Mumbai Court February 1945 Judgments
Nanamiyan Umarbhai Vs. Land Acquisition Officer
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Bom171; (1945)47BOMLR853
Rajadhyaksha, J.1. This is an appeal against an order made by the Joint Judge of Ahmedabad in a reference made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 189(4, against the award of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Ahmedabad, in respect of Survey Nos. 178 and 180 which were notified for acquisition in September, 1935. Survey Nos. 178 and 180 together measured five acres and thirty-six gunthas and were purchased by the present appellant-claimant on May 17, 1934, for Rs. 3,500. Out of these five acres and thirty-six gunthas, five acres and eighteen gunthas were notified for acquisition for the purpose of constructing an aerodrome at Ahmedabad leaving an area of eighteen gunthas out of the said two survey numbers. The Land Acquisition Officer made an award at the rate of Rs. 320 per acre and allowed Rs. 180 for the mango trees standing thereon. Against that order the appellant-claimant asked for a reference to the District Court, and the learned Joint Judge who heard the reference...
Tag this Judgment!Maharaja of Pithapuram Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1945
Reported in: (1946)48BOMLR13
Thankerton, J.1. This appeal arises on a reference by the 'Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, on the requisition of the appellant, under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, of the following question of law,- viz.:-Whether the income of the year 1938-39 derived from the assets comprised in the revocable instruments of trust and settlement executed by the petitioner in favour of his four (daughters, on April 5, 1933, i.e. before the commencement of the Indian Income-tax Act},. VII of 1939, can be deemed to be income of the petitioner under revocable transfers of assets as contemplated by Clause (c), of Sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the Indian Income-tax Act, XI of 1922, as amended by the Indian Income-tax Amendment Act, VII of 1939 ?For the year 1939-40 the appellant was assessed to income-tax on a total income of Rs. 2,19,640, which included a sum of Rs. 1,77,374, representing the total of the income arising from assets settled on his four daughters by the appellant by...
Tag this Judgment!People's Own Provident and Gen. Insurance Co. Vs. Guracharya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Bom200; (1945)47BOMLR852
Chagla, J.1. This is an application in revision from an order made by the Debt Adjustment Board. A preliminary objection is taken by Mr. Hungund on behalf of the opponent that the application is not competent. The Debt Adjustment Board was set up under the Bombay Agricultural Debtors' Relief Act, 1939, and the question that arises for determination is whether it is a Court subordinate to the High Court in order to attract the application of Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. 'Court' is defined under the Agricultural Debtors' Relief Act and, according to that definition, 'Court' is either a District Court or a Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge to which an appeal lies against the award of a Board under Section 9. Mr. Sukhtankar has argued that Section 9 of the Act permits appeals to the District Court from awards made by the Board. That might give revisional powers to the High Court when the District Court decides the appeal; but the mere fact that a statute provides...
Tag this Judgment!Keshav Ramchandra Vs. Municipal Borough, Jalgaon
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Bom64; (1945)47BOMLR851
Chagla, J.1. The petitioner is a defeated candidate at an election held on April 26, 1943, for the Municipal Borough, Jalgaon. On May 7, 1943, he applied under Section 15 of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925, questioning the validity of the election on several grounds and praying that the election might be set aside. The learned Assistant Judge, Jalgaon, heard the application, and on February 28, 1944, he dismissed it holding that the result of the election had not been materially affected. It is from this order of the learned Assistant Judge that this revisional application has been preferred.2. It is contended by both Mr. Gupte and Mr. Gokhale that the application is not maintainable. Now it is conceded by Mr. Dixit that the learned Assistant Judge1 of Jalgaon is a persona designate under the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925, for the purpose of deciding election disputes. I fail to see how if the learned Judge is a persona designate the High Court can exercise any revisional...
Tag this Judgment!Hafasji Ibrahim Vs. Mangalgirji Mathuragirji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Bom201; (1945)47BOMLR845
Chagla, J.1. On June 10, 1942, a decree was passed in favour of the opponent against the petitioners by the Court of the Extra Avalkarkun at Godhra under Section 19 of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act ordering the petitioners to hand over possession of the suit lands to the opponent. On June 29, 1942, the petitioners applied to the Collector of Broach and Panchmahals, Godhra, in revision under Section 23 of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act. On October 7, 1942, the original defendant died, and on January 5, 1943, the present petitioners applied to bring themselves on record as the heirs of the original defendant. On November 26, 1943, the Collector issued notice to the parties for the hearing of the revisional application. On December 15, 1943, the matter came before the Assistant Collector and he took the view that the revisional application had abated inasmuch as the petitioners had not applied to bring themselves on record within one month of the death of the original defendant, and on that grou...
Tag this Judgment!S. N. A. Al. Chidambaram Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1945
Reported in: [1945]13ITR177(Bom)
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by Patanjali Sastri, J.).This reference arises out of an assessment to income-tax for the year 1940-41 made on one S. N. A. AL. Chidambaram Chettiar (hereinafter referred to as the assessee), a Nattukottai Chetti money-lender and banker carrying on business at Karaikudi in British India, his headquarters (Oorkadai), and at Penang and Butterworth, in the Federated Malay States.In the assessment for the year 1939-40 the assessee suffered a loss of Rs. 41,253 at Karaikudi, where he also bought and sold securities on his own account. After setting off the loss against the profits of the business abroad, there was a net loss of Rs. 21,522 which was carried forward to the next year. In the assessment for that year (1940-41) it was found that there was again a loss of Rs. 23,125 at Karaikudi, but the business at Penang resulted in profits. The assessee claimed that not only the loss of Rs. 23,125 but also the unadjusted balance of loss carried forward from...
Tag this Judgment!Bhikaji Yeshwant Vs. Secretary of State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Bom203; (1945)47BOMLR843
Divatia, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff, who is one of the knots of the village of Salaste in the Ratnagiri District. He sought for a declaration that the Government Resolution No. 1394|24 of November 29, 1929, and the entries made in the botkhat in accordance with that Resolution are illegal and unjust. He prayed for the cancellation of the entries and a declaration that the occupancy tenants are liable to pay rent at two and a quarter times the assessment. The contending defendants were the occupancy tenants of the village and the remaining defendants sided with the plaintiff as they were all khots having a common interest.2. The main point in the case was whether the entry in the botkhat made in accordance with the Government Resolution of 1929 can be challenged by the plaintiff in this suit. Both the lower Courts have held that under Section 20 of the Khoti Settlement Act, 1918, such entries are final and conclusive and that the civil Court has, therefore, no jurisdiction ...
Tag this Judgment!Jairam Das Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-1945
Reported in: (1945)47BOMLR634
Russell, J.1. This appeal raises an important question, viz. whether a High Court in India has power to grant bail to a person who has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment, and to whom His Majesty in Council has given special leave to appeal against his conviction or sentence.2. The questions which arise for consideration in such a case are of such a nature that they can only, their Lordships think, be properly dealt with by some authority in India possessing either knowledge of the relevant facts, or the means of acquiring that knowledge; but whether a High Court in India has power to grant bail in the circumstances indicated is a matter upon which divers views have been expressed in the Courts in India, and which comes before the Board for the first time, in the following circumstances:The appellants were convicted under Section 120B read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to terms of rigorous imprisonment. On appeal, the High Court of Lahore upheld the ...
Tag this Judgment!Roda Framroze Mody Vs. Kanta Varjivandas Saraiya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Bom12; (1945)47BOMLR709
Leonard Stone, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Kania dated December 7, 1944. The appeal raises a short though interesting question with regard to the proof necessary to establish due execution of a will on a petition for probate which is contested.2. The deceased in this case was Dr. H.M. Mody, who died on October 21, 1942. He had married his second wife Manoramabai in September, 1942, and on October 6, 1942, he executed a testamentary document in her favour which purports to be attested by a solicitor and his clerk. On October 15, 1942, it is alleged that he executed a second testamentary document and this purports to be attested by Mr. Somne and one Choudhari Mohammed Mustaqueem Khan. This document of October 15 is the one in respect of which the petitioner asks for probate, and except for the signatures, it is typewritten on a sheet of the Doctor's note paper and is in the following terms:Last WillI hereby cancel all my wills and bequeath all my estate...
Tag this Judgment!Tammanji Govind Kulkarni Vs. Abdul Rahim
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Bom105; (1945)47BOMLR884
Sen, J.1. This appeal arises out of execution proceedings. The father of appellants Nos. 1 and 2 executed three mortgages in favour of the respondent. There was an arbitration in respect of them followed by an award and by a decree) on October 29, 1929. The decree was for Rs. 3,000 to be paid in yearly instalments of Rs. 400, and it was directed that in default of payment of any two instalments the defendant would be entitled to recover the entire amount due by sale of the mortgaged property. The first instalment fell due in 1930, but it was not paid. The decree-holder filed a darkhast in 1931. During the pendency of the darkhast, suit No. 485 of 1939 was filed by the judgment-debtor Govind's son Tammaji (appellant No. 1) against Govind, his second son Appaji (appellant No. 2), his wife Akkubai (appellant (No. 3), the decree-holder and Govind's other creditors, including one Mallaya, for partition and a declaration that Govind's debts and his liabilities under the award decree were not...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›