Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1937)39BOMLR626
Broomfield, J.1. This is an application for revision of an order by the First Class Magistrate, Bulsar, rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 489 of the Criminal Procedure Code for an alteration of the amount of maintenance which the petitioner has been ordered to pay to his wife. The original order for payment of maintenance of Rs. 19 a month to the petitioner's wife Bai Mani was made in January, 1925. The allowance was duly paid for ten years. Thereafter the petitioner's circumstances changed, as he alleges, and he applied under Section 489 for a reduction of the amount of maintenance. At that time it was found that Bai Mani was of unsound mind. The proceedings were kept pending while an inquiry was made into the state of her mind. Ultimately her brother made an application to the District Judge under the Indian Lunacy Act and was appointed manager of her estate under Section 71 of that Act. The application made by him shows that his object in applying was inter alia t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1937)39BOMLR629
N.J. Wadia, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order made 'by the Presidency Magistrate, 3rd Court, Bombay. The applicant is a dealer in ghee. On July 13, 1936, an Inspector of the Bombay Municipality visited his shop and purchased from him two samples of ghee bearing a certain trade-mark. On August 6, 1936, the Assistant Health Officer of the Municipality filed an information before the Honorary Presidency Magistrate alleging that the petitioner had committed an offence under Section 4 of the Bombay Prevention of Adulteration Act (Bom. V of 1925) by having sold or caused to be sold or offered for sale a certain article of food under the description of ghee, which was not in fact ghee as it contained over thirty-eight per cent, of foreign ingredients.2. The petitioner had applied that the public analyst, whose certificate was to be put in, should be called as a witness as the petitioner wanted to test the accuracy of the certificate given by him before he entered upon h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1937)39BOMLR910
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference made by the Income-tax Commissioner under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922; and the short question raised is whether the assessees are an association of individuals within the meaning of Section 3 of the Act.2. The Commissioner finds as a fact that the assessees in the year of assessment joined together in purchasing certain immoveable properties in Bombay, contributing the purchase moneys in equal shares, that the properties were managed by or on behalf of the owners, and such management resulted in certain profits or gains. One of the assessees was a minor during the year of assessment, and he contracted through his father and natural guardian.3. The short question is, whether when two persons associate together for the purpose of buying property and managing it so as to produce income, they are an association of individuals within Section 3 of the Act. Now, Section 3 imposes a tax 'in respect of all income, profits and g...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1938Bom65; (1937)39BOMLR1146; 173Ind.Cas.395
B.J. Wadia, J.1. Plaintiff has filed this suit against his wife to have his marriage dissolved on the ground that at the time of the marriage she was of unsound mind and has been habitually so up to the date of the institution of the suit, or in the alternative to have the marriage declared null and void on the same ground, but under the provisions of Section 27 of the old Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act of 1865. In the body of the plaint it is stated that the plaintiff will in the further alternative ask for a decree for judicial separation; but there is no prayer for judicial separation. The written statement was put in by the wife through her father as guardian ad litem, and the issues were settled in chambers in the ordinary course. The plaint was admitted by me provisionally, as I felt some doubt at the time about the suit being maintainable. Two issues were tried as preliminary issues, namely, issue (2)-whether the plaint discloses any cause of action as regards the reliefs for nu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1937Bom364
N.J. Wadia, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order made by the Presidency Magistrate, 3rd Court, Bombay. The applicant is a dealer in ghee. On 13th July 1936, an Inspector of the Bombay Municipality visited his shop and purchased from him two samples of ghee bearing a certain trade, mark. On 6th August 1936, the Assistant Health Officer of the Municipality filed an information before the Honorary Presidency Magistrate alleging that the petitioner had committed an offence under Section 4, Bombay Prevention of Adulteration Act (Bom. 5 of 1925) by having sold or caused to be sold or offered for sale a certain article of food under the description of ghee, which was not in fact ghee as it contained over thirty-eight per cent, of foreign ingredients.2. The petitioner had applied that the public analyst, whose certificate was to be put in, should be called as a witness as the petitioner wanted to test the accuracy of the certificate given by him before he entered upon his d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1938Bom41; 173Ind.Cas.482; [1937]5ITR584(Bom)
BEAUMONT, C.J. - This is a reference made by the Income Tax Commissioner under Sec. 66(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, and the short question raised is whether the assessees are an association of individuals within the meaning of Sec. 3 of the Act.The Commissioner finds as a fact that the assessees in the year of assessment joined together in purchasing certain immoveable properties in Bombay, contributing the purchase moneys in equal shares, that the properties were managed by or on behalf of such owners, and such management resulted in certain profits or gains. One of the assessees was a minor during the year of assessment, and he contracted through his father and natural guardian.The short question is, whether when two persons associate together for the purpose of buying property and managing it so as to produce income they are an association of individuals within Section 3 of the Act. Now, Section 3 imposes a tax 'in respect of all income, profits and gains of the previous y...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1937Bom479; (1937)39BOMLR907; [1937]5ITR539(Bom)
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act. The question is whether certain allowances ought to be given to the assessee. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family. Originally the family consisted of a father and two brothers, the father died, and then one of the brothers named Mathuradas died leaving a widow Nambai. The other brother Kalianji then became the sole surviving coparcener. He has got a son, so that the coparcenary now consists of Kalianji and his son, and the widow of Mathuradas is a member of the joint family in her capacity as widow of a deceased coparcener. She applied to the Court for maintenance, and by a decree of this Court she was allowed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 165 per month, and the question is whether that sum can be deducted from the assessable income. Now inasmuch as the assessee is the Hindu undivided joint family which includes this widow, it is difficult to see how ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1938Bom113; (1937)39BOMLR1304
Broomfield, J.1. The plaintiff, who is the respondent in the first of these appeals and the appellant in the second, purchased the inam village of Sakurdi at an auction-sale in execution of a mortgage decree against the defendants who are the inamdars. The sale took place on February 14, 1931, and formal possession was obtained through the Court on April 22, 1931. The revenue authorities declined to enter the plaintiff's name in their records as the holder of the inam village and she was unable to recover the revenue from the defendants. Accordingly she brought the suit from which these appeals arise for a declaration of her title as owner of the village and the income thereof and ancillary injunctions.2. The principal defence and the only one that has been made the subject of argument in this appeal is that the village of Sakurdi is held by the defendants under an inalienable tenure and that the plaintiff has acquired no right therefore by her purchase at the Court-sale.3. The grant i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1938Bom459; (1938)40BOMLR957
Rangnekar, J.1. It is conceded by Mr. Madbhavi that the point of limitation arising in this case is covered by the decision in Ardha Chandra Rai Chawdhry v. Matangini Dassi I.L.R. (1895) Cal. 325. This case has been approved of in Rajendranath Kanrar v. Kamalkrishna Kundu Chaudhuri I.L.R. (1931) Cal. 1057. There is no decision of this Court on the point.2. The facts are that the appellant who was the defendant in the suit was absent on the day of hearing on January 24, 1934, and his pleader stated that he had no instructions from his client to proceed in the matter. Upon that the learned Subordinate Judge after recording the evidence of the plaintiff passed a decree against the defendant ex parte on February 13, 1934. On February 27, 1934, the defendant applied to have that decree set aside. But his application was rejected by the Judge on July 9, 1934. Against that order he appealed to the District Court on August 10. The appeal was dismissed on September 14, 1934. On September 29, 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1938]6ITR584(Bom)
BEAUMONT, C.J. - This is a Reference made by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Sec. 66(2) of the Income-tax Act. The assessees are a firm trading in Bombay, and they do a good deal of business in cotton and other commodities. The profits on which they have been assessed, as they say wrongly, in this case, were derived from certain contracts for the purchase and sale of cotton placed on the New York Exchange during the year of assessment, which is the year 1934-35. It was held by this Court in Chunilal Mehtas case, : AIR1935Bom423 , that where a broker of Bombay makes profit out of contracts placed by him with a broker on a foreign exchange, the profits are made out of the contracts which the broker on the foreign exchange carries through, and those profits do not accrue or arise in British India. But the Commissioner of Income-tax is of opinion that this case should be dealt with on different footing, because the contract entered into by the assessees and the brokers was in the firs...
Tag this Judgment!