Mumbai Court April 1940 Judgments
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mahaliram Ramjidas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-25-1940
Reported in: (1940)42BOMLR997
Normand, J.1. This is an appeal by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bengal, against a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal delivered on a reference made under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The respondents are a registered partnership firm carrying on business in Calcutta.2. The question in the appeal turns on the true construction of Section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. That Section enacts:-34. If for any reason income, profits or gains chargeable to income-tax has escaped assessment in any year or has been assessed at too low a rate, the Income-tax Officer may, at any time within one year of the end of that year, serve on the person liable to pay tax on such income, profits or gains, or, in the case of a company, on the principal officer thereof, a notice containing all or any of the requirements which may be included in a notice under Sub-Section (2) of. Section 22, and may proceed to assess or re-assess such income, profits ...
Tag this Judgment!Baburao Keshavrao Malkapure Vs. Kalavatibai Amrutrao Khase
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-19-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Bom275; (1940)42BOMLR668
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference made by the District Judge of Thana under the Indian Stamp Act. The question relates to the proper stamp ona bond given by the applicant as guardian of the estate of a minor in accordance with the orders of the Court. The bond was for Rs. 15,000, and the learned District Judge of Satara, where the applicant resided, was of opinion that the case fell under Article 6 of the second schedule to the Court-fees Act, and that the proper stamp would be one rupee. When the bond was submitted to the learned District Judge of Thana, he took the view that the case fell under Article 57 of the schedule to the Stamp Act and that the correct stamp was Rs. 10.2. In our opinion, the view of the learned District Judge of Thana is right. Article 6 of the second schedule to the Court-fees Act only refers to the bail bonds or other instruments of obligation given in pursuance of an order made by a Court or Magistrate under any Section of the Code of Criminal P...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Kondiba Balaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Bom314; (1940)42BOMLR695
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference made by the Sessions Judge of Ahmednagar. The accused was convicted under Section 22 of the Cattle Trespass Act of 1871. It was a summons case and was tried summarily. The learned Sessions Judge has referred the matter to us, because he considers that the accused's statement was not taken under Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code. As far as I can judge from the roznama, the accused's statement was not taken at all. The roznama says, ' Recorded the statement of the accused;' but that was before any evidence for the prosecution had been taken, and I think that it only means that the accused's plea was recorded. Therefore we have to deal with a case of the statement of the accused not having been taken at all. I would guard myself against being supposed to accept the principle, on which the learned Sessions Judge relies, that every failure to comply with Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code necessarily vitiates the trial. In my o...
Tag this Judgment!S. Venkatarama Iyer Vs. Sundarambal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Bom400; (1940)42BOMLR912
B.J. Wadia J.1. The petitioner, S. Venkatarama Iyer, is the duly constituted attorney of v. Venkatarsima Iyer who claims to be the executor by implication of a testamentary writing in the nature of a will which was executed at Madras in or about September, 1932, by one K. Raja Gopalan in respect of the amount lying to his credit with ' The Officers & Staff Provident Fund of the Indian and Malayan Offices of C. C. Wakefield & Co., Ltd.' The deceased K. Raja Gopalan was until his death an employee in the service of C. C. Wakefield & Co., Ltd., and the amount standing to his credit at his death was Rs. 5,952-15-6 according to the letter of the Manager of C. C. Wakefield,& Co., Ltd., dated June 8, 1938, and addressed to v. Venkatarama Iyer. The petitioner prays that letters of administration with the said will annexed limited to the amount standing to the credit of the deceased in the said fund be granted to him having effect throughout the Province of Bombay and for the use and benefit of...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Chinubhai Lalbhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-1940
Reported in: (1940)42BOMLR669
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. The first of these appeals is from a conviction by the Sessions Judge of Ahmedabad of the accused under Section 43 (1) (a) of the Bombay Abkari Act, V of 1878. The other three appeals are by Government against orders of acquittal passed in two cases by the learned Presidency Magistrate, 2nd Court, and in the third case by the learned Presidency Magistrate, 5th Additional Court, Bombay, under Section 43 (1) (a) of the said. Act.2. All the said appeals raise the question whether, in popular language, the Prohibition policy of the Government of Bombay is valid. It is necessary to state at the outset that this policy was not carried into effect by passing an Act through the Provincial Legislature, and we are not, therefore, concerned to consider in any way the limits of the powers of the Provincial Legislature. The policy was introduced by means of Notifications by the Government of Bombay issued in terms under Sub-section (2) of Section 14B of the Bombay Abkari ...
Tag this Judgment!Nawab Sardar Narharsingji Ishvarsingji Vs. the Secretary of State for ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Bom161; (1941)43BOMLR167
Divatia, J.1. This appeal arises in a suit filed by the appellant, who is the Thakor Saheb of Amod in the District of Broach, against the Secretary of State for India in Council. The reliefs prayed for were a declaration that the plaintiff was the full and absolute proprietor of all the roads, tanks and other waste and unoccupied areas within the limits of his estate, and an in-junction restraining the defendant from interfering with his rights.2. The grounds on which the reliefs were sought are shortly these:--The talukdari estate of Amod was a very ancient one descendible according to the rule of primogeniture. Once upon a time the Thakor's ancestors held the gadi of Amod as independent kings but afterwards the Mahomedan and Maratha invasions in Gujarat reduced the size of that kingdom and tributes were exacted from the Thakors of Amod. Before 1817, when the British conquered the territories, the Thakors were paying; to the Peshwa a tribute called the annual jama, which was fixed at ...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Kaba Vs. Ramniklal Sunderlal Inamdar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Bom342; (1940)42BOMLR747
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from the Extra Assistant Judge at Ahmedabad The plaintiff is an inamdar of the village of Mithipur under a sanad granted in 1864, and defendant No. 1 is in possession of the suit property paying an annual rent of Rs. 22-8-0, and in 1929 defendant No. 1 leased the property to defendant No. 2 for the purpose of constructing a cotton mill, which in fact has not been constructed. This suit was filed in 1932, and in it the plaintiff claimed possession of the suit property, and in the alternative an injunction restraining the defendants from making non-agricultural use of the suit land. The defendants in their written statement alleged that defendant No. 1 was owner of the soil, subject only to the liability to pay an annual sum of Rs. 22-8-0 to the inamdar, but in the course of the suit, by a purshis, they claimed that defendant No. 1 was a permanent tenant. Both the lower Courts held that defendant No. 1 was a permanent tenant, under the provisi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›