Mumbai Court September 1937 Judgments
Ramkrishna Jagannath Kadam Vs. Bapurao Badajirao Kadam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom284; (1938)40BOMLR390
Rangnekar, J.1. It is said by Mr. Desai that the question raised is not covered by authority. The appeal arises out of a suit brought by the respondents who are knots of the village of Hativ in the Ratnagiri District against the appellants in the following circumstances. One Daji was admittedly an occupancy, or, as he is now called under the present Act, permanent tenant of the lands in suit. On May 13, 1896, Daji sold, or purported to sell, the lands to a predecessor-in-title of the present appellants. After the death of Daji, his nephew, on October 21, 1927, sold the same lands to the plaintiffs and in December, 1928, passed a rajinama in their favour. The plaintiffs admittedly are the khot sharers of the village, owning dhada No. 11, which comprised the khata of the occupancy holding of Daji. The main defence to the suit was that the defendants became the occupancy tenants of the khot by reason of their having held the occupancy holding in question adversely to the khot for more tha...
Tag this Judgment!Mohanlal Khubchand Vs. Jagjivan Anandram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom298; (1938)40BOMLR394
Rangnekar, J.1. His Lordship, after setting out the tacts and discussing the evidence, arrived at the conclusion that the alienations made by Mahakor were not supported by legal necessity and should be set aside. The question of the award of mesne profits was next dealt with]. This brings us to the question about the mesne profits. The learned trial Judge held that the plaintiffs were entitled to mesne profits and he ordered the defendants to pay to the plaintiffs mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 8 per acre in proportion to the lands in their possession for three years before suit and future mesne profits at the same rate from the date of the suit until delivery of possession to the plaintiffs. The appellants complain of the first part of this order.2. Mr. Desai relies, first, upon an unreported decision of a divisional bench of this Court consisting of the learned Chief Justice and my brother Sen in Sokebgouda Somappa v. Parawa. (1934) First Appeal No. 73 of 1932, decided by Beaumont ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Aryan Life Assurance Society Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom182; (1938)40BOMLR52
Engineer 1. This is a petition for winding up of the Aryan Life Assurance Society, a limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1913.2. The liability of the members is limited by guarantee. Clause 5 of the memorandum of association is as follows :-Every member of the Society undertakes to contribute to the assets of the Society, in the event of the same being wound up during the time that he is a member, or within one year thereafter for payment of the debts and liabilities of the Society contracted before the time at which he ceased to be a member, and the costs, charges and expenses of winding-up the same and for the adjustment of the rights of the contributories amongst themselves, as may be required, not exceeding Rs. 25.3. The petition is by eleven petitioners, and it was presented on March 31, 1937. Section 22 of the Indian Life Assurance Companies Act (VI of 1912) provides that-The Court may order the winding-up of a life assurance company, in...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Aryan Life Assurance Society Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-1937
Reported in: 174Ind.Cas.593
ORDEREngineer, J.1. This is a petition for winding up of the Aryan Life Assurance Society, a limited company, incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1913. The liability of the members is limited by guarantee. Clause 5 of the memorandum of association is as follows;Every member of the Society undertakes to contribute to the assets of the Society in the event of the same being wound up during the time that he is a member, or within one year thereafter for payment of the debts and liabilities of the Society contracted before the time at which he ceased to be a member, and the costs, charges and expenses of winding up the same and for the adjustment of the rights of the contributories amongst themselves, as may be required not exceeding Rs. 25.2. The petition is by 11 petitioners, and it was presented on March 31, 1937. Section 22, Life Assurance Companies Act (VI of 1912) provides that;The Court may order the winding up of a life assurance company in accordance with the C...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. the Ahmedabad Advance Mills Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-1937
Reported in: (1938)40BOMLR171
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference by the Income-tax Commissioner under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act raising a short point. The assessees are a limited company, and in the year of assessment they had certain income amounting to Rs. 18,000 odd, which they received in London. They invested that income, or at any rate the bulk of it, in the purchase of stores and machinery in England, which they then shipped to Bombay, and the question is whether they are liable to pay income-tax on so much of the stores and machinery as represent the income received by them in London, in other words, whether the income received by them in London has been constructively brought into British India. The question turns on the construction of Section 4(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act.2. That sub-section provides :-Income, profits and gains accruing or arising without British India to a person resident in British India shall, if they are received in or brought into British India, be d...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jesingbhai Ugarchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom350; (1938)40BOMLR452
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference by the Income-tax Commissioner arising in these circumstances. The assessees were a Hindu undivided family consisting of a father and seven sons, and on the finding of the Commissioner they separated during the year of assessment. Shortly after the separation of the family the father and his seven sons, that is to say, exactly the same persons as constituted the joint family, formed themselves into a firm, and asked the Income-tax Officer to register it. The question which the Commissioner of Income-tax propounds is :Whether in a case where it is found as a fact, and an order is recorded under Section 25A(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, that a Hindu family hitherto assessed as undivided, has separated and the joint family property has been partitioned among the various members in definite portions, it is incumbent on the Income-tax Officer to entertain an application made under Section 26A to register a firm, said to consist of all the me...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dwarkanath Harischandra Pitale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom353; (1938)40BOMLR455
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J. 1. This is a reference made by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, and the questions raised are :(1) Whether in the circumstances of the case, the assessees constituted in law an association of individuals within the meaning of Section 3 of the Indian Income-tax Act?(2) Whether the said association can be said to be the owner of the properties within the meaning of Section 9 of the Indian Income-tax Act and was rightly assessed as such ?(3) Whether the assessees were in any event rightly assessed as owners of the said properties under Section 9(2) of the Act ?The facts found are that the assessees became entitled as residuary legatees under the will of their grandfather to certain house properties in the city of Bombay of the aggregate rental value of Rs. 25,000. They so became entitled in the year 1929, when the properties were handed over to them, and they have since managed the properties as joint owners, and deri...
Tag this Judgment!Hanmantagouda Nagangouda Hiregoudar and the District Local Board Vs. S ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-1937
Reported in: (1940)42BOMLR1123
Rangnekar, J.1. These appeals, which have been fully argued for more than a day on both sides, raise some questions of law, some of which at least are not covered by direct authority. It appears from the facts that in the year 1929-30 defendant No. 1 had taken a toll contract appertaining to Sindgi Toll Naka from the District Local Board of Belgaum. He made default in the payment of the whole amount which became due under the contract to the Board, whereupon the latter served him with two notices of demand, one in March, 1930, and the other in May, 1930. He had also taken a similar contract from Government in respect of Chik Bagewadi and Hire Ulligere Naka for the year 1930-31, and in this contract two persons, who are described as defendants Nos. 3 and 4 in these proceedings, were sureties. He made default in payment of the dues under this contract also. According to the evidence, the payment in respect of the first contract became due in March, 1930, and that in respect of the second...
Tag this Judgment!Dwarakanath Harischandra Pitale and Another Vs. Re.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-1937
Reported in: [1937]5ITR716(Bom)
BEAUMONT, C.J. - This is a reference made by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, and the questions raised are :-'(1) Whether in the circumstances of the case, the assessees constituted in law an association of individuals within the meaning of Section 3 of the Income-tax Act ?(2) Whether the said association can be said to be the owner of the properties within the meaning of Section 9 of the Income tax Act and was rightly assessed as such ?(3) Whether the assessees were in any event rightly assessed as owners of the said properties under Sec. 9(1) of the Act ?'The facts found are that the assessees became entitled as residuary legatees under the will of their grand-fathers to certain house properties in the city of Bombay of the aggregate rental value of Rs. 25,000. They so became entitled in the year 1929, when the properties were handed over to them, and derived profit therefrom. I think this case is really governed by the decision of this...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Vs. Ahmedabad Advance Mills, Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom207; [1938]6ITR31(Bom)
BEAUMONT, C.J. - This is a reference by the Income-tax Commissioner under Sec. 66(2) of the Act raising a short point. The assessees are a limited company, and in the year of assessment they had certain income amounting to Rs. 18,000 odd, which they received in London. They invested that income, or at any rate the bulk of it, in the purchase of stores and machinery in England, which they had shipped to Bombay, and the question is whether they are liable to pay income-tax on so much of the stores and machinery as represent income received by them in London; in other words, whether the income received by them in London has been constructively brought into British India. The question turns on the construction of Sec. 4(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act. That sub-section provides : 'Income, profits or gains accruing or arising without British India to a person resident in British India, shall, if they are received in or brought into British India, be deemed to have accrued or arisen in Briti...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »