Mumbai Court April 1943 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. Keshav Talpade
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-22-1943
Reported in: (1944)46BOMLR22
Maurice Gwyer, Kt., C.J.1. In this case the appellant appeals against the refusal of a division bench of the High Court of Bombay to grant an order under Section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code in nature of a writ of habeas corpus in order to secure the release of the appellant from detention under an order purporting to be made under Rule 26 of the Defence of India Rules. The appellant was arrested on August 24 last under Rule 129, and an order for his detention under Rule 26 was made by the Provincial Government on August 27. The ground on which the appellant asked for an order under Section 491 was that the Defence of India Act, 1939, and as a necessary corollary the rules made thereunder are ultra vires, since the Act purports to relate to the defence of India, and no power is conferred on the Central Legislature or upon any other Legislature in India to legislate on that subject. This is a startling contention and, if it is sound, would have even more startling consequences. It...
Ambalal Chunthabhai Patel Vs. Somabhai Bakorbhai Patel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Bom46; (1943)45BOMLR1045
Lokur, J.1. This appeal arises out of proceedings for the execution of the compromise decree in Suit No. 196 of 1938 passed by the Extra Joint Second Class Subordinate Judge of Nadiad. The plaintiffs who filed that suit are the owners of survey Nos. 141|1 and 135|2 + 1|1 of Mahudha and the defendants are the owners of survey Nos. 141|2, 135|2 and 1351|2, while survey No. 135|1|3 belongs jointly to them. The plaintiffs claim a right of way through the defendants' survey No. 135|1|2 to go to their survey No. 135|2 + 1|1 while the defendants claim a right of way through the plaintiffs' survey Nos. 135|2 + 1|1 and 141|1 to go to their survey No. 135|1|2. Both denied each other's rights. The plaintiffs therefore filed Suit No. 196 of 1938 for a declaration of their right of way and an injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing them in its use and also restraining them from going through their lands survey Nos. 135|2+1|1 and 141|1. The suit ended in a compromise decree, providing...
Baba Narayan Lakras Vs. Saboosa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-15-1943
Reported in: (1944)46BOMLR312
George Rankin, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs in a suit brought on behalf of the Hindus of a place called Basim, situated in Berar, against a number of Muslim defendants as representing the whole Muhammadan community of Basim. An order under Rule 8 of Order I of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, was duly made and the defendants contested the suit in. three Courts in India. Their Lordships much regret, however, that they have not had the advantage of any argument for the defendants as no one appeared to represent them at the hearing before the Board.2. The dispute is as to the right of the Muslims at the time of Muharram to immerse tazias in a tank called the Padmatirtha tank which lies to the North-West of Basim. This tank is described as a large area of water and as having ten ghats. The relief claimed by the plaint, which was filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Basim on June 20, 1929, was an injunction restraining the defendants from immersing tazias (a) fro...
The Khatau Makanji Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd. Vs. S.R. Deshpande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-14-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Bom332; (1943)45BOMLR657
John Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an appeal against a decision of Mr, Justice Chagla. The petitioners, who are a mill company carrying on business in Bombay, applied for an order against the respondent, who is a conciliator appointed under the Bombay Industrial Disputes Act, 1938, to restrain him from proceeding with conciliation proceedings under the Act. The application is based alternatively on Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, or on the alleged right of the petitioners to a writ of certiorari.2. Before stating the facts, it will, I think, be desirable to refer to the Bombay Industrial Disputes Act, in order to appreciate the motives for the various acts of the parties. The preamble of the Act states that it is expedient to make provision for the promotion of peaceful and amicable settlement of industrial disputes by conciliation and arbitration and for certain other matters. Section 26 of the Act provides for the settlement of standing orders to regulate the relations betwee...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mahomedbhoy I.A. Rowji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-08-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Bom311; (1943)45BOMLR584
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference made by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 66(2), Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, raising the question :Whether under the provisions of Section 9 of the Act the assessee is entitled to a deduction of Rs. 16,370, being the municipal general tax paid to the Bombay Municipality in respect of the immoveable property belonging to him2. Section 9 of the Indian Income-tax Act deals with the heading 'Income from property,' and directs that the tax shall be payable by an assessee under that head in respect of the bona fide annual value of property consisting of any buildings or lands appurtenant thereto of which he is the owner, subject to certain allowances. The only allowance, which, it is suggested, applies to this case, arises under Sub-clause (iv), which was amended in the year 1939. The sub-clause reads :Where the property is subject to a mortgage or other capital charge, the amount of any interest on such mortgage or charge.3. Then th...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Vs. Mahomedbhoy I. M. Rowji.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-08-1943
Reported in: [1943]11ITR320(Bom)
BEAUMONT, C.J. - This is a reference made by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 66(2), Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, raising the question :'Whether under the provisions of Section 9 or the Act the assessee is entitled to a deduction of Rs. 16,370, being the municipal general tax paid to the Bombay Municipality in respect of the immovable property belonging to him ?'Section 9 of the Indian Income Tax Act deals with the heading 'Income from property', and directs that the tax shall be payable by an assessee under that head in respect of the bona fide annual value of property consisting of any buildings or lands apparent thereto of which he is the owner, subject to certain allowances. The only allowance, which, it is suggested, applies to this case, arises under sub-clause (iv), which was amended in the year 1939. The sub-clause reads :'Where the property is subject to a mortgage or other capital charge, the amount of any interest on such mortgage or charge.'Then the following wo...
Ramchandra Rango Kulkarni Vs. Annaji Venkatesh Mannur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Bom59; (1943)45BOMLR1037
Lokur, J.1. The facts out of which this appeal arises are simple and undisputed. The plaintiff's father Venkatesh had a cloth shop at Bijapur. The defendant's father Rango owed Rs. 968-4-0 to that shop for cloth purchased by him when he and the defendant were joint. The plaintiff obtained a personal decree for that amount against Rango alone in suit No. 220 of 1933 on February 6, 1934. Before that suit was filed, the defendant and his father Rango had separated by an award decree dated February 9, 1932. Under that decree the burden of paying off half the family debts was thrown on the defendant. But the defendant was not made a party to the plaintiff's suit, suit No. 220 of 1933. Hence when the plaintiff sought to execute the decree against the defendant also in darkhast No. 244 of 1937, the defendant contended that he was not bound by the decree which had been passed against his father alone after he was separated from him. That contention was upheld on the strength of the ruling in S...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Edulji F.E. Dinshaw
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Bom297
Beaumont, C.J.1.This is a reference by the Income-tax Commissioner raising two questions, which arise in the following circumstances. The assessment year was the year 1939-40, and the accounting year was from 1st April 1938 to 31st March 1939. On 22nd December 1939, the Income-tax Officer made his assessment, and it is apparent from the figures given in the case that more than half of the income of the assessee was derived from dividends and interest on securities. Under Sub-section (4) of Section 6, Finance Act of 1939 the Income-tax Officer calculated the income-tax payable at the rates prescribed in the Finance Act of 1938, but he calculated the super-tax at the rates prescribed in the Finance Act of 1939. The assessee appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against the assessment, and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who was Mr. Murphy, held that super-tax, as well as income-tax, ought to have been calculated at the rates prescribed in the Finance Act of 1938. In acco...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Vs. Edulji F. E. Dinshaw.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-1943
Reported in: [1943]11ITR340(Bom)
BEAUMONT, C.J. - This is a reference by the Income-tax Commissioner raising two questions, which arise in the following circumstances. The assessment year was the 1939-40, and the accounting year was from April 1, 1938, to March 31, 1939. On December 22, 1939, the Income-tax Officer made his assessment, and it is apparent from the figures given in the case that more than half of the income of the assessee was derived from dividends and interest on securities. Under sub-section (4) of Section 6 of the Finance Act of 1939 the Income-tax Officer calculated the income-tax payable at the rates prescribed in the Finance Act o 1938, but the calculated the super-tax at the rates prescribed in the Finance Act of 1939. The assessee appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against the assessment, and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who was Mr. Murphy, held that super-tax, as well as income-tax, ought to have been calculated at the rates prescribed i the Finance Act of 1938. In accor...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Vs. Gokaldas Hukumchand.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-06-1943
Reported in: [1943]11ITR462(Bom)
BEAUMONT, C.J. - This is a reference made by the Commissioner of In come tax raising the following question :-'Whether there was any evidence before the Income tax officer and/or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner so as to warrant the views each of them has taken, namely, that the said sum of Rs. 1,600 being the share of the minors in the profits of the said firm of Rameshchandra & Co., for the Samvat year 1994 could be the income of the petitioner so as to include in his total income for the said year'.The facts are that there is a firm of Lallubhai Amichand in which the present assessee and his minor son Jagmohandas are partners, and there are four other partners, namely the brother of the assessee and three outside parties. So far as regards that, it is clear that under Section 16(3) of the income tax act the income of the minor son can be included in the income of the assessee, because the assessee is a partner in that firm. Then there is a second firm which was started either in...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »