Mumbai Court September 1942 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. Kisan Sakharam Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom94; (1943)45BOMLR74
Broomfield, J.1. This is a reference by the Additional Sessions Judge of East Khandesh in the following circumstances. One Kisan Sakharam Patil was tried for offences under Sections 323, 504 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code by Khan Saheb Dabhoiwala an Honorary Magistrate who at the beginning of the trial was invested with second class powers, Towards the end of the trial he was invested with first class powers. It appears that after he became a First Class Magistrate one witness for the defence was cross-examined, the scene of offence was inspected, the arguments were heard and judgment was pronounced. The accused was fined Rs. 40. He presented an appeal to the District Magistrate, and the latter was requested to treat it as an application in revision in case he held that no appeal lay. The learned District Magistrate after hearing arguments on the point decided that an appeal did lie to him and he transferred the appeal for hearing by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. It appears that he ...
Dinshaw Darabshaw Shroff Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax, Central
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-1942
Reported in: (1943)45BOMLR31
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J1. This is a petition presented to the Court by an assessee making respondents the Commissioner of Income-tax, Central, the Income-tax Officer, Section III, and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, Central, and the relief asked for is that this Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari against the respondents calling upon them to send up the records of the assessment of the petitioner for the year 1937-38 for the purpose of inquiring into the legality of the assessment order passed by respondent No. 2 on February 16, 1942, and the proceedings in respect of which such order was passed and to quash the same. Further relief asked for is that the Commissioner of Income-tax, Central, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, and the Income-tax Officer, Section HI, Central, be ordered to forbear from (i) taking or continuing any proceedings for the purpose of levying any penalty under the provisions of Section 28 or otherwise; (ii) taking or continuing any proc...
Dinshaw Darabshaw Shroff Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom77; [1943]11ITR172(Bom)
BEAUMONT, C.J. - This is a petition presented to the Court by an assessee making respondents the Commissioner of Income-tax, Central, the Income-tax Officer, Section III, and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, Central, and the relief asked for is that this Court may be pleased to issue a write of certiorari against the respondents calling upon them to send up the records of the assessment of the petitioner for the hear 1937-38 for the purpose of inquiring into the legality of the assessment order passed by respondent No. 2 on February 16, 1942, and the proceedings in respect of which such order was passed and to quash the same. Further relief asked for is that the Commissioner of Income-tax Central, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, and the Income-tax Officer, Section III, Central, be ordered to forbear from (i) taking or continuing any proceedings for the purpose of levying any penalty under the provisions of Section 28 or otherwise; (ii) taking or continuing any proceedings ...
Punamchand Velraj Vs. the Bombay Cloth Market Company, Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom141; (1943)45BOMLR240
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application in revision against an order made by one of the learned Judges of the Small Cause Court of Bombay directing the defendants to vacate certain premises. Admittedly the premises fall within the scope of the Bombay Rent Restriction Act of 1939. The original tenancy was granted by the plaintiffs to defendant No. 1 in 1926, and in 1929 the premises were sub-let to defendant No. 2, as I understand, at the same rent. Notice to quit was served by the landlord in April, 1941. The defendants resisted the making of an order to vacate as infringing the terms of the Rent Restriction Act.2. Section 4(4) of the Bombay Rent Restriction Act defines the expression ' tenant' as meaning any person by whom or on whose account rent is payable for any premises, and as including every person from time to time deriving title under a tenant. Had I been construing that definition in the absence of authority, I should have felt not the slightest doubt that a sub-te...
Ratilal M. Parikh Vs. the Dalmia Cement and Paper Marketing. Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom229; (1943)45BOMLR405
Blackwell, J.1. The plaintiff claims damages for breach of three contracts by reason of the failure of the defendants to deliver to him fifty-five tons of kraft paper. His case is that at the request of the defendants he forbore from insisting upon delivery within the contract times and allowed the time to be extended until February 26, 1941, when the defendants repudiated the three contracts. The defence is that there were no concluded contracts, that if there were, they were finally broken on January 24, or at the latest on January 31, 1941, that by the terms of the contracts prices prevailing at the date of despatch were to be charged, and that consequently the plaintiff has sustained no damage.2. In paragraphs 4 and 6 of the plaint the plaintiff set up express agreements for extension of time and mode of delivery, and issues 3 to 8 were raised in reference thereto. At the hearing counsel for the plaintiff informed the Court that he would not attempt to prove these agreements, and t...
Emperor Vs. K.P.K. Shetty
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-1942
Reported in: (1943)45BOMLR69
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This revision application raises a short point under the Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1935, and the rules made thereunder.2. The applicant is the manager of the Regional Motors, Ltd., who are the managing agents of the Nasik Motor Service Union, Ltd., and that company owns a particular car. The accused was prosecuted for not having displayed on that car the requisite disc or token, and the question is whether in law the applicant as a mere manager of the) managing agents is liable for the non-display of the token.3. Under Section 3(2) of the Motor Vehicles Tax Act the tax has to be paid by the registered owner or any person having possession or control of a motor vehicle, and under Sub-section (3) when the tax is paid, the registering authority has to issue to the person paying the tax a token in the prescribed form showing that such tax has been paid. Under Section 6 the registered owner or person having possession or control of a motor vehicle has to fill...
Ramgopal Bhutada Vs. Sidram Aunayya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom164; (1943)45BOMLR234
Macklin, J.1. This is an appeal under the Letters Patent against a decision of Mr. Justice N.J. Wadia dismissing an execution on the ground that it was barred by limitation under Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The decree under execution was passed on November 24, 1923, and the execution with which this appeal is concerned was the sixth of a series of executions and was taken out on December 13, 1935. Prima facie it is barred by Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which says that, subject to certain exceptions, where an application to execute a decree has been made, no order for the execution of the same decree shall be made upon any fresh application presented after the expiration of twelve years from the date of the decree sought to be executed. In the fourth darkhast of the series presented on October 30, 1930, execution was ordered to issue by the executing Court, and an appeal was preferred to the High Court by the judgment-debtors; and on February 6, 1932, a sta...
Mallappa Karabasappa Annigeri Vs. Irappa Shidlingappa Danappanavar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom261; (1943)45BOMLR449
Divatia, J.1. The question arising in this appeal is whether a decree-holder applying for rateable distribution can assert his claim against another decree-holder who had attached the property in his darkhast and had thereafter purchased it privately from the judgment-debtor in satisfaction of his decree after the application for rateable distribution.2. Defendant No. 1 obtained a money decree against one Huchappa and applied to execute it by attachment and sale of the suit property. Thereafter the plaintiff obtained three money decrees against Huchappa on June 18, 1935, and applied in execution for rateable distribution in the sale proceeds to be realised in the previous decree-holder's application for sale. The property was not, however, sold through Court but the judgment-debtor privately sold it on October 22, 1935, to the previous decree-holder, defendant No. 1, who thereafter certified to the Court satisfaction of his darkhast in full. On October 24, 1935, the' plaintiff attached...
In Re: Reference Under Order Xlvi, Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom250; (1943)45BOMLR445
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. These are two references made by the Subordinate Judge of Khed through the District Judge of Poona under Order XLVI, Rule 1, of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, raising certain questions of law which arise under the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act of 1939.2. The first reference raises three questions : first, whether a sale-mortgage case can be transferred under Section 37 before the Court has found the transaction to be really in the nature of a mortgage; secondly, whether an account suit under Section 15D of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act can be transferred unless it is converted into a suit for redemption by payment of the requisite court-fee; and thirdly, whether in view of Section 45(2) (i) of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act, and of the fact that the transactions were entered into before 1927, the suits should be transferred to the Board, Those questions primarily turn on the construction of Section 37 of the Act. But in order to...
Bai Laxmibai Vs. Shridhar Manik Patel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-08-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom221; (1943)45BOMLR416
Kania, J.1. This is a petition to set aside an award made in the matter of partitioning the estate of a joint Hindu family. The petitioner is the widow of a deceased brother of the respondents. The agreement of reference is dated December 5, 1940, and seven persons named in the agreement were appointed arbitrators to make a division of the joint and self-acquired moveable and immoveable properties of the family. The arbitrators made their award on April 30, 1941. It is signed by all the seven arbitrators. The notice of making of the award was given' on October 2, 1941, by the arbitrators' attorneys and this petition was filed on February 20, 1942.2. On behalf of the petitioner only three points are pressed in support of the application, The first is that no proper notice of making and signing the award was given. The argument is two-fold : firstly, that notice must have been given on the same day on which the award was made, and, secondly, that the notice given by the attorneys is impr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »