Mumbai Court March 1939 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Residency Vs. Ahmedabad Millowners ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1939
Reported in: [1939]7ITR369(Bom)
BEAUMONT, C.J. - This is a reference by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 66 (2) of the Income-tax Act, in which he raised the question : 'Whether the association constituted as aforementioned and having the members mentioned in paragraph 4 hereof has been correctly treated by the Assistant Commissioner as chargeable to income-tax under Section 3 of the Act as being an 'association of individuals'.The Association in question is the Ahmedabad Millowners Association, and according to the finding of the learned Commissioner it consisted, during the year of assessment, of 61 members, 60 of whom were limited companies and one was an individual person. It is clear, therefore, that if the Association is to be assessed as an association of individuals, it must be on the basis that a limited company is an individual for the purposes of the charging section in the Income-tax Act. The learned Commissioner, relying on the dictionary meaning of 'individual,' holds that a company is an in...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Shevantibai Vs. Janardan R. Warick
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Bom322; (1939)41BOMLR631
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Rangnekar, and the only question raised is as to limitation. That question arises in this way.2. In 1879, there was a mortgage to the plaintiff's predecessor-in-title by two brothers, Jagannath and Harischandra, who were members of a joint Hindu family and were two of the coparceners. They were entitled together to a third of the estate. They mortgaged their share in the estate. In 1882, one of the brothers, Jagannath, sold his share to the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiff, so that such predecessor became entitled absolutely to one-sixth of the joint family property and was mortgagee of another one-sixth. Jagannath died in the year 1896, and Harischandra died in 1898, and neither of them had any male issue. So that their branch of the family ceased to be represented in the coparcenery. The plaintiff is now suing for partition of the joint family property and to have allotted to her the share which she purc...
Tag this Judgment!Muljee Sicka and Co. Vs. the Municipal Commissioner of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Bom471; (1939)41BOMLR984
Lokur, J.1. This is an application for the issue of a writ of certiorari in respect of the order passed by the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Bombay, in Municipal Appeal No. M|96 of 1937. The petitioner firm owns several buildings on the Vithalbhai Patel Road, and they are liable to the Bombay Municipal Corporation to pay a certain percentage of their rateable values as property taxes under Sections 139 and 140 of the City of Bombay Municipal Act, 1888. For this purpose, the Municipal Commissioner has to fix the rateable value of each building assessable to property tax in accordance with the provisions of Section 154 of the Act. According to that section, the rateable value of a building or land is the amount of the annual rent for which such building or land might reasonably be expected to let from year to year, minus a sum equal to ten per centum: of the said annual rent, to be deducted in lieu of all allowances for repairs or on any other account whatever. Subsection (2) of Secti...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammad Azim Khan Vs. Raja Saadat Ali Khan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-1939
Reported in: (1939)41BOMLR1036
George Rankin, J.1. This appeal is brought from two decrees of December 22, 1930, made in the exercise of the Original jurisdiction conferred upon the Chief Court of Oudh by Section 7 of the Oudh Courts Act, 1925, an Act of the local legislature of the United Prolviinces of Agra and Oudh, By these decrees Nanavutty J., as trial Judge, after a protracted hearing, dismissed two suits (numbered respectively 11 and 12 of 1928), which had been instituted on November 2, 1928. The two suits were tried together, and one judgment was given covering the issues in both. They came on for hearing on July 15, 1929. Evidence both oral and documentary was adduced in great quantity ; the hearing continued until August 2, 1929, when the case was postponed until February 13, 1930 ; thereafter the case was heard on a number of dates in February, March and April of that year. Sixteen issues in one case and fourteen in the other had been framed, and in a lengthy judgment the learned Judge considered and dec...
Tag this Judgment!Surendra Bahadur Singh Vs. Behari Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-1939
Reported in: (1939)41BOMLR1047
Lancelot Sanderson, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in the suit against a judgment and decree of the High Court of Allahabad dated November 28, 1933, whereby the appeal of one of the present respondents, viz. Lachman Singh, was allowed and the suit as against the said Lachman Singh and :his share of the mortgage property was dismissed. The plaintiffs are Kunwar Surendra Bahadur Singh and his two manor sons and the suit was brought for foreclosure of a mortgage dated June 23, 1909, purporting to be executed by Himmat Singh (now deceased), Mulu Singh and Musammat Jamna Kunwar, mother and certified guardian of the said Lachman Singh, who was then a minor, in favour of Surendra Bahadur Singh in respect of certain zemindari property to secure a loan of Rs. 18,000 and 4 1/2 per cent. interest in order to pay off prior mortgages at a higher rate of interest. The defendant-respondents Nos. 1-9 are heirs of Himmat Singh, No. 10 is Lachman Singh, Nos. 11, 12 and 13 are Mulu Singh and hi...
Tag this Judgment!Nariman Edulji Contractor Vs. Pirojbai Nariman Contractor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Bom367; (1939)41BOMLR625
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal against an order made by Mr. Justice Engineer giving leave to the applicant to execute a consent order dated August 6, 1929, to the extent of Rs. 9,008. The consent order of August 6, 1929, was made on two cross-petitions by a husband and a wife under the Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890). By consent the two petitions were consolidated, and certain orders were made as to the custody of the minor children of the marriage of the husband and wife (of whom there were three), and as to their maintenance, and then the order contained this provision:And I do by and with the like consent further order that the said Nariman Edulji Contractor (i.e. the husband) do pay all the expenses of the maintenance and schooling of all the said minors and that the said Pirojbai Nariman Contractor (i.e. the wife) or the school authorities, as the case may be, do receive the money sent by him from time to time for the said purpose and do forward to him proper ...
Tag this Judgment!Hussainbi Haji Subhan Mujavar Vs. Sayad KhairuddIn Kutubuddin
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Bom487; (1939)41BOMLR875
Lokur, J.1. The suit out of which this second appeal arises was filed by the plaintiffs for a declaration that they are the lawful heirs of the deceased Dada Saheb Shaikh Mire to the property in dispute which is assigned for service as Mujavars, and for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the said land. The only issue which arises in this appeal is whether a female is entitled to succeed to the Mujavarki land. Both the lower Courts found in favour of the plaintiffs and decreed their claim.2. The duties of a Mujawar are set out by Abdur Rahim J. in Munnavaru Begum Sahibu v. Mir Mahapalli Sahib I.L.R. (1918) Mad. 1033 as follows ( p. 1037 ):The word 'Mujawar' literally means a sweeper or the person who cleans the place, but it is conventionally used to denote a person who is looking after a shrine or tomb of a holy person generally called Astana. 'Astana' is a word which is often used to denote a place inspiring respect and rev...
Tag this Judgment!Jaisukhlal Harishankar Girnara Vs. Mahomed HusseIn Dawoodbhai Karwa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Bom522; (1939)41BOMLR1084
Kania, J.1. The plaintiff has filed this suit to recover from the defendants Rs. 3,699-14-6 together with interest on Rs. 2,251-5-3 at six per cent. The plaintiff had money dealings with the defendants at Junagadh, and it is alleged that the plaintiff lent Rs. 2,500 to the defendants who carried on business in the firm name of M.D. Karwa and Co. at Junagadh. The plaintiff filed suit No. 460 of Samvat Year 1981 in the Diwani Adalat at Junagadh, and obtained a decree for Rs. 2,009-13-3 on March 18, 1928. Defendant No. 1 being dissatisfied with the decision filed appeal No. 100 of S.Y. 1984-85 in the Sadar Adalat Court of the Junagadh State ; but the appeal was dismissed on February 9, 1929. Defendant No. 1 being still dissatisfied with the decision filed a second appeal in the Huzur Adalat at Junagadh ; but the same was also dismissed on October 16, 1932. The plaintiff has filed the suit on the foreign judgment seeking to enforce the decree of the Huzur Adalat of Junagadh, dated October ...
Tag this Judgment!Amateppa Danappa Koppal Vs. Sanganbasappa Bhojappa Gavadar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Bom427; (1939)41BOMLR867
Lokur, J.1. The main facts of this case are not disputed in this Court. Defendant No. 1 is the divided cousin of defendant No. 2, and was his de facto guardian and the manager of his property ever since his mother deserted him in his infancy. Survey No. 127 of Nagral, measuring twenty-five acres and twelve gunthas, belonged to one Shankarappa and was inherited by his cousin Fakirappa, the father of defendant No. 2. Both the lower Courts have held that after Fakirappa's death defendant No. 2 became its sole owner, and that defendant No. 1 had no interest in it. That finding cannot be, and is not, challenged in this Court. Defendant No. 2 was born on July 15, 1909, and attained majority on July 15, 1927. But before that, on December 29, 1926, when he was still a minor, he and his cousin (defendant No. 1) sold eight acres out of survey No. 127 to defendant No. 4 for Rs. 800, and jointly executed the sale-deed, exhibit 47, in his favour. The plaintiff then purchased it from defendant No. 4...
Tag this Judgment!The Lokmanya Mills Ltd. Vs. the Municipal Borough of Barsi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1939
Reported in: (1939)41BOMLR937
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a civil revision application, which was referred to a Bench, because there appeared to be some difference of opinion between a decision of a bench of this Court in Ahmedabad Municipality v. Vadild : AIR1928Bom376 and a decision of Mr. Justice Norman in Surat Municipality v. Hamiduddin (1937) 40 Bom. L.R. 387. The point is a very short one.2. Under Section 110 of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925, appeals against demand notices under the Act may be made to any Magistrate or bench of Magistrates by whom, under the directions of District Magistrates, such class of cases is to be tried. Then Section 111 provides for a revision application against any such decision on appeal by the Magistrate or bench of Magistrates being made to the Court to which appeals against his or their decisions ordinarily lie. In the present case an appeal under Section 110 was made to a First Class Magistrate, from whose decision an appeal lay to the Sessions Court. That wo...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »