Mumbai Court September 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.
Ramji Keshavji Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-07-1944
Reported in: [1945]13ITR105(Bom)
KANIA, J. - This is a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act.The relevant facts are these. The assessee had a son Shivji by his first wife, a son Vassanji by his second wife, his third wife Kamalabai and three sons and three daughters by the said wife. Disputes arose in the family about the rights of the adult sons, and High Court Suit No. 1836 was filed by Vassanji against the assessee and the other members of the family claiming that all the estate in the hands of the assessee was joint family property and the parties were entitled to their rights on that footing. After the litigation had gone on for some time, a consent decree was taken on December 23, 1938. Under that consent decree it was inter alia declared that all the properties in the possession of the assessee were his self-acquired properties. It was further declared that in respect of the Ulster Road House in Bombay a trust deed should be executed in accordance ...
Motichand and Devidas in Re.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-1944
Reported in: [1946]14ITR534(Bom)
KANIA, Ag., C.J. - This is a reference made by the tribunal of Appeal under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, in respect of the assessment of Messrs. Motichand and Devidas, Solicitors, for the accounting year 1939. The relevant facts are these.The firm of Messrs. Motichand and Devidas was carrying on business, as attorneys of this Court, since 26th January, 1909. The first partnership deed, referred to in this reference, was dated 29th October, 1926, and was executed between Mr. Motichand G. Kapadia and Mr. Devidas J. Desai, they sharing the profits and loss equally. A fresh partnership deed dated 15th July, 1936, was executed when Mr. Tanubhai, son of Mr. Devidas, was admitted as a partner. The shares of the partners were then readjusted, Mr. Motichand got seven annas, Mr. Devidas got seven annas and Mr. Tanubhai got two annas. The shares of the partners were subsequently changed to seven annas, five annas and four annas respectively, according to the writing dated 20th Nove...
The Belgaum Bank Ld. Vs. Bando Raghunath
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-01-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom359; (1945)47BOMLR336
Lokur, J.1. After remand the lower Court has taken further evidence and recorded findings to the effect that the requirements of Clauses (c) and (g) of Section 98 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, have been proved and that therefore no notice of dishonour was necessary. On these findings the plaintiff is entitled to a decree against defendant No, 2 also. But it is contended in this Court on his behalf that the lower Court has erred in holding the requirements of those two clauses proved.2. Clause (g) of Section 98 provides that no notice of dishonour is necessary when the party entitled to notice, knowing the facts, promises unconditionally to pay the amount due on the instrument. It is urged for defendant No. 2 that the endorsement made by him at the foot of the; promissory note, exhibit 38, on August 3, 1939, does not amount to an unconditional promise to pay. To determine this it is necessary to briefly recapitulate the circumstances which led to the making of the endorsement...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›