Mumbai Court October 1946 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.
Emperor Vs. Bashir Bundekhan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-30-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Bom366; (1947)49BOMLR139
Sen, J.1. The original charge made against the three accused persons in this case consisted of four counts, only the second of which is material for the purposes of the question Which has been raised before me. That count was :Secondly : That you, along with 7 or 8 other persons, on or about the date and at the place aforesaid, were members of an unlawful assembly, and in prosecution of the common object of which, viz., to assault (1) Tajdin Mahomeddin, (2) Khadim Hassan Chiragdin, and (3) Mahomed Anwar Talemahomed, one of the members of such assembly, viz., Bashir Bundekhan, accused No. 1, caused the death of the said Khadim Hassan Chiragdin, and you are thereby, under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, guilty of committing the said offence of murder, an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of the High Court.Or in the Alternative.That you, on or about the date and at the place aforesaid, did commit murder by intentionally causing t...
Province of Bombay Vs. Municipal Corporation of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-1946
Reported in: (1947)49BOMLR257
Du Parcq, J.1. By a written agreement dated March 1, 1943, the parties to this appeal concurred in stating a special case for the opinion of the High Court of Bombay. The question of law for the opinion of the Court was:- 'Whether the Crown is bound by Sections 222(1) and 265 of the City of Bombay Municipal Act.' The High Court (Sir John Beaumont C.J. and Rajadhyaksha J.) declared that the Crown was bound by these sections, and, in accordance with the agreement between the parties, made an order as to costs in the respondents' favour. The present appeal is against this decision.2. The City of Bombay Municipal Act, 1888, has twenty-one chapters and 528 sections and covers, as might be expected, a wide field. Chapter X deals with water-supply. Section 265, which is in this chapter, is as follows:-The Commissioner shall have the same powers and be subject to the same restrictions for carrying, renewing and repairing water-mains, pipes and ducts within or without the city, as he has and is...
Emperor Vs. Yeshwant Tukaram Salunke
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Bom146; (1946)48BOMLR908
Leonard Stone, Kt., C.J.1. This appeal comes before us under and by virtue of Section 411A of the Criminal Procedure Code. This is a new section introduced in the year 1943 and gives any person convicted at a criminal trial held at the Sessions of a High Court in exercise of its original criminal jurisdiction, the right to appeal to an appellate Court in the circumstances and upon the grounds set out in the section. Formerly there was no such right.2. On October J7, 1944, at about 10-30 p.m. in the evening one Kakhma Bala was fatally stabbed in the Parel Road of this City, and arising from such occurrence the two appellants having been duly arraigned and claiming to be tried were tried before Mr. Justice Macklin and a special jury at the First Criminal Sessions of 1946. In the result the jury by a majority of 6 to 3 returned a verdict of guilty against each of the accused and the learned Judge sentenced them to death.3. Three principal points were taken by Mr. Ghasvala on behalf of the...
Vithaldas Thakordas and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1946
Reported in: (1947)49BOMLR201
Chagla, J.1. This is a reference under Section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act and is with regard to the assessment for income-tax purposes of Messrs. Vithaldas Thakordas & Co., a firm, in respect of the assessment year 1942-43, the relevant accounting period being November 1, 1940, to October 20, 1941.2. The point which we have to determine concerns the sum of Rs. 5,059 and is a short one, though not one which is free from difficulty. As referred to us. by the Tribunal, the questions asked are:-(1) Whether in the circumstances of the case the payment of Rs. 5,059 made by the assessee firm to Mrs. Tarabai widow of Vithaldas Thakordas was rightly held to be an appropriation of profits ?(2) If the sum paid to Mrs. Tarabai was an item of expenditure, whether in the circumstances it was an item of revenue expenditure and admissible for deduction under Section 10(2) (xii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1939 ?3. On November 1, 1930, Mr. Vithaldas Thakordas died, leaving his widow, Bai Tar...
Vithaldas Thakordas and Company Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax Bombay.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Bom302; [1946]14ITR822(Bom)
STONE, C.J. - The judgment about to be delivered by my learned brother is the judgment of the Court.CHAGLA, J. - This is a reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act and is with regard to the assessment for income-tax purposes of Messrs. Vithaldas Thakordas & Co., a firm, in respect of the assessment year 1942-43, the relevant accounting period being the 1st November, 1940, to the 20th October, 1941.The point which we have to determine concerns the sum of Rs. 5,059 and is a short one, though not one which is free from difficulty. As referred to us by Tribunal, the questions asked are :-(1) Whether in the circumstances of the case the payment of Rs. 5,059 made by the assessee firm to Mrs. Tarabai widow of the Vithaldas Thakordas was rightly held to be an appropriation of profits ?(2) If the sum paid to Mrs. Tarabai was an item of expenditure, whether in the circumstances it was an item of revenue expenditure, and admissible for deduction under Section 10(2)(xii) of the I...
Hanamappa Shiddappa Vs. Ningappa Rangappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1946
Reported in: (1947)49BOMLR673
Macklin, J.1. This is a decree-holder's appeal against a decision of the lower appellate Court rejecting an application for amendment of his darkhast on the ground of the 12 years' rule provided by Section 48 of the Civil Procedure Code. He asked for execution of his decree by attachment and sale of certain landed property of the judgment-debtor. The judgment-debtor being an agriculturist, the papers were sent to the Collector and the Collector took nine years to dispose of the application. The decree was not fully satisfied by the sale held by the Collector and the decree-holder thereupon asked for amendment of his application by the addition of a prayer for the attachment and sale of a house belonging to the judgment-debtor. The amendment was allowed by the trial Court; but the lower appellate Court refused it and the decree-holder now comes in appeal to this Court.2. There are two ways of regarding the decree-holder's application for amendment of the decree. It can be regarded as a ...
Maruti Dhondi Shinde Vs. Guna Dhondi Shinde
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-1946
Reported in: (1947)49BOMLR855
Macklin, J.1. In the action which has given rise to this second appeal a junior widow sued a person adopted by her senior widow for the property which went to the adopted son by adoption. It was agreed at the trial that the issue relating to the validity of the adoption should be determined first, on the assumption for the sake of argument that the adoption had in fact taken place. Both the Courts below have held that the adoption was an invalid adoption and, there being no other effective defence to the suit, the plaintiff was bound to succeed. They therefore passed a decree for possession of the property in favour of the plaintiff and the defendant has appealed.2. The only question with which we are concerned in this appeal is whether the adoption, assuming that it took place, is valid. It is to be noticed that the adoption was by a step-mother of the last male holder. The late husband of the two widows, Dhondi, died leaving a son to his junior widow in addition to the two widows. Th...
Mahamad Yusuf Vs. Hasina Yusuf
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-02-1946
Reported in: (1947)49BOMLR561
Macklin, J.1. This appeal arises out of litigation started by the widow of one of two donees of land, the defendant being the surviving donee. The questions arising in the Courts below and again in this appeal were mainly questions relating to the nature and validity of the gift. It was held that the gift was a valid gift in spite of the rule of Mahomedan law relating to what is known as mushaa dispositions of property, that is, to undivided shares in property, and it was also held that in this particular case the gift was a gift to the donees not as joint donees but as tenants-in-common, so that the plaintiff as widow of one of the donees would be entitled to inherit his share of the property. The defendant has come in second appeal, and the same questions arise.2. We have heard much argument about the validity of gifts to more than one person in undefined shares. The rule as stated in Mulla's Mahomedan Law, in so far as it relates to two or more donees, is that a gift of property whi...
Hubli Electricity Co., Ltd. Vs. Province of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Bom276; (1947)49BOMLR92
Leonard Stone, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal by the Hubli Electricity Company, limited, against the judgments of Mr. Justice Blagden, dated March 23, 1945, and April 5, 1945, given in an action, which the appellant as plaintiff brought against the Province of Bombay, claiming declarations that the revocation of the appellant's license to supply electricity to consumers at Hubli is illegal, inoperative and void, and claiming consequential reliefs by way of an injunction and damages and the restoration to the appellant of his property and the electrical plant, which have, as a result of the alleged revocation of the appellant's license, been taken over by the respondent.2. After close of the pleadings a number of issues were framed and the first five of these were disposed of by the learned Judge's judgment of March 23, 1945, at the hearing of preliminary issues. At the subsequent trial, which lasted eleven days, the parties embarked upon the calling of much evidence, most of which as is...
Vinayak Hari Paranjape Vs. Province of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1946
Reported in: (1948)50BOMLR21
Leonard Stone, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment dated June 30, 1942, of Mr. M.B. Honavar, who was then Assistant Judge, Thana, whereby he allowed the appeal of the Province of Bombay, who was defendant No. 2 in the suit and dismissed the cross-objections of respondent No. 1 the plaintiff, who claims to be the mortgagee in possession of certain inam rights under a mortgage deed dated October 29, 1929. The only other party to the proceedings is the mortgagor, the inamdar, and he raises no opposition to the plaintiff's claim as mortgagee, which, so far as is material, is contained in paragraphs 1 and 5 to the prayer of the plaint:(1) It may be declared that the plaintiff is entitled to get his name as mortgagee in possession entered after the name of Sambhaji Shivaji Raje Shirke against the inam right in mouje Jamgaon and Kudli in the taluka of Roha and in mouje Vidhat in the taluka of Mangaon mentioned in Clause 3 above, in the relevant Government records.(5) Defendant No....
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›