Mumbai Court November 1944 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.
Ghella Dayal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-16-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom361; [1945]13ITR133(Bom)
KANIA, J. - This is a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.The relevant facts are briefly these : The firm of Messrs. Ghella Dayal, consisting of three partners carried on business in and prior to Samvat year 1995. A partnership deed, defining the shares of the individual partners, dated October 20, 1932 is in the record. That shows that Haridas Ghella Dayal had a share of six annas three pies in a rupee, Gokuldas Jivraj had a share of six annas three pies in a rupee, and Karsondas Premji, as the manager of an undivided Hindu family, was entitled to a share of three annas six pies in a rupee. The partnership deed further recites that a shop rented in the name of Haridas Ghella Dayal from Ashad Samvat year 1960 (over 40 years ago) at the Ghadial Gally in the Mulji Jeetha Market was used by the partnership for its business in piece-goods, and the rent of the shop was to the paid by the partnership. On October 30, 1939...
Mahadeo Gopal Pendse Vs. Hari Waman Bhate
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-15-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom336; (1945)47BOMLR350
Lokur, J.1. One Gopal Pendse, the father of petitioners Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and the husband of petitioner No. 4, purchased at an auction the half share of Yeshwant, opponent No. 2, in three lands belonging to the joint family consisting of Yeshwant and his brother Hari, opponent No. 1. After the death of Gopal, the petitioners, who succeeded to his estate, filed this suit for recovering possession of Yeshwant's half share in the three lands and paid court-fees on the claim for the possession of that share only. On the contentions of the opponents, two preliminary issues were raised as to whether the plaintiffs were not bound to ask for a partition of the entire joint family property and whether it was necessary for them to pay court-fees on the entire share of their vendor Yeshwant. On the first issue the lower Court found that the plaintiffs were bound to bring a general suit for partition. The plaintiffs accepted that finding and included in the suit all the joint family property of the ...
Motichand Balubhai Vs. District Magistrate
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-15-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom385; (1945)47BOMLR357
Sen, J.1. This is an application by Motichand Balubhai against whom an order has been made by the District Magistrate of Surat directing him, under Rule 81(2) of the Defence of India Rules, 1939, to refrain from asking Lallubhai Bechardas, his tenant, to vacate any part or the whole of the premises not occupied by him as tenant or from doing anything to disturb his peaceful possession, enjoyment and occupation of the said premises during the pendency of the present war or until such earlier time as the said tenant may choose to vacate the said premises, provided he continues to pay the rent. The order purports to have been made under Rule 81(2) of the Defence of India Rules. The applicant filed a suit, viz. Small Cause Suit No. 1046 of 1943, in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Surat in October, 1943, for certain arrears of past rent and for possession from the tenant. The Court made a decree in favour of the applicant on February 21, 1944, granting him possession and t...
Bai Lilavanti Vs. Vadilal Purshottamdas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-14-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom474; (1945)47BOMLR386
Lokur, J.1. This is an application in revision against the findings of the Second Class Subordinate Judge at Dhandhuka that the claim in Suit No. 182 of 1942 filed by the opponent is properly stamped, and that he has jurisdiction to try the suit. The suit was filed for a declaration that the decrees passed against the opponent in Suits Nos. 110 of 1937 and 113 of 1937 were obtained by misrepresentation, fraud and undue advantage and were, therefore, unenforceable, void and ineffective, and for an injunction restraining the petitioners from executing the said decrees. The claim was valued at Rs. 5 under Section 7, Clause (iv), Sub-clause (c), of the Court-fees Act, 1870, and the same was stated to be the value of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction. The petitioners, who were the defendants in the suit, contended that as the decrees were for an aggregate amount of Rs. 5,366-4-6, the opponent had to pay ad valorem fees on that amount, and that as that was the value of the subject-matter...
Kashiram Bhagshet Shete Vs. Bhaga Bhaushet Redij
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom511; (1945)47BOMLR470
Bhagwati, J.1. His Lordship after stating the facts proceeded. The plaintiff gave-evidence on his behalf and stated that he had monetary dealings with the defendants' joint and undivided Hindu family for several years prior to the severance. of joint status between the various branches of that family, that he lent and advanced monies to the defendants' joint family, that defendant No. 15 was the managing member of the defendants joint family and that there was no change in the said status of defendant No. 15 to his knowledge up to the time when defendant No. 15 signed the promissory note dated February 6, 1938, in his favour. He was cross-examined by Mr. Banaji particularly on the state of his knowledge as to the severance of joint status between the various branches of the defendants' family and the information which he might have derived generally and in particular from defendant No. 15 as regards the same. He denied that on February 6, 1938, he knew that a partition had been effecte...
Metro theatre Bombay Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-1944
Reported in: [1946]14ITR638(Bom)
STONE, C.J. - This is a reference under Section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act in respect of an assessment order for the year 1942-43 and the sum in dispute is Rs. 9,825 which the appellant claims to be a deduction. The matter arises in this way. The appellant entered into a building agreement with the Government by which is consideration of building upon the land and the paying a sum of three lacs and odd rupees it was to recive a lease for 999 years. The agreement provides for the payment of the amount by six-monthly instalments with interest on the instalments outstanding from time to time. It is in respect of Rs. 9,825 which was the interest payable in the relevant year that the reference is made. It is agreed by both the parties that the sum of Rs. 9,825 has in fact to be split in two sums, since it is in respect of the building which has now been built upon the land and which is used partly as a cinema in the occupation of the appellant and partly let out to others for rent, so ...
Emperor Vs. Benoari Lal Sarma
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-06-1944
Reported in: (1945)47BOMLR260; AIR1945PC48
Viscount Simon L.C., J. 1. This is an appeal by the Government of India from a judgment of the Federal Court (Varadachariar C.J. and Zafrulla Khan J., Rowland J., dissenting) dated January 4, 1943, dismissing an appeal from a judgment of the High Court at Calcutta (Sir Harold Derbyshire C.J. Khundkar J. and Sen J.) setting aside a conviction of 15 individuals by a Special Magistrate purporting to act under Ordinance No. II of 1942 promulgated by the Governor-General on January 2, 1942. The ground upon which the conviction was set aside was that the Ordinance was ultra vires. The question is largely academic, for upon Ordinance No. II being declared by the Federal Court to be ultra vires, Ordinance XIX of 1943 was promulgated to replace it. But in view of the elaborate argument that has taken place and the way in which the topic has been dealt with in the judgments in India, their Lordships think that the better course is to decide the question whether Ordinance II is invalid, especial...
Premchand Mahasukhbhai Vs. Chamanlal Ranchhoddas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-06-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom470; (1945)47BOMLR410
Rajadhyaksha, J.1. These three companion applications in revision arise out of three suits filed in the Second Class Subordinate Judge's Court at Ahmedabad by the opponent against his three tenants in respect of properties situated within the limits of the city of Ahmedabad. The suits were filed by the plaintiff for recovering possession and arrears of rent in respect of the three suit properties. The leases in suits Nos. 1106 and 1107 of 1943 out of which Civil Revision Applications Nos. 192 and 320 of 1944 arise are dated April 8, 1943, while the lease in suit No. 1108 out of which Civil Revision Application No. 269 of 1944 arises is dated April 6, 1943.2. In all the three suits it was contended by the plaintiff that the period of lease had expired on September 11, 1943, on which date the possession of the properties in suits was to be handed over by the respective defendants to the plaintiff. The contentions of the defendants in the three suits were common in several particulars, al...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K.M. Madan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-03-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom431; (1945)47BOMLR281
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 is the year 1941-42 for the accounting year, which in this case is from April 1, 1940, to March 31, 1941. The question referred to us is as follows:Whether in the circumstances of the case the amount of Rs. 178-9-3 received by the assessee from the Tata Iron and Steel Co. in the year of account, according to the decree of the High Court, was rightly held to be the dividend income of the years prior to the year of account, and not the income of the relevant accounting period?2. The sum of Rs. 178-9-3 is made up of a number of sums relevant to the different assessment years, but the principle is the same in all cases; and a sum of Rs. 26-1-1 in respect of the assessment year 1932-33 has been the sum around which the arguments and debate have revolved-3. The facts have never been in dispute; but they raise a curious set of circumstances, relevant, so we are t...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. BipIn Silk Mills, Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-03-1944
Reported in: (1946)48BOMLR503
Kania, J.1. This reference deals with, two applications made by the Commissioner of Income-tax in respect of the assessment of the assessees, for two accounting periods, viz. September 1, 1939, to December 31, 1939, and the calender year 1940. The relevant facts are these: The assessee company is a joint stock company with a share capital divided into 100 shares of Rs. 5,000 each. Forty-three shares are held by the directors admittedly in their own right and in their individual names. Twenty shares stand in the name of Mr. Nanji Kalidas, Mrs. Nanji, Sirdar Tribhowandas Jagjivandas, Raja Pandit Anandpuriyaji and Rajya Ratna H. M. Wadia. It is stated in the reference that these shares are held by Nanji Kalidas not in his individual capacity but 'as a trustee'.2. On behalf of the Commissioner it is contended that as these twenty shares are held by five persons in their capacity as trustees, it is improper to construe that they have an interest in these shares within the meaning of Section...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »