Mumbai Court June 1940 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.
Emperor Vs. Sultansha Sidisha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-14-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Bom385; (1940)42BOMLR745
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference made by the District Magistrate of Broach and Panch-Mahals inviting us to enhance the sentence. It appears that the present accused made a statement under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and at the trial his evidence contradicted that statement. He was, therefore, charged under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code with committing perjury. I must confess that I should have myself grave doubt whether a statement made under Section 164 could possibly be regarded as part of the same transaction as a statement made at the trial so as to justify an alternative charge under Section 236 of the Criminal Procedure Code. But a full bench of this Court in Emperor v. Purshottam Ishwar 1920 I.L.R. 45 Bom. 834: s.c. 23,Bom. L.R. 1, F.B decided that question against the accused, and I think on this application we must follow that decision. But the conviction being in the alternative, we do not know whether the statement made under Section 164 ...
Sir Rajendra Narayan Bhanj Deo Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-11-1940
Reported in: (1940)42BOMLR1182
Luxmoore, J.1. The appellant was at the date of his assessment for income-tax for the year ending March 31, 1932, the proprietor of an estate known as the Kanika Raj or Killah Kanika situate in and forming part of the tract of land formerly known as the Rajwara Orissa. This estate is hereinafter referred to as Kanika. The assessment was made by an order dated March 11, 1932, by the appropriate Income-tax officer. In making it the officer took into account certain sums accruing to the appellant by virtue of his ownership of Kanika from sources admitted to be non-agricultural.2. The appellant in due course appealed to the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax against this assessment upon the ground (among others) that all income which accrued to him by virtue of the ownership of Kanika was exempted from liability to income-tax by virtue of a Treaty engagement, kaoolnama, made on November 22, 1803, by a predecessor in title to Kanika with the Commissioners of the East India Company for the...
Bishun Dayal Vs. Kesho Prasad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-08-1940
Reported in: (1941)43BOMLR138
George Rankin, J.1. This appeal is brought by the plaintiff from a decree dated August 11, 1936, of the High Court at Allahabad, which affirmed the decision (June 30, 1932), of the Subordinate Judge at Banda dismissing the suit. The only question which now arises is as to the maintainability of the suit in view of Section 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure:--66.-(1) No suit shall be maintained against any person claiming title under a purchase certified by the Court in such manner as may be prescribed on the ground that the purchase was made on behalf of the plaintiff or on behalf of someone through whom the plaintiff claims.(2) Nothing in this section shall bar a suit to obtain a declaration that the name of any purchaser certified as aforesaid was inserted in the certificate fraudulently or without the consent of the real purchaser, or interfere with the right of a third person to proceed against that property, though obstensibly sold to the certified purchaser, on the ground that it ...
Radhakissen Chamria Vs. Durga Prosad Chamria
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-03-1940
Reported in: (1940)42BOMLR1172
M.R. Jayakar, J.1. The question for decision in this appeal is whether the holder of al certificate under the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act (Bengal Act III of 1913) who has attached a decree passed in favour of his judgment-debtor and has applied under Section 19 of the Act for its execution, is competent, as the representative of the holder of the attached decree, to adjust such decree with the judgment-debtors thereof for a sum smaller than the amount of the decree. The statutory provisions requiring construction in this appeal are contained in Order XXI, Rules 2 and 53, of the Code of Civil Procedure (Act V of 1908), and the said Section 19 of the said Act.2. Order XXI, Rule 2, is in these terms:-(1) Where any money payable under a decree of any kind is paid out of Court, or the decree is otherwise adjusted in whole or in part to the satisfaction of the decree-holder, the decree-holder shall certify such payment or adjustment to the Court whose duty it is to execute the decree,...
The Bank of Chettinad, Limited Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-02-1940
Reported in: (1941)43BOMLR132
Lancelot Sanderson, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Madias dated November 17, 1938, which was given upon a reference of a question of law made to the High Court by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, XI of 1922.The question was as follows:--Whether on the facts of this case the Income-tax authorities were entitled to hold that the income from the first six items of loans referred to in paragraph 21 of the Income-tax Officer's assessment order accrued and arose to the Pudukottai Banfc directly or indirectly through or from a business connection in British India within the meaning of Section 42(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act between the Kanadukathan Bank and the Pudukottai Bank. 2. The Commissioner of Income-tax submitted that this question should be answered in the affirmative. The High Court (consisting of Sir Lionel Leach C.J., Madhavan Nair and Varadachariar JJ.), decided that the submission of the Commissioner...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›