Mumbai Court May 1945 Judgments
P.D. Shamdasani Vs. King-emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-29-1945
Reported in: (1945)47BOMLR733
Goddard, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the High Court of Bombay made by Kania J. adjudging that the appellant was guilty of a contempt of Court, committing him to prison for three months, and ordering him to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000, On the day after the order was made the appellant applied to the learned Judge for a modification of the sentence expressing sincere and unreserved regret for having used the expressions which were held to be a contempt, and the sentence was then reduced to one of eight days imprisonment but no alteration was made in the fine The sentence of imprisonment was served and the appellant then applied to the High Court in its appellate criminal jurisdiction for a certificate that the case was one fit for appeal to His Majesty in Council under Clause 41 of the amended Letters Patent of 1865. This application was opposed by the Advocate General, who submitted there was no jurisdiction to grant it, as it was said that the clause in question did not apply t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.E. Polson
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-29-1945
Reported in: (1945)47BOMLR737
Simonds, J.1. This appeal, which is brought from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, raises a difficult question of Indian income-tax law upon which different views have been expressed by the High Courts of Bombay and Madras.2. The question can be briefly stated. It is whether the word 'discontinued' in Section 25(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter called 'the 1922 Act'), as amended by the Indian Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1939 (hereinafter called 'the amending Act'), means only a complete cessation of the business or whether it also includes the case of discontinuance of the business by the person formerly carrying it on as the result of the transfer or assignment of that business to another person who thereafter carries it on. In the case under appeal the High Court at Bombay (Beaumont C.J. and Kania J.) has given the wider meaning to the word : in Meyyappa v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras [1944] Mad. 166, the High Court at Madras has given it ...
Tag this Judgment!inder Kuer Vs. Pirthipal Kuer
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-07-1945
Reported in: (1945)47BOMLR949
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the Chief Court of Oudh dated February 27, 1940, which reversed the decree of the Civil Judge, Sitapur, dated September 30, 1936, and decreed the plaintiffs' suit.2. The appellant before the Board was the second defendant in the suit, the surviving widow of one Mathura Singh, deceased. The first and the only other defendant, her co-widow, did not join the appellant in filing this appeal. She was therefore made the third respondent. During the pendency of the appeal she died and her name was removed ; and the appellant was made her heir and legal representative by the order of the Chief Court.3. The deceased husband of respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were the original plaintiffs in the suit. They will be referred to as the respondents.4. The relationship of the parties to the suit is shown in the following genealogical table: Bakhtawar Singh | _________________________________________________________ | | | Raghubar Ram Daya...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Dhruvarajsing Vishwanathsing
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-05-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Bom65; (1945)47BOMLR681
Bhagwati, J.1. This is a petition filed by one Talukdarsing Ramsumersing Kshatriya, the uncle of the dtenu Dhruvarajsing Vishwanathsing, under Section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, for an order that the dtenu who is at present detained in the Worli Temporary Prison be brought in person before this Court to be dealt with according to law and that he be set at liberty on the ground that the arrest of the dtenu effected on April 10, 1945, and the subsequent detention of him was invalid and improper and was without lawful authority.2. The petitioner has urged in his petition that the dtenu is a rent farmer (collector) of the Right Honourable Dr. M.R. Jayakar and has been in such employ since 1933, that the dtenu is a member of the Hindu Maha Sabha, that the house of the dtenu was searched by the police on April 10, 1945, but nothing incriminating was found from the said place by the police, that the dtenu was to the petitioner's knowledge and belief not taking any part in the p...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›