Mumbai Court October 1939 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.
Appa Sakharam Medkar Vs. Jagannath Sambhuappa Ghodke
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Bom239; (1940)42BOMLR457
Wassoodew, J.1. This is a second appeal from a decision of the District Judge of Sholapur. The only question raised for consideration is whether under Section 22 of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act (Bom. Act XVII of 1879) the material date for the determination of the status of the allleged agriculturist is the date of the attempted attachment or the date of the decree. It is common ground that the decree which was a money decree for Rs. 498 was passed against the respondent on October 14, 1933, as an agriculturist. His privileged status was admitted by the creditor-appellant. In June, 1937, when the decree-holder sought execution of his decree, he claimed attachment of the property of the judgment-debtor on the ground that he had ceased to be an agriculturist at that date, the underlying suggestion being that there was a change in his status since the decree. The learned Judge of the executing Court thought that it was open to the creditor to challenge the status even though con...
In Re: David Sassoon and Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Bom169; (1940)42BOMLR120
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. The assessee company were assessed for the financial year 1937-38 in respect of their income for the ' previous year', which expired on December 31, 1936. During that year they made on the whole a substantial profit, but in respect of the working of the Union Mills, which formed part of their business during the previous year, they incurred a loss of Rs. 77,236. On January 1, 1937, the Union Mills were assigned to a company called the New Union Mills Ltd., which was a new company formed for working the mills. The Income-tax Officer refused to allow the assessees to set off their loss of Rs. 77,236, under Section 24 of the Income-tax Act, because he held that by virtue of Section 26(2) of the Act the asselssees were not assessable in respect of the Union Mills. In point of fact the assessees were not liable for any tax in any event, because they had a...
Bai Ratangavri Vs. Manilal Mahipatram Mehta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Bom153; (1940)42BOMLR186
Divatia, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal in a suit for declaration that the upper part of the wall of their house containing two apertures was of their exclusive ownership and for injunction restraining the defendant from blocking them up. The houses of the parties are situated adjacent to each other in Ahmedabad. The plaintiffs' father purchased their house in the year 1889, the sale-deed of which contains a recital that the western wall of that house (the wall in dispute) was a joint wall only up to the roof of the house of Harilal, who was the defendant's predecessor-in-title, and above the height of the defendant's house it belonged exclusively to the plaintiffs' house. The defendant purchased his house in 1908, and it is recited in his sale-deed that the eastern wall, which is the same as the western wall of the plaintiffs' house, was joint up to the roof of the house with the plaintiffs' house, but it is silent about the ownership of the upper part of the wall. It is material t...
David Sassoon and Co., Ltd., in Re.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-1939
Reported in: [1940]8ITR7(Bom)
Beaumont, C.J. - This is a reference made by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 66(2) of the Act. The assessee company were assessed for the financial year 1937-38 in respect of their income of the 'previous year', which expired on the 31st December 1936. During that year they made on the whole a substantial profit, but in respect of the working of the New Union Mills, which formed part of their business during the previous year, they incurred a loss of Rs. 77,236. On the 1st January 1937, the New Union Mills were assigned to a Company called the New Union Mills, Ltd., which was a new Company formed for working the mills. The Income-tax Officer refused to allow the assessees to set off their loss of Rs. 77,236 under Section 26 of the Income-tax Act, because he held that by virtue of Section 26(2) of the Act the assessees were not assessable in respect of the New Union Mills. In point of fact the assessee were not liable for any tax in any event, because they had accumulations...
Bhagwandas Narandas Vs. D.D. Patel and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Bom131; (1940)42BOMLR231
Blackwell, J.1. [After setting out facts, the judgment proceeded :] Section 476 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code is as follows :-When any Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court is, whether on application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in Section 195, ' Sub-section (1), Clause (b) or Clause (c), which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after suchpreliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary, record a finding to that effect and make a complaint thereof in writing signed by the presiding officer of the Court, and shall forward the same to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction, and may take sufficient security for the appearance of the accused before such Magistrate or if the alleged offence is non-bailable may, if it thinks necessary so to do, send the accused in custody to such Magistr...
Vaman Ravji Kulkarni Vs. Nagesh Vishnu Joshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Bom216; (1940)42BOMLR428
N.J. Wadia, J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal against an order mad by Mr. Justice Norman sitting singly in an appeal from an order made by the District Judge of Belgaum. The appellant before us and another had filed a suit in the Court of the Joint Subordinate Judge of Gokak for accounts and redemption of a mortgage under the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act. The suit was dismissed by the trial Judge. It related to two lands, survey No. 32 and survey No. 29: It was alleged that plaintiff No. 1 Ravji and his brother Bapuji, since deceased, had mortgaged the whole of survey No. 32 and survey No. 29, pot No. 3, to one Datto Ramchandra Kalkundri. Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 were heirs of the mortgagee. They had transferred their mortgage rights in 1925 to defendant No. 4. In darkhast No. 54 of 1922 brought in execution of a decree obtained by one Vinayak Joshi against Ravji survey Nos. 29/3 and 32/3 were sold as belonging to Ravji, and were purchased by defendant No. 5. Defendants Nos. 6 a...
Gajramji Jasramji Maharaj Vs. Somnath Bhudardas Soni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Bom242; (1940)42BOMLR443
Divatia, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by defendant No. 1 in a suit by the plaintiffs for a declaration that the suit house belonged to a religious institution of the members of a sect known as Ramdwara sect, that it was public or private religious property, but that it was not in any case the private property of defendant No. 1. The plaintiffs also prayed for an injunction restraining the defendants from acting against the established usage of the institution, and there was a further prayer for accounts for moneys received from the tenants of the institution and other persons. There was also a prayer for accounts of the management of the suit property in possession of the defendant as a trustee for the institution. It must be noted here that the sanction of the Collector was not obtained under Section 92 of the Civil Pro- cedure Code for filing the suit.2. The defendant denied that the suit property belonged to the institution. His contention was that it was his private property...
Rawji Dhanji and Co., in Re.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-1939
Reported in: [1940]8ITR1(Bom)
Beaumont, C.J. - This is a reference made by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 66(2) of the Act raising a question which does not, I think, present any serious difficulty.The facts are, that the assessees are rice merchants carrying on business in Bombay and Rangoon, the Head office being in Bombay and the Branch office in Rangoon, and down to the 31st March, 1937. Burma was part of British India, but it ceased to be part of British India as from the 1st April, 1937. The year of assessment is the year 1937-38, during the whole of which Burma was not part of British India, but under Section 3 of the Income-tax Act as construed by the High Court of Calcutta in In the matter of Beharilal Mullick, I.L.R. 54 Cal. 630 the tax for the year of assessment has to be levied on the actual income of the previous year, which in this case ended November, 1936, so that during the whole of the previous year Burma was part of British India. The argument of the Commissioner is that you can onl...
Gordhandas G. Mehta, in Re.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-1939
Reported in: [1940]8ITR80(Bom)
Beaumont, C.J. - The Commissioner in this case has raised a question whether in the circumstances of the case the sum of Rs. 9,962 received by the assessee by cheques every month from the executors of his fathers estate has been rightly included by the Income-tax Officer in computation of his total income.It is found as a fact by the Assistant Commissioner that this sum was actually paid by cheques every month to the assessee out of the income of the estate of his father. Now, under the fathers will, by Clause 14, the executors are directed to spend a sum up to Rs. 500 a month for the maintenance and education of the son, who is the assessee, and a daughter Kusum, who is now married. Then they have a discretion to exceed the sum of Rs. 500 per month if they think necessary. Then the last sentence is : 'The provisions contained in this clause shall cease to have any operation after Gordhan shall discontinue his study and earn his livelihood in business or some profession and Clause 20 s...
A. R. Hattiangadi, in Re.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1939
Reported in: [1940]8ITR85(Bom)
Beaumont, C.J. - This is a reference made by the Commissioner of Income-tax on his own motion under Section 66 (1) of the Income-tax Act in which he raises the following question :'Whether in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Officer has rightly held the assessee liable to tax on the amounts of Rs. 5,296 and Rs. 8,013 received by him from the Trustees of the Native Staff provident and Savings Fund on account of the employers contribution to the Fund and the accumulated interests on the total contributions thereto respectively.'The assessee was an employee of the South British Insurance Co. Ltd., which company had instituted a Provident Fund for its native staff. The fund is regulated by a deed of trust which is Exhibit A to the Reference.Under clause 4 of the Deed all native employees have to become subscribers to the Fund. Under clause 5 every subscriber to the Fund has to contribute annually a sum equal to five per cent. upon his actual salary and by sub-clause (3) of tha...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »