Mumbai Court July 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.
Wallace Bros. and Co. Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-1943
Reported in: (1943)45BOMLR929
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.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 ...
Emperor Vs. Pandurang Bhikhaji Joshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-1943
Reported in: (1943)45BOMLR890
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal by the accused against his conviction by the Presidency Magistrate, 4th Additional Court, of an offence under Rule 116(2) of the Defence of India Rules.2. Rule 116, so far as material, enables the Provincial Government to require any person to furnish or produce to any specified authority or person any such information or article in his possession as may foe specified in the order, being information or an article which that Government considers it necessary or expedient in the interests of the defence of British India, the efficient prosecution of the war, or the public safety or interest to obtain or examine. Under that rule Government issued a notification on February 5, 1943, which, so far as is material for the present purpose is in these terms :-The Government of Bombay is pleased to order that every person in the City of Bombay and Bombay Suburban District shall, on every Tuesday beginning with February 9, 1943, furnish to the Director...
Emperor Vs. Mahomed Elias Patel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-1943
Reported in: (1943)45BOMLR899
Rajadhyaksha, J.1. This is a revision application against an order of the Honorary Presidency Magistrate, Municipal Court, Mazagaon, convicting the accused under Section 471 of the City of Bombay Municipal Act, 1888, for disobedience of the obligation imposed upon him under Section 275(1) of the Act.2. The applicant is the manager of the Haji Ismail Haji Allanna Family Trust, and the charge against him was that he failed to keep in efficient repairs a bib-tap at 94-98, Victoria Road, Byculla, and also failed to comply with a notice requiring him to remedy the defect in the tap. At the time of the trial it was found that no such notice had been served upon the applicant. Therefore, the charge of disobedience of the notice issued to him under Section 278 of the City of Bombay Municipal Act was withdrawn. But in respect of the charge under Section 275(1) the applicant was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 75 or in default to suffer simple imprisonment for four weeks.3. The prin...
Laxmibai Ganpatrao Mahajan Vs. Radhabai Krishnaji Mahajan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Bom235(2); (1944)46BOMLR399
Sen, J.1. The plaintiff-appellant brought this suit for a declaration that the decree obtained by defendant-respondent No. 1 in Special Suit No. 581 of 1923 was not executable against the properties in suit and for a permanent injunction restraining defendant No. 1 from proceeding with the execution of an award decree obtained by her against the said properties.2. The parties to the suit were related in the following manner :- Nageshrao | __________________________________________ | |Ganpatrao (died in 1916) Krishnaji (died in 1920)= Laxmibai (plaintiff) = Radhabai (defendant No. 1) | | Narayan (defendant No. 3). Gopal (defendant No. 2), (adopted).Krishnaji died in 1920. In the same year defendant No. 3 filed Suit No. 453 of 1920 against defendant No. 1. and others for accounts. In 1923 defendant No. 1 adopted her natural brother, defendant No. 2, and in the same year defendant No. 2 filed Suit No. 581 of 1923 for partition. The matters in dispute in both these suits were referred to a...
FakruddIn ShamsuddIn Saiyed Vs. Bai Jenab
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Bom11; (1943)45BOMLR897
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application in revision asking us to set aside an order of the Sessions Judge of Broach refusing to interfere with an order of the trial Magistrate by which he declined to modify the order which he had made under Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, and the question involves the construction of Section 489, Sub-section (2), of that Code.2. The wife obtained an order under Section 488 for maintenance on October 6, 1941. The husband made an attempt subsequently to avoid the rigours of that order, which attempt was unsuccessful, and he thereupon filed a suit in the civil Court asking for an order for restitution of conjugal rights, and on October 27, 1942, he obtained such an order from the First Class Subordinate Judge of Broach. Directly he obtained a copy of that order, he applied to the Magistrate to revoke the order which he had made under Section 488, but the learned Magistrate declined to revoke the order, and his decision was uphe...
Manilal Brijlal Vs. Vandravandas C. Jadav
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Bom193; (1944)46BOMLR391
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the District Judge of Surat, raising a question of practice.2. The appellant is a creditor of the Surat Industrial Mills Co., Ltd., which is in liquidation, and two liquidators were appointed, one Jadav and the other T. J. Mehta. The appellant started proceedings under a 235 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913, to make the liquidators liable for certain alleged misfeasances. After the proceedings had been started, the liquidator T. J. Mehta died, and an application was made to the Court for leave to bring on record his widow and son as the persons liable to discharge his debts. The learned Judge dismissed the application, and, in my opinion, he was right in doing so.3. Section 235 of the Indian Companies Act is a procedural section, which is copied from the English Act, and it confers a right on, amongst other persons, a creditor of the company, to apply to the Court to examine into the conduct of various officers, including...
Bhikaji Vishnu Karmarkar Vs. Ramchandra Krishna Phatak
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Bom210; (1944)46BOMLR393
Lokur, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for possession of a demised land. The land is a piece of site measuring sixty by twenty-one cubits in Survey No. 1, Falni No. 1, of Rahatgar and it appears to have been in the occupation of one Balkrishna Bhide who had built a house on it. The appellant purchased it from him in 1894. The site admittedly belongs to the plaintiff and Bhide used to pay him Rs. 2-8-0 per year for swamitwa, and after it was sold to the appellant the appellant continued to pay that amount as rent or swamitwa to the plaintiff. On February 22, 1904, the appellant passed a rent note in favour of Vasudeo, who was the manager of the plaintiff's property for a period of thirty-five years. By that rent note the appellant agreed to pay Rs. 2-8-0 every year, and the relevant portion in it runs thus :You say that you will extend the period of the lease after the expiry of the present time limit. If it suits me I will continue ; otherwise, I will go away. In that case you sh...
Emperor Vs. Suleman Shamji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-1943
Reported in: (1943)45BOMLR895
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application in revision against the conviction of the accused by the Chief Presidency Magistrate under Section 272 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The conviction, in my opinion, proceeds on two serious errors. Section 272 provides that whoever adulterates any article of food or drink, so as to make such article noxious as food or drink, intending to sell such article as food or drink, or knowing it to be likely that the same will be sold as food or drink, shall be punished as therein mentioned. So that, it is essential to show that an article of food or drink has been adulterated, and that it was intended to sell such article, or that it was known that it would be likely to be sold, as food or drink.2. Now, here the evidence was that Dr. Divekar, Senior Medical Inspector, 'D' Ward, went up to the terrace of a building, and found one Ganpatsingh spreading used tea leaves on the terrace. He had a packet of white powder with him. It has been found as ...
Abdullabhoy Esoofally Chas Vs. Akbarally SamsuddIn Raja
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-14-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Bom93; (1943)45BOMLR1102
Coyajee, J.1. This is an administration suit. The parties to the suit are Mahomedans and heirs of one Samsuddin Jivaji Raja, who died leaving moveable and immoveable properties. The immoveable properties are situate partly in Bombay, partly in Sidhpur in the territory of His Highness the Maharaja of Baroda, and partly in Siam, which is now an enemy occupied country. Although the suit is for the administration of the estate of the deceased, it is a suit for partition. On the death of Samsuddin Jivaji Raja his heirs became tenants-in-common of the properties left by him. That is why the eminent draftsman who has drafted this plaint has asked in prayer (c) that the estate may be administered by and under the directions of this Court and in prayer (f) that the shares of the plaintiffs and the defendants of the estate may be ascertained and declared and that the estate of the deceased Samsuddin may be partitioned by and under the directions of this Court between the parties entitled to the ...
Lakhaji Dalji Garasia Vs. Kuberdas Hargovindas Modi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Bom225; (1944)46BOMLR378
Lokur, J.1. The first five out of this group of six appeals arise out of suits filed by the holders of lands in the village of Sahijpur Bogha in Ahmedabad District against the inamdar of that village. The lands involved in these appeals arechakariatnakra, that is to say service lands free of assessment. The plaintiffs first claimed intheir plaints that they were permanent tenants of the lands in their respective possession and were not liable to be evicted by the inamdar. The inamdar contended that all the lands were service lands liable to be resumed at his pleasure. After his written statements were put in. the plaintiffs amended their plaints and admitting that the lands were theirchakariatnakra lands not liable to assessment, they contended that they and their predecessors in-title had never rendered any service, that they were no longer liable to render service and that the inamdar had no power to resume them. They, therefore, claimed a declaration that they were the absolute owne...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »