Mumbai Court September 1942 Judgments
The Superintendent of Insurance Vs. Navabharat Insurance Company Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom81; (1943)45BOMLR41
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a special case stated for the opinion of the Court as to the true construction of Section 27(1) of the Indian Insurance Act, 1938.2. Section 27 provides for the making of a deposit by insurance companies incorporated or domiciled in British India, and in construing such a section one must remember the reason why, in the case of insurance companies, the Legislature requires deposits to be made. The general nature of insurance business is that in return for a present payment the insurer undertakes to discharge a future liability, and the obvious risk is that, when the time arrives for discharging the future liability, the insurer may have no assets. In order to avoid or minimise that risk Legislatures frequently impose on insurance companies the obligation of covering their future liabilities, and Section 27 is one of the sections imposing such liability. That is perfectly plain from its language. Now, what the section says is this :Every insurer incorp...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Mataprasad Shivharak
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1942
Reported in: (1943)45BOMLR64
Broomfield, J.1. These are appeals by eight persons who were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge of Thana and a jury for offences of dacoity under Section 395, and in some cases under Section .398 of the Indian Penal Code. The jury found a unanimous verdict of guilty against all the accused and the Judge, although it is clear from his order that he did not agree with the verdict, did not think it necessary to refer the case to this Court under Section 307 of the Criminal Procedure Code, but accepted the verdict and imposed various sentences of imprisonment.2. The offences are alleged to have been committed on the night of September 4, 1941. The prosecution story is that one Rambhilaksingh, who was afterwards made an approver, and accused Nos. 5 to 8 were at a place called Wangaon where they live and were joined by accused Nos. 1 to 4 who came from Bombay. They proceeded first of all to a village called Tanashi, which they reached about 8-30 p.m., and broke into the house of one Wama...
Tag this Judgment!Govindram Seksaria Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax (Central)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom122; (1943)45BOMLR168
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. In this case the Commissioner has raised eight questions, all of which he considers should be answered in his favour.2. The facts necessary to be stated by way of introduction are few. The assessment year is the year 1935-36, and the assessees were assessed as the statutory agents, under Section 43 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, of one Mahavirprasad Vishwanath. For the assessment year 1932-33 a notice had been given under Section 43, and the assessees had been held to toe the statutory agents. No fresh notice was given in subsequent years, but the assessees were assessed as such agents, and in respect of the relevant year 1935-36 they were assessed as statutory agents on March 25, 1936, and the tax was paid. On March 19, 1937, notice was issued on the assessees under Section 22(2) and Section 34, alleging that some income for which they were liable as such agents had escaped assessment. The assessment order on that supplementary assessment was made on Ja...
Tag this Judgment!Messrs. Govindram Seksaria Vs. Re.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1942
Reported in: [1943]11ITR104(Bom)
BEAUMONT, C.J. - In this case the Commissioner has raised 8 questions, all of which he considers should be answered in his favour.The facts necessary to be stated by way of introduction are few. The assessment year is the year 1935-36, and the assessees was assessed as the statutory agents, under Section 43 of hate Income-tax Act, of one Mahavirprasad Vishwanath. For the assessment year 1932-33 a notice had been given under Section 43, and the assessees had been held to be the statutory agents. No fresh notice was given in subsequent years, but the assessees were assessed at such agents, and in respect of the relevant year 1935-36, they were assessed as statutory agents on March 25, 1936, and the tax was paid. On the March 19, 1937, notice was issued on the assessees under section 22(2) and Section 34, alleging that some income for which they were liable as such agents had escaped assessment. The assessment order on that supplementary assessment was made on the January 3, 1940 under se...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Byram Khodadad Irani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom68; (1943)45BOMLR60
Broomfield, J.1. This is an appeal by Government against the acquittal of the accused Byram Khodadad Irani who was tried by the Presidency Magistrate, First Additional Court, Mazagaon, for an offence under Section 471 (b) of the City of Bombay Municipal Act read with Section 305 of the Act.2. The accused is the owner of premises which abut on a small street leading into the main Girgaum Road near Kennedy Bridge. It is the case of the Municipality that this street is a private street. Section 305 of the Act empowers the Municipal Commissioner, with the sanction of the standing committee, to require the owners of premises fronting or adjoining any private street to level, metal or pave, drain and light the street in such manner as he shall direct. Section 471 of the Act provides a penalty for failure to comply with a notice in this connection. The accused was served with a notice requiring him to level, concrete, drain and light the street in a manner specified in the notice and he faile...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Nilkanth Balaji Pathak
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom72; (1943)45BOMLR56
Broomfield, J.1. This is an appeal by the Government of Bombay against the acquittal by the Sessions Judge of Surat of one Nilkanth Balaji Pathak who has been convicted by the City Magistrate of Surat of two offences under the Bombay Prize Competition Tax Act, 1939, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 60 in each case.2. This Act, which is Bombay Act XI of 1939, is entitled an Act to regulate and levy a tax on prize competitions in the Province of Bombay. In Section 2(2) of the Act we have a definition :Prize competition includes-(a) crossword prize competition, missing words competition, picture prize competition, number prize competition, or any other competition, for which the solution is prepared beforehand by the promoters of the competition or for which the solution is determined by lot;(b) any competition in which prizes are offered for forecasts of the results either of a future event or of a past event the result of which is not yet ascertained or not yet generally known; and(c)...
Tag this Judgment!Gordhandas T. Mangaldas Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom116; (1943)45BOMLR159
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference made by the Appellate Tribunal, Bombay Bench, under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, raising a question which has given rise to a difference of judicial opinion. The question is :Whether on the facts of this case it has been rightly held that the joint family property of the petitioner and his sons has not been partitioned in definite portions within the meaning of Section 25A(1) of the Indian Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1922?2. The facts giving rise to the question have never been in dispute. The assessment year is the year 1939-40, and down to July 3, 1939, there was a Hindu joint family consisting of the father and three sons, and on that date severance took place. The three sons all intimated an unequivocal desire to sever the joint family, and according to the law applicable to Hindu joint families under the Mitakshara system that expression of a wish on the part of the sons severed the joint family, and, as there were only...
Tag this Judgment!Karashiddayya Shiddayya Bennur Vs. Shree Gajanan Urban Co-operative Ba ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom288; (1943)45BOMLR553
Broomfield, J.1. This second appeal arises in a suit brought by the appellant-plaintiff for a declaration that an award under the Co-operative Societies Act obtained by defendant No. 1 the Shree Gajanan Urban Co-operative Bank, Ltd., in 1931 and a sale of plaintiff's property in execution of the award are null and void and that defendant No. 2 who purchased at the sale got no title thereby.2. The facts are as follows. One Basangouda, who was a member of the co-operative society in question, borrowed a loan from the defendant bank. The appellant, who is not a member of the society, stood surety for him. The society took arbitration proceedings under the Act, and on January 24', 1931, the Registrar made an award for Rs. 1,100 against the appellant and presumably also against Basangouda, though we have not got the award' before us. In the same year a darkhast was filed to execute the award and the half share of plaintiff and his sons in two houses was attached. The sale took place on Dece...
Tag this Judgment!Gordhandas T. Mangaldas Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-1942
Reported in: [1943]11ITR183(Bom)
1. Under Section 33 of the Indian Income-tax Act (XI of 1922), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay Bench, (consisting of N. R. Gundil, Judicial Member, and P. C. Malhotra, Accountant Member), delivered the following judgment on November 28, 1941. "This is an appeal from an oredr of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, B Range, Bombay. It relates to the assessment made upon the appellant, Mr. Gordhands T. Mangaldas, for the assessment year 1939-40. The Income-tax Officer computed the total asessable income at Rs. 44,647, but in appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner reduced it to Rs. 35,856. There is no further objection as to the amount of income assessed on the income assessed. And the only contest before us is in regard to the apellant being assessed on the income of the Hindu undivided faimely of which he is the father and manager. 2. Till the assessment year in question, the appellant and his three sons were a Hindu undivided faimely governed by the Mitaks...
Tag this Judgment!His Highness Yadavindra Singh, Maharajadhiraj of Patiala Vs. the Commi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom102; (1943)45BOMLR143
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay, under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, raising three questions. The questions all arise from certain technical defects alleged to exist in the order of assessment for the year 1937-38 of the estate of the late Maharaja of Patiala. The defects suggested are, first, that the terms of Section 24B of the Indian Income-tax Act were not complied with; secondly, that there was no notice under Section 34; and, thirdly, that no statutory agent had been appointed under Section 43. The material facts are these.2. The late Maharaja of Patiala died on March 23, 1938, and the papers relating to the assessment on him were sent by the Commissioner of Income-tax of the Punjab to the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay, after the date of the Maharaja's death because of the decision of the Allahabad High Court, to which I will refer presently, which suggested that the estate of the late Maharaja co...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »