Mumbai Court March 1937 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.
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vishvanath Bhaskar Sathe
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Bom493; (1937)39BOMLR903
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, which raises a question lying in a very small compass but one easier to state than to answer.2. It appears that the assessee, during the year of assessment, which was the year ending March 31, 1936, owned a ginning factory in Dhulia, and he was a member, with owners of other ginning factories, of a pool. The Commissioner finds as a fact that during the year of assessment, the factory of the assessee was not actually employed in the work of ginning; and, presumably, it was not so employed under some arrangement made by the pool,-although I have not been referred to any clause of the pool agreement under which the factories of some of the members can be closed. But under Clause 16 of the agreement, it is provided as follows :-In order to entitle the parties hereto to their respective shares in the said pool as mentioned in Clause 7 hereof, they shall keep a...
Sir Chinubhai Madhavlal Bart Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom83; (1937)39BOMLR1209; 173Ind.Cas.804
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application to review the Assistant Taxing Master's order in relation to the costs of Civil Reference No. 11 of 1935, which was a reference to this Court made by the Commissioner of Income-tax: under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act.2. The order made on the reference was that the assessee should pay the costs of the Commissioner on the Original Side scale. In taxing the costs, the Assistant Taxing Master has allowed a fee for getting the reference settled by the Government Solicitor and the Advocate General; and the question is whether he had any power to make such an allowance.3. The argument of Mr. Shavaksha for the applicant (assessee) is that under Section 66(2) the assessee is entitled on payment of Rs. 100 referred to in that section to require the Commissioner to refer a point of law to the High Court, and that, no doubt, is so, Mr. Shavaksha contends from that, that the fee of Rs. 100 is intended to cover the costs of the Commissi...
Sir Chinnubhai Madhowlal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1937
Reported in: [1938]6ITR148(Bom)
SIR JOHN BEAUMONT, C.J. - This is an application to review the Assistant Taxing Masters order in relation to the costs of Civil Reference No. 11 of 1935, (reported in (1937) 5 I.T.R. 219) which was a reference to this Court made by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act.The order made on the reference was that the assessee should pay the costs of the Commissioner on the Original Side scale. In taxing the costs, the Assistant Taxing Master has allowed a fee for getting the reference settled by the Government Solicitor and the Advocate-General; and the question is whether he had any power to make such an allowance.The argument of Mr. Shavakshah for the applicant (assessee) is that under Sec. 66(2) the assessee is entitled on payment of Rs. 100, referred to in that section, to require the Commissioner to refer a point of law to the High Court, and that, no doubt, is so. Mr. Shavakshah contends from that that the fee of Rs. 100 is intended to cover ...
Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay Vs. Viswanath Bhaskar Sathe.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1937
Reported in: [1937]5ITR621(Bom)
BEAUMONT, C.J. - This is a reference made by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Sec. 66(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act, which raises a question lying in a very small compass but one easier to state than to answer.It appear that the assessee, during the year of assessment, which was the year ending March 31, 1936, owned a ginning factory in Dhulia, and he was a member, with the owners of other ginning factories, of a pool. The Commissioner finds as a fact, that during the year of assessment the factory of the assessee was not actually employed in the work of ginning; and presumably it was not so employed under some arrangement made by the pool, although I have not been referred to any clause of the pool agreement under which factories of some of the members Can be closed. But under clause 16 of the agreement, it is provided as follows :-'In order to entitle the parties hereto to keep their respective shares in the said pool as mentioned in clause 7 hereof, they shall keep and maintai...
Mahabir Prasad Vs. Syed Mustafa Husain
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-1937
Reported in: (1937)39BOMLR990
George Rankin, J.1. On April 13, 1918, one Mir Fida Husain, a Mussulman of the Asna-Ashari sect of the Shias, died leaving him surviving a widow, six sons of whom two were minors, and three daughters of whom two were minors. The appellants are judgment creditors of three of the sons-viz., Mohammad Askari, Hasan Askari and Baqar Mehdi-who were all of full age at the date of their father's death. In execution of money decrees against these sons the appellants in 1928 attached certain of the properties left by Mir Fida Husain, in consequence whereof they were impleaded as defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in the suit out of which this appeal arises.2. This suit was brought on October 17, 1929, by two of Mir Fida Husain's daughters seeking to establish that the whole of the properties left by their father, including the properties attached by the appellants, were wakf property. The learned Subordinate Judge has held that the shares (in all thirteen-twentieths) which would ordinarily be inherited' by...
Musammat Vaishno Ditti Vs. Musammat Rameshri
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1937
Reported in: (1937)39BOMLR787
George Rankin, J.1. In this case two appeals have been consolidated. Both arise out of proceedings which followed upon an Order in Council dated July 30, 1928, made in appeal No. 84 of 1927. They are brought by Musam-mat Vaishno Ditti, who on April 10, 1923, filed her suit in the Court of the District Judge of Peshawar to establish her right to a quarter share in the property left by her maternal grandfather Balmokand and his widow Musammat Kauran. Balmokand had died in 1906 leaving a widow and five daughters of whom one (Ramo) died without issue, so that her share accrued to the others equally. The widow had died in 1909.2. The suit having succeeded before the District Judge, was dismissed on appeal by the Judicial Commissioner, but by the Order in Council already mentioned the decree of the District Judge was restored 'subject to the following modifications :-(a) that the appellant be granted a decree for a one-fourth share of the movable and immovable property and (b) a decree for r...
Narhari Damodar Vaidya Vs. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom146; (1937)39BOMLR1295; 173Ind.Cas.910
Broomfield, J.1. The appellants, on behalf of the caste Hindus of the town, of Mahad, sued the respondents, who represent the so-called ' untouchables,' for a declaration that the Choudhari Tank near the town belongs to them, and that they alone have a right to use it and the respondents are not entitled to use it, and for an injunction against the respondents not to use it. The claim to ownership is not now persisted in and it is conceded that, as found by the trial Court, the tank belonged to Government under the provisions of Section 37 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code and has now vested in the Municipality of Mahad under Section 50 of the District Municipalities Act. It is also conceded now that the caste Hindus are not entitled to exclusive user of the tank as against all the world, since Mahomedans may and do use it. It is contended nevertheless that the appellants have the right to use it themselves and to exclude the 'untouchables' from the use of it, and this, right is said to ...
Chimanlal Purshottamdas Shah Vs. Nyamatrai Madhavlal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom44; (1937)39BOMLR1083; 173Ind.Cas.205
Rangnekar, J.1. The appellant, who is a certified broker and a member Nyamatrai of the old Share Bazar of Ahmedabad, is seeking to enforce a mortgage bond executed by the respondent in his favour to secure the loss which the respondent may sustain in respect of the share business transacted by his orders and by his direction in the Share Bazar at Ahmedabad. He is also seeking to recover the balance due to him in respect of such share transactions which was not covered by the mortgage bond. His total claim is Rs. 7,741 with interest at six per cent, on it. The respondent pleaded that the transactions in suit were gambling and wagering and, therefore, void in law, and that as the consideration for the mortgage bond was illegal, the mortgage bond could not be enforced against him. The learned Joint First Class Subordinate Judge of Ahmedabad accepted the defence raised by the respondent and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The plaintiff now appeals.2. It appears from the evidence that in Sa...
The Tata Hydro-electric Agencies Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Income-t ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1937
Reported in: (1937)39BOMLR775
Macmillan, J.1. The appellants are a private limited company who carry on the business of managing agents of the Tata Power Company Limited and of certain other hydro-electric companies in India. They acquired this agency business from their predecessors, Tata Sons Limited, under an assignment dated November 21, 1929, whereby Tata Sons Limited transferred to the appellants their whole rights and interest as agents of the hydro-electric companies under their subsisting agreements with these companies, but subject, as to their rights and interest under their agreement with the Tata Power Company Limited, to their obligations under two agreements with F.E. Dinshaw Limited and Richard Tilden Smith respectively. The assignment was declared to be to the intent that the appellants should thenceforth be and act as the agents of the hydro-electric companies, and be entitled to all benefits and advantages contained in and conferred by the agreements between Tata Sons Limited and these companies,...
Babu Kedarnath Goenka Vs. Maharaj Kumar Babu Bageshwari Prasad Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1937
Reported in: (1937)39BOMLR782
Shadi Lal, J.1. These consolidated appeals arise out of proceedings in the execution of a decree obtained against the appellant by the respondents for the possession of land and for the mesne profits thereof. The questions raised by the appeals relate to the assessment of the mesne profits, and to the rate of interest which should be allowed on the profits.2. The circumstances, which led to the decree sought to be executed, may be shortly stated. In the Monghyr district of the Province of Bihar there was an estate called Mahal Bisthazari. The mahal comprised about 360 villages, but was entered in the Collector's register as a separate revenue-paying estate. There were numerous proprietors in the mahal owning specific shares some in one village only, others in several villages. Ordinarily, all the proprietors in a revenue-paying estate are jointly liable for the payment of the land revenue assessed on that estate, and, in the event of a default in payment, the whole of the estate may be...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »