Mumbai Court September 1945 Judgments
Sheshgiridas Shanbhag Vs. Sunderrao
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Bom361; (1946)48BOMLR252
Harilal Kania, Kt., Ag. C.J.1. This is an appeal from the order of Coyajee J. granting leave to the plaintiff to amend the plaint by inserting the claim of termination of the lease in suit on the ground of the alleged further breaches of two conditions of the lease after the filing of the suit, as set out in the order filed in Court. The plaintiff who is a landlord filed this suit to eject the defendant on the ground that the defendant had committed breaches of its conditions as set out in the plaint. The defendant filed his written statement denying the breaches. The parties went to a hearing and the Court heard evidence, we are told, for two or three days. It is alleged on behalf of the appellant that finding that the case as set out in the plaint would not be established, the plaintiff sought to rely on further alleged breaches. It was vehemently argued before the trial Court that the plaintiff should not be allowed to amend the plaint at that stage but the argument was not accepted...
Tag this Judgment!P.M. Hutheesingh and Sons Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1945
Reported in: [1946]14ITR653(Bom)
KANIA, AG. C.J. - This a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for the opinion of the Court on the following question :-'Whether, in the circumstances of the case, it has been rightly held that the assessee company is a company in which the public are not substantially interested within the meaning of the explanation (b) to sub-section (1) of Section 23-A of the Indian Income-tax Act ?'The question relates to the assessment years 1939-40 and 1940-41, and the previous years in question therefore are the calendar years 1938 and 1939. The relevant facts as can be gathered from the statement of case and the judgment are these : Messrs. P.M. Hutheesingh & Sons Ltd., are a limited company. The share capital of Rs. 1,000 is divided into one thousand shares of Rs. 1 each, out of which 750 are promoters shares and 250 are ordinary shares. The 750 promoters shares were taken up by the eleven persons at the time the first allotment was mad...
Tag this Judgment!Chaturbhuj Vallabhdas Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Bom337; (1946)48BOMLR63; [1946]14ITR144(Bom)
Harilal Kania, Kt., Ag. C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 66(7) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, by the Tribunal of Income-tax, inviting the Court's opinion on the following question:-Whether in the circumstances of the case and on a true construction of Clause 15 of the will of the late Gordhandaa Khetsey the income from the deceased's residuary estate is income from property held in trust or other legal-obligation, wholly for religious or charitable purposes so as to be exempt from assessment under Section 4(3) (i) of the Act 2. The material facts are few. Gordhandas Khetsey made his will dated April 30, 1934, and died on February 27, 1935. He left a large estate. Clause 15 of the will runs as follows: My trustee shall utilise my residuary property for such acts of charity as he deems proper. But if my trtustee thinks fit, ha can give a one-fourth part of my residuary property to all or one or more than one of my daughters or to the sons of my daughters.3. In the statement ...
Tag this Judgment!Waman Satwappa Kalghatgi Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Bom328; (1946)48BOMLR56; [1946]14ITR116(Bom)
Harilal Kania, Kt., Ag. C.J.1. This is a reference made under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.2. The relevant facts as found in the statement of case are these: The year of assessment is 1942-43 and the income of the previous year, which is sought to be taxed, is the Hindu year commencing from October 31, 1940, and ending on October 20, 1941. The assessee was sought to be assessed as the karta of a joint Hindu family. He had been so assessed in the previous years. In July, 1941, the members decided to separate and make a partition of the family properties and assets. For that purpose they divided themselves into four groups. The first group consisted of the aseessee, his wife and three minor sons together. The remaining three groups consisted of the three major sons and their own families. They started making a division of the family cash, jewellery and the businesses and completed it on July 30, 1941. That division was embodied in...
Tag this Judgment!Sitaram Motiram Vs. Keshav Ramchandra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1945
Reported in: (1946)48BOMLR404
Rajadhyaksha, J.1. This is an appeal against an order passed by the Assistant Judge at Jalgaon in Civil Appeal No. 138 of 1942 confirming the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Bhusawal in Regular Suit No. 328 of 1941. The plaintiff in this case was the owner of Survey No. 80 which is on a lower level than the Survey No. 82 belonging to the defendant which adjoins it. The relevant positions of the two survey numbers can be seen from the map which is exhibit. 34 in this case.2. The plaintiff's case was that till the year 1940 the rain water from the defendant's land, Survey No. 82, used to flow along a broad channel from B to D in the defendant's survey number and from D to E in the plaintiff's survey number. In the year 1949 the defendant put up an embankment from the point B along the line BC so as to collect all the rain water which formerly used to flow generally along the line BDE. He also dug a trench to the south of the embankment BC along the broad channel BG with the result tha...
Tag this Judgment!Government of Bombay Vs. Abdul Wahab
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Bom38; (1945)47BOMLR998
Chagla, J.1. This is an appeal by the Government of the Province of Bombay under Section 411A from an order of acquittal passed by Mr. Justice Divatia. The accused was tried on August 7, 1944, at the Criminal Sessions presided over by that learned Judge and he was charged as follows:That you, on or about January 30, 1944, at Bombay, did commit murder by intentionally causing the death of one Balwantsing Mansing, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of the High Court.The prosecution case was that on January 29, 1944, the accused in the company of one Chandraseker, a motor driver, went at night to Chembur. At Chembur in a hotel they found Balwantsing the deceased. It seems that Balwantsing, the accused and Chandraseker had a few drinks together and there was a quarrel between Balwantsing and the accused. The accused was assaulted and the result of his injuries was that his face became swollen. Next morning Chandr...
Tag this Judgment!D. M. Vakil Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Bom350; [1946]14ITR298(Bom)
KANIA, AG. C.J. - This is a reference made under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The material facts, as found in the statement of the case, are these. The late Bai Bhicaiji Dhunjibhoy appointed her husband and her son and three daughters as the trustees under her last will and testament, dated January 28, 1937. By clause 5 of that will it was provided as follows :-'After deducting my death-bed and medical expenses and after payment of my debts, during the lifetime of my husband Dhunjibhoy Motabhoy Vakil, my trustees shall pay out of the net income of my movable and immovable properties such amounts as may be sufficient for the maintenance of my husband Dhunjibhoy Motabhoy Vakil, my daughter Motibai and my son Motabhoy Dhunjibhoy Vakil and the balance shall be accumulated and invested in Government Securities. During the lifetime of my husband Dhunjibhoy Motabhai Vakil my said husband, my daughter Motibai and my son Motabhoy shall have th...
Tag this Judgment!Yeshvant Dattatraya Vs. Shripad Sadashiv
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Bom396; (1946)48BOMLR246
Chagla, J.1. The suit from which this appeal arises was filed by the plaintiff on. a promissory note for Rs. 1,391-12-0 passed by defendant No. 1. Defendants Nos. 2 to 7 were made party-defendants as members of a joint and undivided Hindu family along with defendant No. 1, and on the allegation that) the money was borrowed for the purpose of a joint family business. The trial Court held that a certain cloth shop was a joint family business, that the debt was incurred for that business and that the shares of the defendants in that business were liable for the satisfaction of that debt; but in the case of defendants Nos. 1, 5 and 6, the trial Court held that as they were taking an active part in the conduct of the business, they were personally liable. From that decision defendant No. 6 preferred an appeal to the lower appellate Court. The lower appellate Court confirmed the decree of the trial Court. From that order an appeal was preferred to this Court. The appeal came up before Mr. Ju...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Morarji Padamsey
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Bom325; (1946)48BOMLR155
Chagla, J.1. This is an application under Section 23 of the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act, 1931, for setting aside an order of the Government of Bombay dated March 22, 1945. The order forfeited the security of Rs. 1,500 deposited by Vishwanath Ramchandra Savant, the keeper of the press known as the Associated Advertisers and Printers, Limited, The reason why the Government made this order is stated in the body of the order itself, and it points out that whereas the Associated Advertisers and Printers, Limited, Press, has been used for the purpose of printing a book in English entitled '' Denationalisation of Goans ' which contains certain words which are set out at the foot of that order and whereas it appeared to the Government of Bombay that those words were likely to prejudice His Majesty's relations with the Portuguese Government and, as such, constitute a prejudicial report and come within the scope of Clause (bb) of Section 4(1) of the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act, 1...
Tag this Judgment!Shriniwas Abaji Desai Vs. Damodar Appaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-1945
Reported in: (1946)48BOMLR244
Lokur, J.1. This is an appeal from an order passed by the District Judge of Bijapur remanding the respondent's darkhast to the executing Court. The respondent Damodar Pote is a subject of Jamkhandi State and is domiciled in that State. He was born on June 29, 1916, and during his minority, the Court of Wards, Jamkhandi, took over superintendence of his estate, and obtained a mortgage decree in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Bijapur against the appellants in Suit No. 69 of 1929 on July 24, 1930. The Court of Wards then gave a darkhast to execute the decree in 1932, but it proved infructuous and the darkhast was disposed of on January 31, 1934. The provisions of the Indian Majority Act, 1875, having been adopted by the Jamkhandi State, the respondent attained majority at the age of twenty-one on June 29, 1937, The Court of Wards then withdrew its superintendence on July 1, 1937, and the respondent presented this darkhast on February 9, 1940, to recover the decretal amo...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »