Mumbai Court October 1941 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.
Bachubai Manjrekar Vs. Raghunath Ghanshyam Manjrekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1941
Reported in: (1942)44BOMLR108
Chagla, J.1. On July 8, 1941, the plaintiffs obtained a decree against the defendant for a sum of Rs. 10,794-10-0, costs and interest on judgment at six per cent. Mr. Bhimji for the plaintiffs applies for an order under Order XXI, Rule 41, of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, for the oral examination of the defendant and his late accountant Purshottam Dattaram Shete, and for production of the books of account of the business of Ghanshyam Govind Tendolker and of Ganshyam Raghunath Manjrekar for Samvat Years 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997 and for the production of the title-deeds and securities relating to the defendant's properties and business in Portuguese Goa.2. Mr. Kirtikar, the First Assistant Master, points out to me that for the last six years there has been a practice of this Court that applications for an order under Order XXI, Rule 41, of the Civil Procedure Code, should be made on a chamber summons. Mr. Bhimji contests this position and argues, first, that there is no such practice,...
Motiram Keshavdas Vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Borough
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1941
Reported in: (1942)44BOMLR280
Baumont, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the Extra Assistant Judge at Ahmedabad, and it raises a question as to the validity of Rule 344 of the Ahmedabad Municipal Rules, which deals with charges for the supply of water in certain cases.2. Under the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act of 1925, Section 58(j), the Municipality has power to make rules not inconsistent with the Act prescribing the taxes to be levied in the Municipal Borough. Section 73 empowers the Municipality to impose for the purposes of the Act the taxes therein mentioned, including, in Sub-clause (x), a general water-rate or a special water-rate or both for water supplied by the Municipality, which may be imposed in the form of a rate assessed on buildings and lands or in any other form, including that of charges for such supply, fixed in such mode or modes as shall be best adapted to the varying circumstances of any class of cases or of any individual case. That clause deals, as will be seen, only with the impo...
Bachubai Manjrekar and anr. Vs. Raghunath Ghanshyam Manjrekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Bom100
ORDERChagla, J.1. On 8th July 1941, the plaintiffs obtained a decree against the defendant for a sum of Rs. 10,794-10-0, costs and interest on judgment at 6 per cent. Mr. Bhimji for the plaintiffs applies for an order under Order 21, Rule 41, Civil P.C., 1908, for the oral examination of the defendant and his late accountant Purshottam Dattaram Shete, and for production of the books of account of the business of Ghanshyam Govind Tendolker and of Ganshyam Raghunath Manjrekar for Samvat years 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997 and for the production of the title deeds and securities relating to the defendant's properties and business in Portuguese Goa. Mr. Kirtikar, the First Assistant Master, points out to me that for the last six years there has been a practice of this Court that applications for an order under Order 21, Rule 41, Civil P.C., should be made on a Chamber Summons. Mr. Bhimji contests this position and argues, first, that there is no such practice, and, secondly, that if there is s...
Emperor Vs. Hasanali Gulamali Patanwalla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-1941
Reported in: (1942)44BOMLR50
N.J. Wadia, J.1. This is an application in revision against a conviction of the applicant by the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Bombay under Rule 12(7) and 12(4) read with Rule 15 of the rules under the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1939. The applicant is the proprietor of a restaurant called the Coronation Darbar Hotel in Bombay. The charge against him was that he did not exhibit in his restaurant a notice in form G, specifying the day or days of the week on which the persons employed by him shall be given a holiday as required by Rule 12(4) of the rules framed under the Act, and that he did not make entries in the registers or records which he was required to maintain under the rules. The learned Magistrate convicted the accused for breach of each of these sub-rule and sentenced him to pay' a fine of Rs. 10 on each of the two charges. The conviction under Rule 12(7) is not challenged before us. It is admitted that the accused was bound to make entries in the registers as requi...
Basappa Malesappa Rajure Vs. Sambappa Shivlingappa Ashtye
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-02-1941
Reported in: (1942)44BOMLR25
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order made in execution by the First Class Subordinate Judge of Sholapur.2. On March 9, 1937, a decree was passed in favour of the present respondent on two mortgage bonds, the amount being payable by installments with a default clause. Default was made, and the decree-holder applied to execute the decree. On that application the judgment-debtor sought to rely on certain payments and adjustments of the decree made out of Court, and not certified under Order XXI, Rule 2(2), Civil Procedure Code, 1908.3. Order XXI, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code, provides that 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, the adjustment is to be certified to the Court; and then Sub-rule (3) provides that a payment or adjustment, which has not been certified, shall not be recognised by any Court executing the decree. Therefore, these adjustments cannot be recognised by th...
In Re: the Lokamanya Tilak Jubilee National Trust Fund; in Re: G.V. Sa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1941
Reported in: (1941)43BOMLR1027
John Beaumont, C.J.1. This is a reference made by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and it raises two questions:(1) Whether the Income-tax Officer was correct in holding that the income of the trust does not fall within the purview of Section 4(3)(i) of the Act?(2) Whether the Income-tax Officer was correct in levying income-tax at the maximum rate under the first proviso to Section 41(1) of the Act?2. The trust, with which we have to deal, is a trust known as the 'Loka-manya Tilak Jubilee National Trust Fund,' and the principal question which arises is, whether the funds of the trust are held for charitable purposes within Section 4(3)(i). Its objects are set out in the trust deed dated December 31, 1920, Clause 11 of which is in these terms:The objects of the said Trust Fund shall be--(a) The advancement of any purpose which might in the uncontrolled opinion of the Managing Committee be national or of national importance for the in...
In Re: P.E. Polson
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1941
Reported in: (1941)43BOMLR1034
John Beaumont, C.J.1. This is a reference made by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, raising questions arising under Section 25 of the Act as amended in 1939.2. The material facts are' that the assessee, Mr. Poison, was carrying on a business under the name of Poison Mfg. Co., which dealt in coffee, butter, flour and casein, which business had been in existence whilst the Income-tax Act of 1918 was in force. On January 1, 1939, Mr. Poison assigned his business to a limited company, and the Amended Income-tax Act came into operation on April 1, 1939. Mr. Poison had paid income-tax in respect of his business under the Act of 1918, and under that Act income-tax was assessed in respect of the year of assessment, and not in respect of the previous year. Under the Act of 1922 income-tax was assessed in respect of the previous year's income, and, therefore, it followed that for the income of the year 1921 income-tax was paid twice,--once und...
Vishnu Balkrishna Naik Vs. Shankareppa Gurlingappa Wagarali
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1941
Reported in: (1942)44BOMLR415
Sen, J.1. This is an appeal against an order made by the Assistant Judge of Belgaum in an appeal against an order passed by the Subordinate Judge of Hukeri on an application made in execution proceedings. The material facts are these :-2. The plaintiff in a suit filed in 1924 obtained a money decree against fourteen judgment-debtors. He got the five lands now sought to be sold and other lands belonging to the defendants attached before judgment on December 17, 1924. Before this, in 1922, the plaintiff, who had acquired an interest in the suit lands, had filed a suit against the prior mortgagee, one Kalkundri, and there was a consent decree under which he was allowed to redeem that mortgage on payment of Rs. 1,290, and the lands were taken by him in his possession. ;He thus stood in the position of the mortgagee. On May 16, 1925, the defendants mortgaged the lands to one Gurlingappa, the father of applicant No. 1, for Rs. 3,000. They took Rs. 1,710 from Gurlingappa and there was a stipu...
The Lokamanya Tilak Jubilee National Trust Fund Bombay in Re. Vs.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1941
Reported in: [1942]10ITR26(Bom)
.BEAUMONT, C. J. - This is a reference made by the Commissioner of Income- tax under Section 66 (2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and it raises two questions :(1) Whether the Income-tax Officer was correct in holding that the income of the trust dies not fall within the purview of Section 4 of (3) (i) of the Act. ?The trust, with which we have to deal, is a trust known as the 'Lokamanya Tilak Jubilee National Trust Fund', and the principal question which arises is, whether the funds of the trust are held for cahritable purpose within Section 4 (3) (i). Its objects are set out in the trust deed dated December 31, 1920, clause 11 of which is in these terms :-'The objects of the said Trust Fund shall be.-' (a) The advancement of any purpose which might in the uncontrolled opinion of the Managing Committee be national or of national importance for the inhabitants of British India by any means which in the like opinion of the Managing Committee be constitutional.' (b) The political ad...
P E Polson in Re. Vs.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1941
Reported in: [1942]10ITR52(Bom)
.BEAUMONT, C. J.-This is a reference made by the Commissioner of Income tax under Section 66 (2) of the Income-tax Act, raising questions arising under section 25 of the Act as amended in 1939.The material facts are that the assessee, Mr. Polson, was carrying on business under the name of Polson Manufacturing Co., which dealt in coffee, butter, flour and casein, which business had been in existence whilst the Income-tax Act of 1918 was in force. On the 1st of the January 1939, Mr. Polson had paid income-tax was assessed in respect of his business under the Act of 1918, and under that Act income-tax was assessed in respect of the year of assessment, and not n respect of the previous year. Under the Act of 1922 income-tax was assessed in respect of the previous years income, and, therefore, it following that for the income of the year 1921 income-tax was paid twice,-once under the Act of 1918 in respect of the year 1921, and once under the Act of 1922, in respect of the year 1922. So tha...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›