Mumbai Court November 1945 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.
Motilal Sarupchand Vs. Shamsundar Radhakisan and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-1945
Reported in: AIR1947Bom160
Chagla, J.1. The plaintiff lent and advanced a certain sum of money to the father of the defendant and the father passed a promissory note in respect of this amount. The father died and his widow, after making up the accounts, passed a promissory note for the amount lent by the plaintiff to her husband. As she could not pay the amount of the promissory note, the plaintiff filed a suit against her. She died during the pendency of the suit and the plaintiff brought the defendant on record as her heir and legal representative. A decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant as the legal representative of her mother and to the extent of the assets of her mother come to her hands. The plaintiff had attached before judgment a property of the defendant's father of which the widow was in possession. The attachment was confirmed when the decree was passed and the plaintiff attempted to bring the property to sale. In the execution proceedings the defendant urged that the pro...
Commissioner I.T. Vs. Gurupada Datta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-1945
Reported in: (1946)48BOMLR296
Thankerton, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal, dated June 10, 1943, delivered on a reference made to it by the Appellate Tribunal under Section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The respondents did not appear in the appeal.2. The respondents constitute a Hindu undivided family, carrying on business at Tejhati in Birbhum district, and also at Nalhati and Lohapur, two other villages there. In assessing the respondents to income tax for the year 1940-41, on the basis of the previous year 1939-40, the Income-tax Officer assessed the total assessable income of the respondents as a Hindu undivided family at Rs. 17,250, in which he included a sum of Rs. 6,563, as being the profits of the Nalhati business assessable under Sections 6(iv) and 10 (J) of the Act, The Income-tax Officer disallowed a claim by the respondents, to deduct as an allowance authorised by Section 10(2) of the Act a sum of Rs. 84 paid by them as a union b...
Emperor Vs. Purshottam Harjivan Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Bom492; (1946)48BOMLR379
Divatia, J.1. This is an application in revision by accused Nos. 1 and 2 against their convictions and sentences under Section 13(1) read with Section 6 of the Hoarding and Profiteering Prevention Ordinance. The case for the prosecution was that accused: No. 1; was the proprietor, and accused No. 2 was a salesman of P. H. Shah, Silk Merchants, in Bombay, and that on September 1, 1944, accused No. 2 on behalf of accused No. 1 sold nine yards of artificial silk dress fabric at a price of Rs. 11 per yard when the landed cost, as certified by the Assistant Controller General was Rs. 4-8-0: per yard. The defence of accused No. 1 was that he had purchased the articles at Rs. 9-8-0 per yard from K. Manilal and 'Company and hence the profit earned by him was less than twenty per cent. It was also urged that the landed cost certificate was not duly proved because Mr. Kedarnath the Assistant Controller General who had given the certificate had not been examined to prove that the articles in resp...
Bapulal Premchand Vs. the Nath Bank, Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Bom482; (1946)48BOMLR393
Chagla, J. 1. The plaintiff as the true owner of a cheque for Rs. 4,000 has filed this suit against the defendant bank for conversion of the said cheque and claiming. Rs. 4,000. The material facts are really not in dispute. On February 5, 1945, Messrs. Ramchandra Ramgopal, a firm of merchants at Akola, drew a cheque upon the Laxmi Bank, Limited, for the sum of Rs. 4,000 payable to the plaintiff or bearer. The cheque was crossed generally by Messrs. Ramchandra Ramgopal before delivery to the plaintiff. On the same day the plaintiff despatched this cheque by post from Akola to his commission agents Messrs. Chimanlal Mohanlal Suratvala for presentment and collection. This cheque never reached Messrs. Chimanlal Mohanlal Suratvala and apparently it was stolen during transit.2. On January 25, 1945, the defendant bank opened a branch in Bombay, and on January 26, 1945, one Nemchand Amichand Gandhi opened an account by paying to the credit of that account Rs. 300 in cash. Although the name of ...
Emperor Vs. Mareppa Ningappa Kambar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-1945
Reported in: (1946)48BOMLR542
Sen, J.1. [His Lordship, after dealing with the general aspect of the case and in particular the cases of the appealing accused, stated as follows as regards accused No. 14:]2. Accused No. 14 was arrested at Bagewadi Railway Station on May 18 and he produced Rs. 40 from his house on May 28. The cash has not been identified. The panchnama about the production, exhibit 85, contains the incriminating statement which I have already quoted. According to the punch, exhibit 81, on being asked by the Sub-Inspector if he would produce the money connected with the Alnavar Bank case, he said that he would produce the money from his house. He then added that the accused said that he would produce 'some amount of the Alnavar Bank dacoity from his house'. The first statement does not connect the money produced with the dacoity but the second statement does. The learned Judge has admitted both these statements, in spite of the provisions of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, as be seems to have t...
Bhagwandas Tejaji Vs. Motilal Chakabhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-1945
Reported in: (1946)48BOMLR583
Lokur, J.1. This appeal arises out of execution proceedings. The decree sought to be executed was obtained by one Tejaji in small cause suit No. 801 oil 1931 for the recovery of Rs. 833 and costs from the defendant on June 29, 1931. As the decretal amount was not paid in time, the decree-holder Tejaji presented darkhast No. 748 of 1932 which was disposed of on December 7, 1932. Tejaji then died in March 1933 and his two sons, Bhagwandas and Hiralal, who became entitled to the decree by survivorship, presented darkhast No. 3387 of 1933 which was disposed of on September 21, 1934, Their next darkhast No. 209 of 1936 was disposed of on May 1, 1936. The brothers then separated and by a registered partition-deed dated June 29, 1936, the decree against the defendant was allotted to the share of Bhagwandas. Bhagwandas then applied to the Small Cause Court on April 21, 1939, for transfer of the decree to the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Ahmedabad, alleging that the decree had ...
Mareppa Ningappa Kambar and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-1945
Reported in: AIR1947Bom90
Sen, J.1. [His Lordship, after dealing with the general aspect of the case and in particular the cases of the appealing accused, stated as follows as regards accused 14:] Accused 14 was arrested at Bagewadi Railway Station on 18th May and he produced Rs. 40 from his house on 28th May. The cash has not been identified. The panchnama about the production, Ex. 85, contains the incriminating statement which I have already quoted. According to the panch, Ex. 81, on being asked by the Sub-Inspector if he would produce the money connected with the Alnavar Bank case, he said that he would produce the money from his house. He then added that the accused said that he would produce 'some amount of the Alnavar Bank dacoity from his house.' The first statement does not connect the money produced with the dacoity but the second statement does. The learned Judge has admitted both these statements, in spite of the provisions of Section 27, Evidence Act, as he seems to have thought that the case in 47 ...
Nathu Dhoju Gholap Vs. Ramchand Balchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Bom462; (1946)48BOMLR301
Lokur, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was filed by the plaintiff to recover possession of certain property which he had purchased from one Sheubai, defendant No. 1, on December 1, 1937. Defendant No 1 is the widow of defendant No. 2's brother Dhondiba. After Dhondiba's death defendant No. 1 claimed that she succeeded to his property as his heir. But defendant No. 2 claimed that Dhondiba had died in union with him and that the property in his possession came to him by survivorship. Defendant No. 1, therefore, filed suit No. 130 of 1936 against defendant No. 2 to recover possession of the property which she claimed to have been allotted to her husband's share. She succeeded in proving that her husband and defendant No. 2 were separate and a decree for possession of the property in suit was passed in her favour on September 25, 1937. Defendant No, 2 filed an appeal (No. 297 of 1937) against that decree in the District Court on November 5, 1937. When that appeal was pending,...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sir Purshottamdas Thakurdas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-14-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Bom401; (1946)48BOMLR141
Leonard Stone, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act. The short question which the Tribunal has framed is as follows:-Whether, on the facts of the case, the legal expense of Rs. 7,500 incurred by the assessee in defending a suit brought to unseat him was rightly allowed as a deduction in computing his total income for the charge year 1940-41, under Section 12(2) of the Indian Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1939?2. The facts can be shortly stated as set out in the case. Sir Purshottamdas Thakurdas, who is the assessee in this case, was a director of a number of limited companies in the year of account Samvat 1995. On November 12, 1935, he was elected a Member of the Local Board for the Western Area of the Reserve Bank of India, which office is ordinarily held for five years. Sometime after his election one Mr. P. D. Shamdasani brought a suit against him for a declaration that the election was invalid and that he himself should be declared duly ele...
The Globe theatres, Ltd. Vs. the Chief Judge of Small Causes Court
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-13-1945
Reported in: (1946)48BOMLR691
Kania, J.1. The petitioners are a private limited company and carry on the business of exhibiting cinema films in the property known as Regal Cinema in Fort, Bombay. They are also the owners of the property. As such, under the City of Bombay Municipal Act they have to pay, amongst other things, property taxes, on the rateable value fixed by the Municipality from time to time. Up to the official year 1942-43 the rateable value was fixed at Us. 30,550. For the year 1943-44 the Municipality raised the rateable value to Rs. 50,470. This was arrived at on the footing of the estimated gross takings having regard to the sitting capacity of the theatre. Several other cinemas were similarly assessed. The petitioners being dissatisfied with the assessment made by the Municipality appealed to the Chief Judge .of the Small Causes Court under Section 217 of the City of Bombay Municipal Act. Other cinema owners, who were the proprietors of the buildings in which their cinemas were run, also filed si...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »