Mumbai Court March 1943 Judgments
Kishorelal Stores Vs. Jagannath Bayaji Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Bom89; (1943)45BOMLR1064
N.J. Wadia, J.1. This is an application in revision arising out of a suit filed by the applicant against the defendant. The suit was dismissed by the Second Class Subordinate Judge of Karad on the ground that it was barred by limitation and the decree was confirmed in appeal by the District Judge of Satara.2. The applicant filed the suit to recover a sum of Rs. 148-6-3 for principal and interest due on a khata in the name of one Bayaji Savalaram, the deceased father of the opponent.3. The trial Judge held that the suit khata had been proved, but that the claim was not in time. The suit was under the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act. The accounts relied on by the plaintiff showed that the last entry was dated November 9, 1931. The suit was filed on February 29, 1940. The plaintiff's clerk stated in his evidence that the deceased had made certain payments towards the khata on July 29, 1935, and June 2, 1936.4. The suit is one falling under Section 3, Clause (w), of the Dekkhan Agricult...
Tag this Judgment!The Government Telephones Board Ltd. Vs. Hormusji Manekji Seerval
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Bom825; (1943)45BOMLR633
John Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of Mr. Justice Chagla making an order on a petition under Section 153B of the Indian Companies Act, 1913, directing that the purchasing company should not be at liberty to acquire the shares of the minority shareholders in the transferor company. That section is a new section, and is in these terms :153B(1). Where a scheme or contract involving the transfer of shares or any class of shares in a company (in this section referred to as ' the transferor company') to another company, whether a company within the meaning of this Act or not (in this section referred to as the 'transferee company'), has within four months after the making of the offer in that behalf by the transferee company been approved by the holders of not less than three-fourths in value of the shares affected, the transferee company may, at any time within two months after the expiration of the said four months, give notice in the prescribed manner to any dissentin...
Tag this Judgment!FazlhusseIn Sharafally Vs. Mahomedally Abdulally Sassoor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-28-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Bom366; (1943)45BOMLR614
John Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of Mr. Justice Blackwell, and it raises interesting questions of law relating to charitable trusts.2. The parties are all Mahomedans of the Shia sect, and on October 29, 1895, Abdulhussein Isubhai a member of that sect executed a deed of trust by which he conveyed certain immovable property to himself and another as trustees. upon trust that the income should be paid to himself for life, and after his death the income was to be divided into five parts. Stated shortly the trusts were to pay the income of one part equal to ten per cent to the settlor's widow for her life, to pay the income of another part equal to thirty per cent. to one of the settlor's daughters for her life and then to her named children for their lives, to deal with another part equal to thirty per cent upon similar trusts for the other daughter and her named children, and subject to these trusts the whole property was given to objects which are admittedly chari...
Tag this Judgment!Walchand and Co. Ltd. Vs. the Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-1943
Reported in: [1944]12ITR104(Bom)
BEAUMONT, C.J. - This is a special case stated under Section 90 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, and Order 36 asking the question :'Whether on a true construction of clause 2 of the managing agency agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant companies, excess profits tax payable or paid by the defendant company should be deducted in calculating the annual net profits of the defendant company for the purpose of the calculation of the managing agents commission.'A similar question came before this Court recently in the case of James Finly & Co., Ltd. v. The Finlay Mills Ltd., and we held in that case that inasmuch as the agreement provided that in ascertaining the profits on which commission was based no deduction should be made for income-tax, super-tax or any other tax on income, the parties had in effect agreed that there should be no deduction in respect of excess profits tax, which, we held was a tax on income. However, the agreement in this case is in a different form. The ...
Tag this Judgment!The Indian Iron and Steel Company Limited Vs. the Commissioner of Inco ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-1943
Reported in: (1944)46BOMLR235
Porter, J.1. The appellant is a company incorporated and registered under the Indian Companies Act in the year 1918. It carried on the business of an ironfounder and steel maker at Hirapur in the Province of Bengal.2. By an agreement dated September 8, 1936, made between the appellant and a company named the Bengal Iron Company, Ltd., the former agreed to acquire and take over the whole of the property and assets of the latter as existing on the date of transfer.3. This second company was incorporated and registered in England and had carried on at Kulti in the same Province a business similar to that of the appellant. On December 2, 1936, in pursuance of this agreement, and after it had been sanctioned by the High Court in England, the Bengal Company transferred to the appellant the whole of its undertaking and assets, and from December 3 (1) the appellant carried on the business previously carried on by that company as part of and in combination with its own existing business, and (2...
Tag this Judgment!Mahomed Siddique Yusuf Vs. Official Assignee
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-1943
Reported in: (1945)47BOMLR522
Atkin, J.1. This is a consolidated appeal from two orders of the High Court at Calcutta, one dismissing an appeal from the Judge in Insolvency and the other refusing to extend the time for appealing against an adjudication order made against one Ali Moharaed Hashim, who will hereafter be called 'the insolvent' As a result of their Lordships' decision in this case the facts may have to be considered afresh in the Indian Courts, and it is desirable therefore to state the details as summarily as possible so far as they are relevant at the present time. In 1938 the insolvent had a claim for damages against a firm with whom he had dealings in shares, and by a written agreement of March 30, 1938, between the appellant and the insolvent the former agreed to advance money for the costs of the contemplated suit and to assist in the conduct of it, for which services he was to receive half the monies recovered after deducting the advances. On April 1, 1938, the suit was instituted and on January ...
Tag this Judgment!The Utility Articles Manufacturing Company Vs. the Raja Bahadur Motila ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Bom306; (1943)45BOMLR605
John Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of Mr. Justice Chagla raising the important question whether Section 110 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, applies to a monthly tenancy. The facts can be stated shortly.2. The tenancy was created by a letter, dated August 1, 1941, signed by the parties. It starts by reciting that terms had been agreed on July 30. Then Clause 1 is in these terms :It is agreed that you shall be taking the first and second floor north wing rooms adjoining the main central hall in our Mills Building at Tardeo from August 1, 1941, at a monthly rent of Rs. 250 payable at the expiry of each month.3. The only other relevant clause is Clause 9, which provides that either side will give one clear month's notice to determine the tenancy.4. On January 29, 1942, the landlords' solicitors wrote to the tenants in the following terms :Our clients Messrs. The Raja Bahadur Motilal Bombay Mills Ltd. instruct us to state that you are in possession and occupation...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Vs. Bombay Baroda and Central India ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1943
Reported in: [1943]11ITR578(Bom)
BEAUMONT, C.J. - This is a reference made by the Income-tax Commissioner under Section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act. The year of assessment is the year 1939-40, but an application was made to the Commissioner to make a reference in July 1940, the Assistant Commissioners order in appeal having being made on the May 31, in that year. For some reason or other the reference was not made until the June 1, 1943. On the January 25, 1941 Part II of the Amended Income-tax Act had come into operation and, therefore, an appeal would lie to the Appellate Tribunal, and it would be for them to make a reference. But Section 14 of Act XL of 1940 reserves power to the Commissioner to make a reference in cases already pending before him when Part II came into operation. So I think the Commissioner was entitled to make the reference.The questions appear at first sight to be a good deal more formidable than they are shown to be when one understands the position, because the contracts, and the financial...
Tag this Judgment!Wallace Bros. and Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Bom1; [1943]11ITR559(Bom); (1943)45BOMLR929
Author: K John Beaumont 1. This is a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal raising four questions, but in substance only one question calls for serious consideration, and that is whether the provisions of Section 4A(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, a sub-section introduced by the amending Act of 1939, are ultra vires in whole or in part. That sub-section provides that a company is resident in British India in any year (a) if the control and management of its affairs is situated wholly in British India in that year, or (b) if its income arising in British India in that year exceeds its income arising without British India in that year. It is not suggested that paragraph (a) is invalid. The provision that the residence of a company depends on where the control and management of its affairs is situated is in accordance with English law. But it is suggested that paragraph (b) is ultra vires in that it involves the taxation of a non-resident in respect of income derived ...
Tag this Judgment!The Municipal Corporation of the City Vs. the Province of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Bom8; (1943)45BOMLR914
Kania, J.1. This is a special case stated for the Court's opinion in respect of the assessment of certain Government properties by the plaintiffs. The statement of facts agreed between the parties contains the following relevant and material admissions : (1) That the buildings and lands set out in the schedule to the case are vested in His Majesty and are used solely for public purposes and are not used or intended to be used for the purposes of profit. (2) That in respect of the said buildings and lands if the general tax is levied the same would be primarily leviable from the Crown. (3) That the said buildings and lands are in the possession and control of the Government of Bombay. (4) That the said buildings and lands are exclusively occupied for charitable purposes. The question before the Court is whether on a true construction of Sections 143 and 144 of the City of Bombay Municipal Act, (Bombay Act III of 1888), the buildings and lands set out in the schedule to the case are liab...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »