Mumbai Court September 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. the Western India Life Assurance Co ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom345; (1938)40BOMLR447
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference made by the Commissioner of Income-tax in which he raises the following question :-The Assistant Commissioner having found as a fact that in the triennium under consideration, there was an appreciation in the value of the securities held by the assessee;, was his action correct in refusing to grant any deduction from income liable to tax on account of 'the sum of Rs. 1,74,919 claimed by the assessee under Rule 30 of the Income-taxi rules as an item of expenditure on account of amounts carried to the Investment Reserve Fund meant to provide for depreciation in the value of the said securities ?2. The assessee is a company carrying on life assurance business. The year of assessment is the year 1933-34. Under Rule 2o of the Indian Income-tax rules framed under Section 59 (2)(a)(ii), it is provided :-In the case of Life Assurance Companies incorporated in British India whose profits are periodically ascertained by actuarial valuation, the inco...
Western India Life Insurance Co. Ltd., in Re.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-1937
Reported in: [1938]6ITR44(Bom)
BEAUMONT, C.J. - This is a reference made by the Acting Commissioner of Income-tax in which he raises the following question :-'The Assistant Commissioner having found as a fact that in the triennium under consideration there was an appreciation in the value of the securities held by the assessee, was his action correct in refusing to grant any deduction from the income liable to tax on account of the sum of Rs. 1,74,919 claimed by the assessee under Rule 30 of the Income-tax Rules as an item of expenditure on account of amounts carried to the Investment Reserve Fund meant to provide for depreciation in the value of the said securities ?'The assessee is a company carrying on life insurance business. The year of assessment is the year 1933-34. Under Rule 25 of the Indian Income-tax Rules framed under sec. 59(2) (a) (ii) it is provided :'In the case of Life Assurance Companies incorporated in British India whose profits are periodically ascertained by actuarial valuation, the income, pro...
Haribhai Nanaji Patil Vs. Narayan Hari Purvant
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom438; (1938)40BOMLR876
Rangnekar J.1. This is a second appeal from a decision of the District Judge of Poona, and it raises an interesting question under Hindu law. The facts which gave rise to the suit may be briefly stated as follows :2. One Tanaji died, possessed of certain properties, leaving him surviving his widow Janubai and a daughter Salubai. Long after his death, Janubai executed a deed (exhibit 115) which, on the face of it, is called ' a deed of relin-quishment of heirship of the moveable and immoveable property' left by Tanaji and to which she had succeeded as his widow, in favour of her daughter Salubai on October 31, 1917. On May 18, 1926, Salubai exchanged the lands in suit, which she had obtained under the deed passed by Janubai, for certain other lands belonging to the defendants, and the defendants came into possession of the lands thus exchanged and at the date of the suit were in possession of the same. These lands are the subject-matter of the suit, being survey Nos. 203, 213, 238 and 3...
Emperor Vs. Ramkrishna Gopal Bhide
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom179; (1938)40BOMLR59
Barlee, J.1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Poona who recommends that the convictions and sentences in the case of certain persons who have been convicted of offences under Section 71 of the Bombay District Police Act be set aside and the fines if paid be refunded. With this reference there are ten other references and a revision application. These cases have arisen in consequence of a notification issued by the District Magistrate, Poona, under Section 42 of the Bombay District Police Act. It runs as follows :-Whereas at the last year's Hanuman Jayanti and Festival at the Sonya Maruti Shrine, Ravivar Peth, Poona City playing of music by the Hindus led to a grave disturbance of the public peace resulting in rioting between Hindus and Mussalmans, murders, and destructions of property in various parts of the City,And whereas the Hanuman Jayanti and Festival which are due to begin on the 25th April, 1937, and to end on the 13th May, 1937, have not been permitted,And whereas ...
Nadirshaw Jamshedji Vachha Vs. Manekbai Nadirshaw Vachha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom218; (1938)40BOMLR195
Divatia, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the decision of B. J. Wadia J. rejecting the application in the form of a chamber summons taken out by the defendant in a Parsi Matrimonial suit in Bombay for an order that the amount of permanent alimony of Rs. 85 per month awarded to his former wife, the plaintiff, by Mr. Justice Davar in 1928, and subsequently reduced to Rs. 50 per month by B. J. Wadia, J. in 1935, be altogether rescinded. The only ground on which the defendant-appellant prayed for this order was that after she was divorced from him, the wife had remarried in 1934, and the fact of remarriage itself was a sufficient reason, under the new Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act of 1936, for the rescission of the order of permanent alimony which was made under the previous Act of 1865 in which, however, there was no provision for; such rescission in the event of the wife's remarriage.2. The appellant relied on Section 40 of the new Act which runs as follows :-40. U) The Court may, ...
Pannalal Murlidhar Marwadi Vs. Khemchand Sakharchand Gujarathi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom288; (1938)40BOMLR389
Norman, J.1. The question is whether the appeal before me is in time. The ninetieth day was February 21, 1937, which was a Sunday and the following day February 22, 1937, was a public holiday. The appeal would thus have been in time if presented on the 23rd. Actually it was presented on February 16, but was not accompanied by copies of the judgment and the decree which the Court was asked to dispense with. On February 19, 1937, the Court made an order dispensing with a copy of the judgment, but refusing to dispense with a copy of the decree. A copy of the decree was asked for on February 23, obtained on March 1, and filed the same day. Assuming the appeal to be properly filed on March 1, and deducting the requisite period to obtain copies, the appeal is in time. But the office view is that the time taken for obtaining copies cannot be deducted because the copies were not applied for until after the ninetieth day. An opposite view was taken in Siyadat-un-nissa v. Muhammad Mahmud I.L.R. ...
Naru Shidu Gaikwad Vs. Krishna Shidu Gaikwad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom210; (1938)40BOMLR166
Rangnekar, J.1. The facts which give rise to this appeal are as follows :-The property, which is the subject-matter of the suit consisting of four lands situated at Kapri, was held by and belonged to a man called Vithu. In 1880 Vithu sold the property to one Ranu Padawalle. In 1882 Rarm mortgaged the property to a man called Hasabnis. In 1893 Vithu died, leaving his son Shidu, who died in 1898 leaving him surviving his three sons, Krishna, defendant No, 1, Balu, defendant No. 2, and Naru, the plaintiff. Ranu, the purchaser, died, leaving a daughter Bhagu, and she in 1904, sold one-fourth of the property to defendant No. 3 in the suit and the remaining three-fourths to one Tukaram. In 1913 Tukaram sold the three-fourths land to defendant No. 3. So that, if Ranu was the owner of the property, it is clear that in 1913 defendant No. 3 became the owner of the property. In 1914 defendant No. 3, as owner, brought a suit, being suit No. 163 of 1913, against Hasabnis. To that suit he added Kris...
Nagappa Ramaya Bab Balgi Vs. Santappa Pandurang Pai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom311; (1938)40BOMLR365
Divatia, J.1. These two appeals have been preferred against a decree passed by the acting District Judge at Karwar in a suit by the plaintiffs for a declaration that defendant No. 4 had no right to manage the property of the suit temple, which is known as the Shri Vyankatraman temple at Kumta, in his hereditary right, secondly, for the removal of defendants Nos. 1 to 4 from the management of the suit temple, for an order on the defendants to produce the accounts of the moveable property, cash ornaments, etc., for damages from the defendants for their acts of misfeasance and malfeasance, and lastly for an order directing the defendants to hand over the possession of the suit properties to the trustees who may hereafter be appointed for the temple.2. Appeal No. 24 has been preferred by the plaintiffs while Appeal No. 25 has been preferred by defendant No. 4. The final order of the lower Court was partly against the plaintiffs and partly against defendant No. 4. It was against defendant N...
Shrimal Kasturchand Marwadi Vs. Hiralal Hansraj Marwadi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom289; (1938)40BOMLR371
Rangnekar, J.1. The short question which arises for determination in this appeal is, whether a judgment-creditor who has been defeated at the instance of an intervenor in proceedings taken in execution of his decree must necessarily file a suit under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act.2. The facts are, that the appellant obtained a decree against respondents Nos. 3 and 4 and in execution of' the decree he attached two pieces of land. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 intervened and claimed to be the purchasers, inter alia, of these lands. Their objection was upheld by the Court and the attachment was removed. Under Order XXI, Rule 63, it is clear that in these circumstances the judgment-creditor was entitled to bring a suit for a declaration that the intervenors had no title and that the judgment-creditor had the right to attach the property and bring it to sale in execution of his decrees. It seems that in the trial Court defendant No. 2 raised the contention that the suit not being in...
Jambu Tavanappa Adake Vs. Gopalkrishnacharya Rangacharya Karvir
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom291; (1938)40BOMLR359
Rangnekar, J.1. Lagammanna and Satappa were brothers and members of a joint family. Lagammanna died before Satappa, and, according to the plaintiffs' case, he left his widow Girava, and a daughter by Girava, called Yellava, surviving him as his heirs and legal representatives. In the year 1888, Lagammanna mortgaged survey No. 273 to the predecessors-in-title of defendants Nos. 1 to 10, by exhibit 94. In the year 1889, by exhibit 93, he mortgaged to the same parties survey Nos. 283 and 624. In 1905, the mortgagee purchased the mortgagor's equity of redemption from Satappa who, according to him, had succeeded to the property by survivorship, as he and Lagammanna, up to the latter's death, had continued to be joint. Shortly after the mortgage of 1889 a kabuliat was passed by Satappa alone in respect of the mortgaged lands in favour of the mortgagees. In 1896, the mortgagees brought a suit for rent on this kabuliat. A written statement was put in on behalf of both Lagammanna and Satappa an...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »