Mumbai Court April 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.
Government of Bombay Vs. Sakur Samuel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Bom38; (1946)48BOMLR746
Macklin, J.1. This is an appeal by the Government of Bombay against the acquittal of accused No. 1 in a ease of murder tried before Mr. Justice Baja-dhyalraha and a special jury. The jury unanimously acquitted the rest of the accused; but they brought in a verdict of 7 to 2 for the acquittal of accused No, 1, and the learned Judge accepted that verdict and directed an acquittal The appeal is presented on grounds of misdirection, in particular misdirection as to the burden of proof lying upon an accused person who alleges circumstances bringing his case within one of the exceptions to the ordinary law, in this case the exception relating to the right of private defence.2. The case arose out of the death of one Benjamin Samuel, who was stabbed through the heart on the evening of September 18, 1944, in full view of the general public in Hornby Vellard, Bombay. It was a special Jewish day; and the deceased was himself a Jew, as are all the accused. Accused Nos. 1 and 4 are brothers and wer...
Emperor Vs. Murray Gow Purdy
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Bom184; (1946)48BOMLR752
Macklin, J.1. This matter comes before us by way of appeal from a person who was tried before Mr. Justice Coyajee and, on. the Judge directing that a new trial be held, committed contempt of Court in calling the Judge 'a scoundrel in conspiracy with the Commissioner of Police'. Mr. Justice Coyajee gave him two days for reflection; and on his refusal to withdraw he sentenced him to undergo six months' simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000. He has stated in a letter to this Court his desire to withdraw his application on the ground that he is not being allowed to appear in person. But we do not wish that the application should be withdrawn, since we regard it as a matter of some importance; and Mr. Talyarkhan has kindly consented to act as an amicus curiae on behalf of the applicant.2. One thing that is obvious in this case is that this is a case of criminal eon-tempt; and whatever may be the powers of the High Court to interfere with contempts committed in respect of the ci...
Framroze Merwanji Desai Vs. Hormasji Maneckji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Bom204; (1946)48BOMLR737
Bhagwati, J.1. In this case the judgment-creditors took out and served upon the judgment-debtor an insolvency notice in respect of the claim which they have had against him by virtue of a decree for Rs. 41,406-8-0 and interest of tained by them on June 18, 1945. The judgment-debtor has filed an affidavit before me stating that he has a counter-claim which exceeds the amount claimed by the judgment-creditors in respect of the decree and which he could not set up in the suit in which the decree was obtained, and claims that the insolvency notice be set aside.2. The suit which was filed by the judgment-creditors was a summary suit. When the summons for judgment came on for hearing before Mr. Justice Blagden, the learned Judge refused leave to defend the suit and passed the decree for the amount mentioned above on June 18, 1945. The judgment-debtor appealed from this decree of Mr. Justice Blagden. The appeal was heard by the learned Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Chagla on November 8, 1945,...
Hanmantram Ramnath Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Bom115; (1946)48BOMLR532
Kania, J.1. This is a reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Having regard to the way in which, the matter of the assessment of the assessee had progressed, considerable confusion had been created, but on the further statement of facts sent by the Tribunal the relevant and material facts are now fairly clear.2. The assessee is Rao Bahadur Hanmantram Ramnath of Poona. He is assessed with the status of a joint Hindu family. We are concerned in the present reference with the assessment for the accounting year Samvat 1995 (October 24, 1938, to November 11, 1939). The assessment proceedings were taken in 3940-1941. The assessee, the joint Hindu family, was assessed by the Income-tax Officer on an income of Rs. 86,256 on July 10, 1942. A perusal of the assessment order shows that the assessee claimed that he should be allowed to deduct a sum of Rs. 9,750, being interest which he was liable to pay to 'the R. B. Hanmantram Tarachan...
Hanmantram Ramnath Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax Bombay.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-1946
Reported in: [1946]14ITR716(Bom)
KANIA, J. - This is a reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Having regard to the way in which the matter of the assessment of the assessee had progressed, considerable confusion had been created, but on the further statement of facts sent by the Tribunal the relevant and material facts are now fairly clear.The assessee is Rao Bahadur Hanmantram Ramnath of Poona. He is assessed with the status of a joint Hindu family. We are concerned in the present reference with the assessment for the accounting year Samvat 1995 (October 24, 1938, to November 11, 1939). The assessment proceedings were taken in 1940-41. The assessee, the joint Hindu family, was assessed by the Income-tax Officer on an income of Rs. 86,256 on July 10, 1942. A perusal of the assessment order shows that the assessee claimed that he should be allowed to deduct a sum of Rs. 9,750, being interest which he was liable to pay to 'the R.B. Hanmantram Tarachand Chari...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›