Mumbai Court March 1947 Judgments
Thiagaraja Bhagavathar Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-1947
Reported in: (1948)50BOMLR382
John Beaumont, J.1. These are consolidated appeals by special leave from a judgment of the High Court at Madras in its appellate criminal jurisdiction dated October 29, 1945, which affirmed a judgment of the same High Court in its original criminal jurisdiction dated May 3, 1945.2. The appellants were tried by the said High Court, with certain other persons, for conspiracy under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and abetment to commit murder under Section 802 read with Section 109, and were convicted on both charges, and sentenced to transportation for life. They appealed to the High Court, and by an order dated July 12, 1945, the appellate Court allowed them to appeal on matters of fact as well as of law under Section 411A(7)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.3. The appeal raises an important question as to the scope of the powers of the Court under Section 411A of the said Code which was introduced into the Code by Act XXVI of 1943. In order to appreciate the effect of the new...
Tag this Judgment!Mohamed AmIn Vs. Jogendra Kumar Bannerji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-1947
Reported in: (1947)49BOMLR584
John Beaumont, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal dated February 1, 1945, in appeal from its original jurisdiction, which affirmed a judgment and decree of that High Court dated March, 81, 1943, in its original jurisdiction, dismissing the appellant's suit for damages for malicious prosecution.2. The question arising in this appeal is:-At what stage will criminal proceedings instituted falsely and maliciously before a Magistrate under the provisions of the Indian Code of Criminal Procedure lay the foundation for a suit for damages for malicious prosecution ?3. Before dealing with the facts of the case, it will be convenient to notice the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 190 so far as relevant enacts that except as thereinafter provided, any Presidency Magistrate, District Magistrate or Sub-divisional Magistrate or other Magistrate therein mentioned may take cognizance of any offence (...
Tag this Judgment!Baldevdas C. Parikh Vs. Khimji Poonja and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1947
Reported in: (1947)49BOMLR649
Stone, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Chagla dated July 2, 1946, dismissing the petition of the appellant in this Court, whereby he prayed that certain arbitration agreements contained in contract notes, including contract note No. 17996, should be declared to be invalid, void and unenforceable. Secondly, that the purported award made by the arbitrators referred to in paragraph 3 of the petition be set aside, thirdly, he prayed for an injunction against the respondents in this Court, from proceeding with an appeal from the arbitrators to the Board of the East India Cotton Association, and for certain other ancillary relief. The principal question that arises is whether certain contracts with regard to cotton are void, since, if they are void, the arbitration agreements contained within them must obviously fail. The respondents in this Court are members of the East India Cotton Association and the appellant is not. Between April 9 and August 10, 1945, the appe...
Tag this Judgment!The New Piecegoods Bazar Co., Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-1947
Reported in: (1947)49BOMLR620
Stone, C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act and raises a short though important point with regard to the computation of the figure to he included in respect of, 'income from property,' under Section 9 of the taxation statute.2. The matter originally came before my learned brother Kania and myself on September 22, 1944, and having regard to the general importance of the point raised, we sent the matter back to the Tribunal and asked them to frame a further question, in order to cover all the arguments which the assessee desired to raise.3. The facts of this particular ease can be briefly stated. The assessee company's income from property during the relevant year, which is account year Samvat 1995, that is to say October 24, 1938, till November 11, 1939, was computed by the Income-tax Officer in the sum of Rs. 6,21,764. That sum was made up from the figure of Rs. 9,17,825, which was the gross rents realised as shown in the accounts, in respect of t...
Tag this Judgment!New Piecegoods Bazar Co., Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Bom72; [1947]15ITR319(Bom)
KANIA, J. - This is a reference made under Section 66(1) by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The applicants are a limited company and the question in respect of the assessment of the company arises for the accounting Samvat year 1995 (ending with 11th November, 1939). The income is from immovable properties owned by the company. Under Section 6 of the Income-tax Act the income of an assesseee is directed to be assessed under five heads, the third of which is 'Income from Property.' Section 9 deals with how that income is to be computed. It starts by stating that the tax shal be payable by the assessee under the head 'Income from Property' in respect of the bona fide annual value of the property consisting of any lands, buildings etc., of which he is the owner, subject to the allowances therein mentioned. Then there are sevenn paragraphs under which the different heads of allowances are grouped. Sub-section (2) states that for the purposes of that section the expression 'annual value'...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rawalgaon Sugar Farm, Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1947
Reported in: (1947)49BOMLR629
Chagla, J.1. This reference raises a very short point as to the construction of Section 5 of the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940. The assessee carries on two businesses namely, the business of growing sugar-cane on its farms and the business of manufacturing sugar through a factory which it owns. Now admittedly the income which it derives from its business of growing sugar-cane is agricultural income and also admittedly the business of growing sugar-canes on its farms is agricultural business. The question that arises for our decision is whether 'agricultural business' is a business to which the Excess Profits Tax Act applies, and the question arises because of the following circumstances. Under the Excess Profits Tax Act, the department has got to consider what is the capital of the assessee during the standard period and during the chargeable period. If the capital during the chargeable period has increased, then certain deduction is to be given to the assessee in respect of that increa...
Tag this Judgment!N.V. Vakharia Vs. the Supreme General Film Exchange Co., Ltd
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Bom301; (1948)50BOMLR140
Tendolkar, J.1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for a declaration that he is entitled to take inspection of the books of account and other papers of the first defendant company through Mr. U.S. Kaushik or some other skilled agent appointed by him. The plaintiff is a director of the first defendant company and defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are his co-directors. The plaintiff gave a power-of-attorney to one Mr. Kaushik, an accountant, to attend at the registered office of the first defendant company and take inspection of the books of account and other documents of the company. The plaintiff by his letter dated December 16, 1945, informed the company that he had given such a power to Mr. Kaushik and sent a copy thereof to the company with a request that the said Mr. Kaushik should be allowed to take inspection. Mr. Kaushik attended at the office of the company on December 27, 1943, and applied for inspection; but defendant No. 2 declined to give inspection stating that the plaintiff c...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Vs. Ravalgaon Sugar Farm Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1947
Reported in: [1947]15ITR297(Bom)
CHAGLA, J. - This reference raises a very short point as to the construction of Section 5 of the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940. The assessee carries on two businesses, namely, the business of growing sugar-cane on its farms and the business of manufacturing sugar through a factory which it owns. Now admittedly the income which it derives from its business of growing sugar-cane is agricultural income and also admittedly the business of growing sugar-cane on its farms is agricultural business. The question that arises for our decision is whether 'agricultural business' is a business to which the Excess Profits Tax Act applies, and the question arises because of the following circumstances. Under the Excess Profits Tax Act, the department has got to consider what is the capital of the assessee during the standard period and during the chargeable period. If the capital during the chargeable period has increased, then certain deduction is to be given to the assessee in respect of that increa...
Tag this Judgment!Velji Shivji Vs. Mathuradas Haridas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Bom47; (1947)49BOMLR645
Chagla, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Blagden, and the facts really are not in dispute. The plaintiff filed this suit on November 9, 1939, and the suit was referred to the Commissioner for taking accounts on February 7, 1940. While the reference was pending, the plaintiff was adjudicated insolvent on January 16, 1945. On August 7, 1945, Mr. Justice Bladgen made an order purporting to be an order under Order XXII, Rule 8, Sub-clause (1), of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, directing that the Official Assignee should furnish security in Court on or before September 7, 1945, in the sum of Rs. 10,000 for the costs of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and further ordering that in the event of the Official Assignee not furnishing the said security by the time aforesaid he be deemed to have refused or to have declined to continue the above suit, and that in default of the Official Assignee depositing in Court the said security within the time aforesaid the suit should be placed o...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Savlaram Kashinath Joshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-1947
Reported in: (1947)49BOMLR798
Stone C.J.1. I have had the opportunity of reading the judgment about to be delievered by my brother Lokur J. I am in entire agreement with it and have nothing further to add.Lokur, J.2. This is an appeal by the Government of the Province of Bombay against the order of the Additional City Magistrate, First Class, Poona, acquitting the twelve accused who were charged under Sections 4(a) and (b) and 5 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act. The Sub-Inspector of Police Mr. Gole received information that gambling was going on in Room No. 14 of House No. 672 in Budhwar Path. He obtained a special search warrant under Section 6 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887, from the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Poona City Sub-Division, Mr. Crone, and raided that room on November 11, 1944. He found all the twelve accused gambling with playing cards there. He arrested them, made a panchnama and sent all the twelve accused for trial. It was conceded that accused No. 1 was the occupant of...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »