Mumbai Court March 1944 Judgments
Emperor Vs. Hansraj Astaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-1944
Reported in: (1944)46BOMLR529
Divatia, J.1. This revisional application has been referred to us for decision on two points arising under the Defence of India Act. The facts shortly are that the petitioner was charged with and convicted of the offence of purchasing from a merchant eleven bundles of copper wires weighing 545 seers for Rs. 2,445 on April 18, 1943, without a permit under the ' Non-Ferrous Metals Control Order, 1942.' The relevant provisions of Clause 6 of the said Order are that no person shall acquire more than twenty lbs. of copper wire in one calendar month without obtaining a permit from the Controller. This Order is issued by the Central Government under the Defence of India Rule 81(2)(a), which enacts that the Central Government, so far as appears to it to be necessary or expedient for securing the defence of British India or the efficient prosecution of the War, or for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community, may by order provide, among other things, for regulati...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Ibrahim Iboo
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom65; (1944)46BOMLR564
Divatia, J.1. This is an application for revision by the accused who has been convicted of the offence of lying or loitering in a street, being a reputed thief and without being able to give a satisfactory account of himself under Section 112 (d) of the City of Bombay Police Act, 1902. The facts are shortly these : On the night of December 27, 1942, the police were waiting near Lal Baug, Parel, for making an Abkari raid. While they were so waiting, a taxi came there with tins of illicit liquor at about 4 a.m. The occupants of the taxi threw away three or four tins of liquor on the road and then ran away in the taxi. Then the taxi came back at about 4-15 a.m. and the accused who was accompanying the driver got down from the car and was about to pick up the tins when he was arrested. He was charged at first with being in possession of illicit liquor under the Bombay Abkari Act, but was acquitted after a trial on September 7, 1943. While the trial was pending, he was re-arrested on April ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Jerbai B. Kapadia
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom1; (1944)46BOMLR768
Leonard Stone, Kt., C.J.1. The question which we have to determine, though raising a short point, is not free from difficulty, and arises by reason of the fact that the Governor of Bombay, who has now assumed all the powers vested by or under the Government of India Act, 1935, in the Provincial Government, has been pleased to make the Increase of Court-fees Act, 1943.2. That Act, which possesses the merit of brevity, in Section 1 states its name, and that it extends to the whole of the Province of Bombay, and provides that it shall come into force on January 1, 1944, and shall cease to have effect on such date as shall be appointed.3. Sections 2 and 3 are as follows : 2. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Court-fees Act, 1870, (VII of 1870), in its application to the Province of Bombay (hereinafter called the principal Act)?, all fees leviable under the principal Act shall be increased by a surcharge at the rates specified in the schedule annexed hereto.3. The provisions of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Shree Meenakshi Mills Limited Vs. Patel Brothers
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-1944
Reported in: (1944)46BOMLR841
Du Paricq, J.1. In September, 1940, a dispute arose between the parties to this appeal as a result of transactions in which they had been engaged in the cotton markets of Bombay, Liverpool and New York. An agreement, between the parties provided for arbitration under the by-laws of the East India Cotton Association, Ltd. Two arbitrators were appointed in accordance with those by-laws, and there is now no dispute about the validity of their appointment. On March 19? 1941, the arbitrators made an award whereby they awarded to the respondents the sum of Rs. 34,508-6-5 with interest.2. The appellants were dissatisfied with this award. The by-laws of the East India Cotton Association gave them a right of appeal to the Board of the Association 'within 10 days from the date of publication of the award', and they gave a proper notice of appeal within the prescribed period. The by-laws define 'the Board' as meaning ' the Board of Directors' of the Association ' acting through at least a quorum ...
Tag this Judgment!Ahmed Shah Vs. Mudassir Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-1944
Reported in: (1945)47BOMLR591
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the Court of Judicial Commissioner, North West Frontier, dated June 13, 1941,which affirmed the decree of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Peshawar, dated December 23, 1938, by which a suit brought by the appellants against the respondents was dismissed.2. The appellants are the parents of Lady Shamas Shah, who was the wife of a retired officer of the political service of the Government of India. The respondents are his nephews.3. Lady Shamas Shah and her husband lost their lives in the earthquake at Quetta,, which occurred early in the morning of May 31, 1935. Sir Shamas Shah was 68 at the time of his death, and his wife 26, They had no children. At the time of the earthquake, Sir Shamas Shah, his wife, her younger sister, and one Mst. Faruq, a maid servant, were staying in his bungalow which collapsed in the earthquake. They were buried under the debris.4. Opposite their bungalow was the bungalow in which the appellants lived with...
Tag this Judgment!The Madras and Southern Mahratta Railway Vs. Bezwada Municipality
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-1944
Reported in: (1945)47BOMLR587
MacMillan, J.1. The appellants, the Madras and Southern Mahratta Railway Company, Limited, own certain vacant lands within the Municipality of Bezwada. These lands are admittedly subject to the property tax which the respondents, the Bezwada Municipality, are empowered to levy. The question for decision in these consolidated appeals is whether the respondents acted within their statutory powers in ascertaining the annual value of the lands for the purpose of imposing the tax.2. The method which the respondents adopted in order to arrive at the annual value of the lands was first to ascertain their capital value, which they did by reckoning them at so much per square yard, and they then took six per cent of the capital value as representing the annual value. On the annual value; so calculated they imposed property tax at the rate of sixteen and a half per cent, per annum. The appellants under protest paid the assessments made upon them in each of the four financial years ending on March...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Namdeo Margoo Kaikadi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-29-1944
Reported in: (1944)46BOMLR546
Lokur, J.1. The seven appellants were tried along with nine others by the Sessions Judge of Sholapur with the aid of assessors for criminal conspiracy to do certain acts with intent to impair the efficiency or impede the working of factories, if necessary by use of bombs, for committing a riot, in pursuance of that conspiracy, in the ring-frame department of the mills of the Sholapur Spinning & Weaving Co., commonly known as Old Mills, some of them carrying bombs with them and for causing, in the course of the riot, injuries to several persons.2. The assessors were of opinion that all the accused were not guilty and the learned' Judge accepted their opinion as regards accused Nos. 7 to 12 and 14, 15 and 16 and acquitted them, but disagreeing with them he convicted the seven appellants of various offences and passed different sentences on them.3. The prosecution relied upon incidents which took place on three different days. On September 24, 1942, there was a meeting in Sathe's Chawl an...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmappa Goneppa Vs. Bhimappa Goneppa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-28-1944
Reported in: (1945)47BOMLR970
Sen, J.1. The appellant is defendant No. 1 against whom a suit in ejectment was brought by respondent No. 1, the suit also being against defendants Nos. 2 and 3, the sons of defendant No. 1.2. The plaintiff's case was that defendant No. 1 was his elder brother, that the property in suit, which is a house, was part of his ancestral property, that there was a partition between him and defendant No. 1 on October 7, 1925, when the house in suit and other properties were allotted to him, defendant No. 1 getting a smaller house to the south of his house, but that defendant No. 1 was allowed to remain in the house in suit because he wanted to celebrate the marriage of his sons and promised to give it up on constructing a new house. He brought the suit practically on the last date of the period of limitation from the date of the partition. Defendant No. 1 denied that there was a partition in 1925, but he alleged that there was a partition in 1926 in which the house in suit fell to his own shar...
Tag this Judgment!Premier Construction Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-1944
Reported in: (1945)47BOMLR778
Kania, J.1. This is a reference made under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act by the Tribunal of Appeal. The question submitted for the Court's opinion is in these terms:Whether in the circumstances of this case that portion of the income received by the assessee from the principal company of Marsland Price & Co., Ltd., which is proportionate to the agricultural income earned by the principal company is agricultural income, within the meaning of Section 2(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and exempt from assessment under the provisions of Section 4(3)(viii) of the Act?2. The relevant material facts are these : The assessees, a limited company, are the managing agents of Messrs. Marsland, Price & Co., Ltd. (referred to as the principal company in the reference). The assessees were appointed managing agents under a contract. Clause 2 of that contract is as follows:A commission at the rate of ten per cent. per annum on the annual nett profits of the said company after making ...
Tag this Judgment!Devichand Ganesh Vs. Chintaman Yellappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom116; (1944)46BOMLR763
Sen, J.1. This is an appeal by the decree-holder in certain darkhast proceedings in which he sought to execute a decree obtained by him in Suit No. 161 of 1926 by attachment of the moveables of the respondent-judgment-debtors. The decree provided that the defendants were to pay Rs. 500 with interest at six per cent, by monthly instalments of Rs. 75, and that in case of two defaults the plaintiff would be entitled to recover the whole, amount due. No instalments having been paid, the decree-holder filed Darkhastp. 1641 of 1926 in September, 1926, to recover the amount of the decree by arrest of the judgment-debtors. On April 1, 1927, the decree-holder and the judgment-debtors arrived at a compromise in the following terms :The defendants do pay (the plaintiff) within one month from today the (whole) amount as per execution application together with interest on the principal sum of six hundred and seventy-five rupees at twelve per cent, from April 1, 1927. II' the defendants do not pay, ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »