Mumbai Court October 1944 Judgments
Man Mohan Das Vs. Janki Prasad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-1944
Reported in: (1945)47BOMLR250
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, dated September 16, 1938, which reversed a decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Allahabad, dated August 18, 1934, and dismissed the plaintiff's suit with costs.2. The plaintiff-the appellant before the Board-is a money-lender, and the appeal arises out of a suit instituted by him as a mortgagee of the suit property on a mortgage, dated December 4, 1926, executed by defendants Nos. 1 to 3-respondents Nos. 1 to 3 in this appeal. These defendants did not contest the suit.3. In the plaint, Janki Prasad, defendant No. 1, was described as 'for self and as the 'mutwalli' manager and 'karkun' of Thakurdwara Sri Behariji Mahraj, installed in the temple situate in Mohalla Sarai Mir Khan, City Allahabad.' As this description did not say whether the Deity, Sri Behariji Mahraj-hereinafter referred to as the deity or the idol-was or was not a party to the suit, and whether the plaintiff wante...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Khwaja Nazir Ahmed
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-1944
Reported in: (1945)47BOMLR245
Porter, J.1. This appeal is brought from a judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Lahore, on October 24, 1941 (Criminal Revision Side);. The question raised is stated, and their Lordships think correctly stated, in the case presented by the respondent to be whether the High Court had power, under Section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash all proceedings taken in pursuance of two first information reports.2. The complainant in each case was one S.M. Saleh : the earlier report was made on August 31, 1941, and the later on September 5 of the same year.3. The offence in the first is stated to be in breach of Section 420 of the I.P.C. The facts are set out in a loose and slovenly manner and condescend on little exact detail. The result is that it is at least doubtful whether the offence should) not have been described as committed in breach of Section 417 instead of Section 420 : the vital difference between the two being that whereas an offence against the lat...
Tag this Judgment!Bishun Singh Vs. Thakurji Mangla Nain
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-1944
Reported in: (1945)47BOMLR267
Madhavan Nair, J.1. These are consolidated appeals from a judgment and three decrees of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, dated October 30, 1935, which set aside a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Cawnpore, dated January 2, 1932, and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit as against all the present respondents.2. The appellants are the plaintiffs. Appellant No. 1 claimed the properties in suit as the nearest reversioner of one Pohkar Singh deceased; and appellant No. 2 is a transferee of half of the properties from appellant No. 1.3. Stated generally, the respondents all derived their title directly or indirectly from the transfers of the property made by Musammat Gambhiri, the wife of Pohkar Singh, who survived him and died in 1919.4. The following pedigree set out in the plaint explains the relationship of the principal parties.BADRI SINGH.|.------------------------------------------------.| |Pohkar Singh (died 1900)= Gambhiri Kunwar Koklat Singh.alias Parbati, widow (died 1919) |...
Tag this Judgment!Virappa Chettiar Vs. Periakaruppan Chettiar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-1944
Reported in: (1945)47BOMLR608
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This is a consolidated appeal from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated October 21, 1940, which modified a decree dated March 26, 1937.2. The appeal arises out of a suit brought by the appellant representing the joint Hindu family firm AL. VR. ST., which carried on business as money-lenders, against its agent the respondent, for accounts.3. The dispute between the parties now relates to the liability of the respondent with reference to certain items of account decided against the appellant by the High Court. It may be mentioned that the respondent though an agent of the appellant's firm was authorised to carry on business for his personal benefit and to draw from the firm for that purpose, and the accounts disclose that he was carrying on business on behalf of some of his relations and ' possibly of some relations of the plaintiffs also.'4. The business of the family carried on at Bhavani in the Coimbatore District of the Province of Madras, with...
Tag this Judgment!Native Share and Stock Brokers Association Vs. Commissioner of Income- ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-1944
Reported in: [1946]14ITR628(Bom)
STONE, C.J. - This is a reference under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act. The assessee is the Native Share and Stock Brokers Association of Bombay more commonly known as the Bombay Stock Exchange. The Association is recognised by the Government under the Bombay Securities Contracts Control Act, 1925, and there are rules made by the Association for the regulation and control of transactions in securities, so that it becomes what is referred to in the Act as a 'recognised Stock Exchange.' Being a mutual association not formed for the purpose of making profits it does not pay income-tax unless its activities come within Section 10(6) which is as follows :-'A trade, professional or similar association performing specific services for its members for remuneration definitely related to those services shall be deemed for the purpose of this section to carry on business in respect of those services, and the profits and gains therefrom shall be liable to tax accordingly.'The question referre...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Wasant Waman Bapat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom333; (1945)47BOMLR79
Lokur, J. 1. This is an application in revision against the petitioners' conviction under Rule 39(6) of the Defence of India Rules, 1939, and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three months passed on them by the City Magistrate at Nasik and confirmed in appeal by the Sessions Judge at Nasik.2. On receiving information that a proclaimed offender named Naik was hiding in a room on the second floor of Batan Kasar's house, the District Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate raided that room at 6 a. m. on August 3, 1943, but Naik was not found there. The two petitioners and two others named Shirsat and Khare were sleeping there, and when the room was searched, 58 pamphlets styled 'Kranti-kari' (Revolutionary) were found lying in an open tin case. As those pamphlets contained prejudicial reports, as defined in Rule 34(7) of the Defence of India Rules, all the four persons found in the room were prosecuted for having them in their possession, without lawful authority or e...
Tag this Judgment!Lewis W. Fernandez Vs. Jivatlal Partapshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-1944
Reported in: (1946)48BOMLR678
Bhagwati, J.1. The defendants have taken out this notice of motion for stay of the suit filed by the plaintiff against them by reason of 'arbitration agreement' contained in the contracts which were entered into between the parties subject to the bye-laws of the East India Cotton Association, Ltd.2. The defendants are members of the Bast India Cotton Association, Ltd., and the plaintiff employed the defendants as his brokers to effect diverse transactions on his behalf for purchase and sale of cotton for July 1944 and September 1944 settlements, through a sub-broker by name Hooseinally Currimbhoy Chagla. In accordance with the instructions conveyed by the plaintiff from time to time through the sub-broker, the defendants entered into diverse transactions for the purchase and sale of Jarila cotton on behalf of the plaintiff in accordance with the rules and bye-laws of the East India Cotton Association. Ltd., for July 1944 and September 1944 settlements. The defendants rendered unto the ...
Tag this Judgment!Lewis W. Fernandez Vs. Jivatlal Partapshi and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-1944
Reported in: AIR1947Bom65
ORDERBhagwati, J.1. The defendants have taken out this notice of motion for stay of the suit filed by the plaintiff against them by reason of 'arbitration agreement' contained in the contracts which were entered into between the parties subject to the bye-laws of the East India Cotton Association, Ltd. The defendants are members of the East India Cotton Association, Ltd., and the plaintiff employed the defendants as his brokers to effect diverse transactions on his behalf for purchase and sale of cotton for July 1944 and September 1944 settlements, through a sub-broker by name Hooseinally Currimbhoy Chagla. In accordance with the instructions conveyed by the plaintiff from time to time through the sub-broker, the defendants entered into diverse transactions for the purchase and sale of Jarila cotton on behalf of the plaintiff in accordance with the rules and bye-laws of the East India Cotton Association, Ltd., for July 1944 and September 1944 settlements. The defendants rendered unto t...
Tag this Judgment!Vishnu Gangadhar Ketkar Vs. Government of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom207; (1945)47BOMLR57
Divatia, J.1. This is an application under Section 23(7) of the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act, 1931, by the keeper of the 'Lokasangraha Press' at Poona to set aside the order of the Provincial Government requiring the applicant to deposit Rs. 2,000 as security under Section 3(5) of the Act. The demand for security was made as it appeared to the Government that certain passages in a book written in Marathi language by Section L. Karandikar called 'Savarkar Charitra', i.e. the life of Mr. Savarkar, and printed in the petitioner's press fell under Clauses (a) and/or (b) of Section 4(1) of the Act, There are. in all twenty three such passages which are alleged to incite to or encourage or tend to incite to or encourage, the commission of any offence of murder or any cognizable offence involving violence under Clause (a) or directly or indirectly express approval or admiration of any such offence, or of any person, real or fictitious, who has committed or is alleged of represented to ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. the Great Eastern Life Insurance Co. Lt ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-1944
Reported in: (1945)47BOMLR195
Leonard Stone, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the relevant assessment year being 1939-40, and the accounting year being the calendar 1938.2. The assessee is a non-resident life insurance company, having a branch in British India. The questions raised concern the method of assessment of the profits and gains of the Indian business of the company. That depends on Section 10(7) of the Indian Income-tax Act and certain rules which are set out in the schedule to the Act. The rules, with which we are concerned, are the new rules, which became operative in 1939.3. Section 10, Sub-section (7), of the Indian Income-tax Act, is as follows:Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Sections 8, 9, 10, 12 and 18, the profits and gains of any business of insurance and the tax payable thereon shall be computed in accordance with the rules contained in the Schedule to this Act.4. Turning to the schedule, it is to be observed that it i...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »