Mumbai Court October 1940 Judgments
Annu Bajaba Jagadale Vs. Dadu Tukaram Jagadale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Bom197; (1941)43BOMLR222
John Beaumont, C.J.1. This is a second appeal from the Assistant Judge of Satara. The plaintiff, as a son adopted by one Dhondai to her deceased husband, claims to recover possession of the suit property on the ground that alienations by the widow were not for legal necessity. The husband died in 1900, and the plaintiff was adopted in 1934. The alienations took place between 1901 and 1904. There was also an alienation in 1908 in favour of defendant No. 1, but he has not appealed and I am only concerned with two alienations, one in 1901 and the other in 1904. The trial Judge raised two issues, which are relevant for the present purpose. The first is issue No. 1:Does the plaintiff prove that he has been duly and validly adopted by Dhondai?The other is issue No. 3:Is the suit barred by time?2. The only allegation relating to limitation in the written statement was that the plaintiff and his predecessors had not been in possession within twelve years from the date of the suit and hence the...
Tag this Judgment!A.S. Krishnan Vs. M. Sundaram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Bom312; (1941)43BOMLR562
Kania, J.1. The South Indian Education Society was registered in 1932 under the Societies Registration Act XXI of 1860. The memorandum of association, the rules and the by-laws of the society were duly registered in accordance with the Act. The memorandum defines the objects. The society was founded mainly to promote the education of the boys and girls of Southern India and with that object in view it thought of erecting a building to house the school. Not having sufficient funds on hand schemes were suggested to borrow money. It was suggested that debentures should be issued. To find out if that scheme would be workable several persons were approached and they expressed their willingness to subscribe. When it came to payment, however, the response on the whole being unsatisfactory, there occurred a divergence of opinion. The plaintiff who was a member of the society and who took part in getting promises to subscribe the debentures resigned in January, 1936. On July 26, 1936, a general...
Tag this Judgment!Saraswatibai Shripad Ved Vs. Shripad Vasanji Ved
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Bom103; (1941)43BOMLR79
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of Mr. Justice Kania on a petition presented by the father of a minor: under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act. Under that section the Court can return the custody of the minor to his father, who is his natural guardian, if it is of opinion that to do so will be for the welfare of the minor ward.2. The parents of the minor were married in February, 1936, and the minor, a boy, was born in October, 1938. After the birth the mother unfortunately contracted tuberculosis, and she had to go away for treatment, and the child was taken by the father and kept at his mother's house. The mother of the minor was discharged from the sanatorium at the end of July, 1939, but she was advised to remain at hill stations for a time in order to complete her cure, and she came back to Bombay, considering herself to be cured, at the end of May, 1940. On May 29 the child was out with a servant in attendance, and was taken round to the house...
Tag this Judgment!The Patiala State Bank, in Re.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1940
Reported in: [1941]9ITR95(Bom)
.(Income-tax Reference No. 1 of 1940.)BEAUMONT, C.J. - This is a reference made by the Income-tax Commissioner under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, and the substantial question which arises, is whether the Patiala State Bank is liable to be assessed to income-tax under the Government Trading Taxation Act (III of 1926).The facts found are that the Patiala State Bank is owned wholly by the Patiala State and carries on banking business. It has no separate entity, and I take it that when the Commissioner says 'it is owned wholly by the Patiala State', he means that it is owned and controlled by the Ruler of the Patiala State, that is the Maharaja, who constitutes the Government of the State. The questions raised relate to the assessment for two years, 1935-36 and 1936-37, and in respect of each of those years I gather that a notice was sent to the principle offer of the Patiala State Bank, and he made a return on which the assessment are based. We are not, therefore, concerned...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Raghunath Ramchandra Karlekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Bom100; (1941)43BOMLR99
Broomfield, J.1. These are appeals by the Government of Bombay in two connected cases in which one Raghunath Ramchandra Karlekar, licensee and proprietor of an electric supply company at Ilkal in the Bijapur District, was prosecuted for an alleged breach of Rule 48 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1937, and was acquitted by the Magistrate.2. There is no dispute about the facts of the case. In the months of February and March, 1938, the accused carried out certain small installation works on the premises of some half a dozen inhabitants of Ilkal. The installation works consisted of putting in in each case one light point with switches and cut-outs. Three of these works were made the subject of one case and three of the other. The work was admittedly done at the expense of the supply company, and the light points, switches etc. remained the property of the company.Rule 48, which is alleged to have been infringed, is as follows:--Precautions to be adopted by consumers and owners, electric...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: the Central Talkies Circuit
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Bom205; (1941)43BOMLR258
John Beaumont, C.J. 1. This is a reference made by the Commissioner of Income-tax raising the question:Where was any evidence to justify the appellate officers' finding of fact that the partnership stated to be in existence by the deed of July 14, 1937, was not a genuine partnership.2. The assessees are a firm carrying on business in the name of Central Talkies Circuit, Matunga, and down to the partnership deed of July 14, 1937, the partners were: V.H. Desai with three annas share, (he is described as the original sub-proprietor), his wife with three annas share, his minor son with two annas and his major son two annas and two outside partners. As from April 1, 1937, an amendment was introduced into the, Indian Income-tax Act by the addition of Section 16(3) under which the share of a wife or minor son in a partnership has to be included in the income of an assessee. Having that provision in mind, a partnership deed of July 14, 1937, was executed, under which the mother of V.H. Desai w...
Tag this Judgment!The Central Talkies Circuit, Matunga, Vs. Re.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1940
Reported in: [1941]9ITR44(Bom)
BEAUMONT, C.J. - This is a reference made by the Commissioner of Income-tax raising the question : 'Whether there was any evidence to justify the Appellate Officers finding of fact that the partnership stated to be in existence by the deed of July 14, 1937 was not a genuine partnership'.The assessees are a firm carrying on business in the name of Central Talkies Circuit, Matunga, and down to the partnership deed of July 14, 1937 the partners were : V. II. Desai with 3 annas share. (he is described as the original sub-proprietor), his wife with 3 annas share, his minor son with 2 annas and his major son 2 annas and two outside partners. As from April 1, 1937 an amendment was introduced into the Income-tax Act by the addition of Section 16(3) under which the share of a wife or minor son in a partnership has to be included in the income of an assessee. Having that provision in mind, a partnership deed of July 14, 1937 was executed under which the mother of V. H. Desai was substituted for ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Thokarsi Narsl
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Bom125; (1941)43BOMLR238
John Beaumont, C.J.1. This matter comes before the Court on a certificate given by the Advocate General under Clause 26 of the Letters Patent. Under Clause 25 there is no appeal from a decision in the Sessions Court, but under clause 26, the Advocate General may certify the matter to the Court if he thinks that there has been some error in law on a matter which requires further consideration. Many people, including myself, think that it is very wrong that, there should be no appeal, at any rate on points of law, from a trial in Sessions in this Court. But, however that may be, in law there is no appeal.2. The learned Advocate General in deciding whether to give a certificate, and this Court in dealing with any matter which he has certified, is in a difficulty where the case is not one of murder, because owing to the insufficient number of shorthand writers supplied to the Court no shorthand note is taken of the learned Judge's charge to the jury. It is only in murder cases that a note ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Champaklal Chunilal Banker
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Bom156; (1941)43BOMLR110
Broomfield, J. 1. These are references from the Sessions Judge of Ahmedabad in fifteen cases in which the Additional Stipendiary First Class Magisstrate, Ahmedabad, convicted one C.C. Banker, said to be the Secretary of the New Manekchowk Mill at Ahmedabad, of offences under Sub-section 159 and 160 of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act (Bom. XVIII of 1925). In nine cases the prosecution was under Section 159 which renders punishable the act of causing or allowing the water of any sink or sewer or any other liquid or other matter which is or which is likely to become offensive, from any building or land under the control of the accused, to run, drain, or be thrown or put upon any street or open space. In the other six cases the charge was under Section 160 which makes it an offence for the owner or occupier of any building or land to keep or allow to be kept for more than twenty-four hours, or otherwise than in some proper receptacle, any dirt, dung, bones, ashes, night-soil, etc., in or...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmibai Venkatrao Desai Vs. Keshavrao Lingangouda Desai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Bom193; (1941)43BOMLR214
Wassoodew, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Dharwar in a suit by the plaintiff to recover, upon partition, possession with mesne profits of his half share in certain properties mentioned in the schedules to the plaint which were admittedly the joints family estate of the plaintiff's adoptive father Lingangouda and his two brothers Venkatrao alias Kenchappaya and Nilkanthagouda. The facts which have given rise to this dispute are briefly these.2. The plaintiff's adoptive father Lingangouda died childless in 1923 leaving a widow Saraswatibai, defendant No. 5 in the case, Lingangouda was predeceased by his younger brother Nilkanthagouda in 1918 who left a widow who is defendant No. 4. Upon the death of these two brothers Venkatrao was left the sole surviving coparcener in the family. Venkatrao was thrice married and in 1928, which is an important period in the history of this litigation, only his last two wives the appellant Laxmibai, defendant ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »