza Alapur and defendant No. 2 Imdad Ali owned a two annas share n the same mauza. By registered deeds dated July 12 and October 27, 1921, defendant No. 2 conveyed his two annas share in the mauza to the plaintiffs, 'or a total consideration of Rs. 10,896. The plaintiffs subsequently discovered, that on June 25, 1921, defendant No. 2 had executed a mortgage in favour of defendant No. 1 of the whole of his interest for a loan of Rs. 2,500. There was some dispute as to the registration of this mortgage, but it was finally registered o...
Tag this Judgment!Maharaj Kumar Gopal Saran NaraIn Singh Vs. the Commissioner of Income- ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-28-1935
Reported in: (1935)37BOMLR817
Russell, J.1. The appellant appeals from a judgment of the High (Court of Judicature at Patna on a reference under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The question for decision may be stated to be whether the appellant is assessable to income-tax and super-tax in respect of an annual sum of Rs. 2,40,000 payable to him during his life pursuant to a covenant contained in the indenture hereinafter mentioned.2. The appellant was the owner of an estate in British India known as the Nine Annas Tekari Raj. He had a daughter who had married a son of Rani Bhubaneshwari Kuar (hereinafter referred to as the Rani).3. By an indenture, dated March 29, 1930, and made between the appellant of the one part and the Rani of the other part, the appellant conveyed the greater portion of his said estate to the Rani for the valuable consideration therein appearing. The indenture recites among other facts that the appellant was absolute owner of the estate, a...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.R.A.L. Muthukaruppan Chettiar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-24-1935
Reported in: (1935)37BOMLR815
Atkin, J.1. This is an appeal from the High Court at Madras on a reference under Section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The question is whether a sum of Rs. 38,305 was a receipt of capital or a receipt of profit assessable under Section 4 (2) of the Indian Income-tax Act. The facts are simple. The respondent is a Chetti carrying on business in Madras where he resides and in various other places within and without British India. He was up to May, 1930, one of three partners in a moneylending business S. P. K, A. A. M. at Colombo in which he had a 63/4 share. On May 31, 1930, he severed his . connection with that firm, and an account was taken of the amounts due to him by way of capital, surplus capital, share of profit and interest thereon : and a sum of Rs. 2,09,670 was found due to him which included Rs. 23,500, share of profits from October 26, 1926, to May 31, 1930, and Rs. 38,305 interest on capital. The Rs. 23,500 was paid to him by hundis drawn by the remaining partners a...
Tag this Judgment!Kunwar Basant Singh Vs. Kunwar Brijraj Saran Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-17-1935
Reported in: (1935)37BOMLR805
Thankerton, J.1. These are consolidated appeals from four decrees of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, dated January 16, 1929, which substantially reversed a decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Meerut, dated March 2, 1925.2. The property in suit is the Sahanpur estate, situated in the District of Meerut, and the last male holder was Kunwar Khushal Singh, a Hindu Jat, who died on August 6, 1879, leaving surviving him a widow, Rani Raghu-bir Kunwar, who died on November 24, 1920. The present suit was instituted on May 1, 1923.3. The right of succession to the estate lies between the plaintiff-appellants Nos. 1 to 5, who are now admitted to be the nearest; reversioners, and the original respondent in the leading appeal, Kunwar Brijraj Saran Singh, defendant No. 1 in the suit, who is now deceased, and whose representative is now respondent, Defendant No. 1 was in possession, and claimed as adopted son under an adoption made by the said Rani on April 13, 1903. The fact of...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›