Mumbai Court March 1936 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.
Swatantranandji Vs. Lunidaram Jangaldas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Bom397; (1937)39BOMLR490
B.J. Wadia, J.1. This is a petition for the probate of two wills of Mataji Moxabai Guru Muktanandji who died on April 13, 1933. The first will is dated January 11, 1923, and was executed at Saspur (also called ' Saraspur'), Ahmedabad. The second will is dated April 3, 1933, and was executed at Mulund in the Thana District. The petitioner claims to be her disciple, and has propounded the two wills as executor according to the tenor. Defendant has put in a caveat and has filed two affidavits in support. In his first affidavit dated July 3, 1935, he contends that on a proper construction of Clause 4 of the later will he has been appointed executor, and the petitioner is not an executor according to the tenor. In his second affidavit filed on December 18, in continuation of the first, he alleges that the first will and the signature of the testatrix as well as the signatures of the attesting witnesses appearing on are all forgeries.2. Reading the two wills together the petitioner appears t...
Jagannath Rao Vs. Rambharosa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-1936
Reported in: (1936)38BOMLR776
Roche, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, Central Provinces, dated December 15, 1933, which affirmed a decree of the Additional District Judge, Raipur, dated March 16, 1927.2. The subject matter of the suit is the estate of one Baboo Rao Dani deceased. The plaintiffs in the suit were cousins of the 'deceased, being his paternal uncles' sons, and claimed his estate as reversioners on the death of his widow Musammat Anandabai, who died on November 27, 1924. The respondent Rambharosa, the defendant in the suit, in opposition to the plaintiffs' claim, relied upon an adoption by the widow of Baboo Rao Dani in April, 1920. The sole question for determination is whether this adoption was a valid adoption.3. The material facts and dates are as follows: Baboo Rao Dani was a Hindu resident of Raipur. He had no son. In 1911 he went to Delhi for the Durbar and before setting out he made a will which dealt, amongst other things, with the question of adop...
Nowroji Ardeshir Cooper Vs. the Official Assignee
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Bom321; (1936)38BOMLR575
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of Mr. Justice Blackwell made in insolvency. It appears that the insolvent was engaged i heavy litigation, and he was ordered to pay the costs, and the bill of costs was taken in for taxation. Of course it was to the interest of the Office; Assignee and the estate to get the bill taxed at as low a figure as possible. The Taxing Master made his allocation and reduced the original amount which the bill had been provisionally taxed by a considerable sum on the application of the Official Assignee. An application was then made to M Justice Kania as Insolvency Judge asking him to direct the Official Assignee take the bill of costs for review before the Judge in Chambers, an Mr. Justice Kania refused the application. Subsequently an application was made to the Insolvency Judge, who was then Mr. Justice Blackwell, t review the order of Mr. Justice Kania, that application being made under Section 8(1) of the Presidency-towns Insolvency...
Shriram Surajmal Vs. Shriram Jhunjhunwalla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1936
Reported in: (1936)38BOMLR577
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. I only desire to add a few words on a subsidiary point argued by Mr. Desai. It was argued that defendants Nos. 7 to 9' failing to put in a written statement were not to be taken as having admitted the allegations in the plaint, and in support of his argument Mr. Desai referred to the case of Ross & Co. v. Scriven and Others I.L.R(1916) Cal. 1001, in which the learned Chief Justice, in referring to Order VIII, Rule 5, said that it was clear from the wording of that rule that it is only intended to apply to a case where a pleading has been put in by the defendant, and does not apply to a case in which the defendant has put in no pleading. I desire for myself to say that I emphatically dissent from that view. Order VIII, Rule 5, provides that every allegation in the plaint, if not denied specifically or by necessary implication, or stated to be not admitted in the pleading of the defendant, shall be taken to be admitted, except as against a person under disabili...
Sir Chinnubhai Madhavlal Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1936
Reported in: [1937]5ITR210(Bom)
BEAUMONT, C.J. - This is a reference made by the Commissioner of Inc ome Tax under S. 66(2) of the Indian Income-Tax Act, XI of 1922. I have considerable difficulty in seeing myself what point of law arises having regard to the findings of fact by which, of course, we are bound.The assessee lost a substantial sum of money on certain debentures in the Agra Spinning and Weaving Co., Ltd. and he seeks to set that off against his profits and gains. The only possible ground on which he can do that is this that he carries on the business, amongst other business, of money-lending and if he can show that these debentures represent moneys loaned to the Company, as part of his money-lending business, then he would be entitled to deduct the loss from his profits and gains under S. 24 : but the finding of fact of the Income-tax Officer is that although the assessee carries on business as a financier and money-lender, the transaction in question had no connection with any such business. Having look...
Messrs. Ramkumar Kedarnath Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1936
Reported in: [1937]5ITR261(Bom)
BEAUMONT, C.J. - This is a reference made by the Commissioner of In come Tax under S. 66(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act, XI of 1922, of S. 13 of the Indian Income Tax Act, the Income Tax Officer has correctly included, in the computation of income of the calendar year ended December 31, 1933, the sum of Rs. 38,965 on account of commission for the six months ended December 31, 1933.'The assessee was a firm, which was acting as selling agents for a company known as Morarji Gokuldas Spinning and Weaving Co., Ltd. under an agreement dated the of January 13, 1930, which is Ex. A. Under that Agreement the firm got commission on goods which it sold on behalf of the company, and also on goods which the company sold directly to upcountry dealers. The system of accounting adopted by the firm was the method which is known as the mercantile method, that is to say, it accounted on the basis of commission earned, and not on the basis of commission actually paid. The system prevailed down to the acc...
The National Petroleum Company Ltd. Vs. Popatlal Mulji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Bom344; (1936)38BOMLR610; 165Ind.Cas.338
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of Mr. Justice Chitre, in which the main issue raised was whether the plaint showed any cause of action. The learned Judge held that it did, and the question is whether he was right in so holding. The material facts are these. Defendant No. 2 carried on business under the name of the National Petroleum Company, and he entered into contracts with the plaintiff and others as selling agents. The contract with the plaintiff is dated April 22, 1933, and thereunder the plaintiff was appointed selling agent on behalf of defendant No. 2. By Clause 3 the selling agent agreed to indent for goods required by him and to pay to defendant No. 2 against railway receipts or shipping documents the market value of the goods as fixed by defendant No. 2 at the time of delivery. Under Clause 15 the plaintiff, as selling agent, had to deposit with defendant No. 2 a sum of Rs. 1,000, which was to be returned to the plaintiff on termination of the a...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gopal Vaijnath Manohar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Bom385; (1936)38BOMLR929; 165Ind.Cas.518
Rangnekar, J.1. This application raises a short point of practice in connection with references under Section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act. That section provides under Sub-section (2) that in certain circumstances the assessee may by application, accompanied by a fee of Rs, 100 or such lesser sum as may be prescribed, require the Commissioner to refer to the High Court any question of law. Then there is a proviso to the section, which specifies the cases in which the Rs. 100 fee can be recovered. The proviso directs that if the Commissioner rejects the application on the ground that it is time-barred or otherwise incompetent, or if in exercise of his powers under Sub-section (3), the Commissioner refuses to state a case, or if the Commissioner decides the case under Section 33 in revision, the assessee may, within thirty days from the date on which he receives notice of the order passed by the Commissioner, withdraw his application, and if he does so, the fee of Rs. 100 shall be ref...
Sarupchand Pannalal Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Bom397; (1936)38BOMLR934; 165Ind.Cas.581
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. Application No. 1074 of 1935 is an application to the Court asking us to direct the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay, to state a case raising a point of law under Section 66 (3) of the Indian income-tax Act. The point involved is a very short one. The assessee in partnership with his cousin carries on the business of money-lending, and until the accounting period, which is Samvat year 1988, ending in November, 1932, the assessee's firm adopted what is known as the mercantile basis of accounting, that is to say, they showed the income accruing in any year as being the income on which assessment was to be based, and not the income received during that year. Shortly before the accounting period in question the assessee and his cousin quarrelled. Litigation is going on for the partition of their estate and business, and the debtors of the firm refuse to pay interest, because they do not know which of the partners will ultimately be entitled to it. Consequently ...
Sarupchand Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1936
Reported in: [1936]4ITR420(Bom)
BEAUMONT, C.J. - Application No. 1074 of 1935 is an application to the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay, to state a case raising a point of law under S. 66 (3), of the Income Tax Act. The point involved is a very short one. The assessee in partnership with his cousin carries on the business of money-lending, and until the accounting period, which is Samvat year 1988, ending in November 1932, the assessees firm adopted what is known as the mercantile basis of accounting, that is to say, they showed the income accruing in any year as being the income on which assessment was to be based, and not the income received during that year. Shortly before the accounting period in question the assessee and his cousin quarrelled. Litigation is going on for the partition of their estate and business, and the debtors of the firm refuse to pay interest, because they do not know which of the partners will ultimately be entitled to it. Consequently the actual amount received for interest is very much ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »