Mumbai Court March 1947 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. Amimiya Imammiya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-1947
Reported in: (1947)49BOMLR829
Leonard Stone, C.J.1. This is an appeal by a head constable and six police constables against the convictions and sentences varying from three months' rigorous imprisonment in the case of accused No. 4 to three years' rigorous imprisonment in the case of accused Nos. 2, 7 and 8, to transportation for life in the case of accused Nos. 1, 3 and 5, In all the cases other concurrent sentences were passed on the accused by Mr. C.S. Deodhar, Sessions Judge of Kaira, on January 6, this year. Accused No. 6 died in the course of the proceedings.2. The accused are not all similarly charged, the charges against them variously include rioting, unlawful assembly, causing hurt and murder, and the bare uncontrovertible facts from which these various charges spring are as follows. At about 7-20 p.m. on the evening of August 18, 1942, as the result of a collision, fortuitous in its actual occurrence, an armed force consisting of one Head Constable (accused No. 1) in command and seven other Constables (a...
Jan Mohammad Vs. Karam Chand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1947
Reported in: (1947)49BOMLR577
Madhavan Nair, J.1. These are consolidated appeals by the plaintiff, defendants Nos. 4 to 8, and Mohib Ali, a transferee from defendants Nos. 13 and 14, from the judgment and decrees dated May 29, 1941, of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, North West Frontier Province, Peshawar, varying the judgment and decrees dated October 81, 1939, of the Court of the District Judge, Peshawar, which in turn varied a judgment and decree dated; December 3, 1938, of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Peshawar, as a result of which, the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 13 and 14, were given decrees for the redemption in specified 'shares in the property in dispute with the exception of the site leased by Government to Parma Nand (father of defendants Nos. 4 to 8) in 1934', on payment of specified sums of money.2. The appeals arise out of a suit for the redemption of mortgages executed by a Mahomedan, Chaudhri Nathu. Broadly stated, the questions arising for determination relate to who are the representati...
Shirinbai N.J. Dady Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Bom46; (1947)49BOMLR627
Chagla, J.1. The assessee in this case had an income of 65,064 dollars in the accounting year 1938-39 which accrued to her in Hongkong. She was taxed on this income on the accrual basis and conformably to the third proviso to Section 4(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act she was exempted to the extent of Rs. 4,500. In the accounting year 1939-40 her foreign income which accrued to her in Hongkong was 48,847 dollars and in that year also she was exempted to the extent of Rs. 4,500. In the year 1940-41 she brought into British India 260,169 dollars which included the sum of Rs. 9,000 which had been exempted as I have mentioned before. The taxing authorities contend that this sum of Rs. 9,000 is liable to tax and the assessee, on the other hand, contends that she having been once exempted, this amount is not liable to tax. The answer to this question depends upon a proper construction of the third proviso to Section 4(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act. This proviso lays down that if in any year...
Bai Shirinbai N. J. Dady in Re.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-1947
Reported in: [1947]15ITR284(Bom)
CHAGLA, J. - The assessee in this case had an income of 65,064 dollars in the accounting year 1938-39 which accrued to her in Hongkong. She was taxed on this income on the accrual basis and conformably to the third proviso of Rs. 4,500. In the accounting year 1939-40 her foreign income which accrued to her in Hongkong was 48,847 dollars and in that year also she was exempted to the extent of Rs. 4,500. In the year 1940-41 she brought into British India 260,169 dollars which included the sum of Rs. 9,000 which had been exempted as I have mentioned before. The taxing authorities contend that this sum of Rs. 9,000 is liable to tax and the assessee, on the other hand contends that she having been once exempted, this amount is not liable to tax. The answer to this question depends upon a proper construction of the third proviso to Section 4 (1) of the Income-tax Act. This proviso lays down that if in any year the amount of income accruing or arising without British India exceeds the amount ...
Moulvi Hamid Hassan Nomani Vs. Banwarilal Roy
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1947
Reported in: (1947)49BOMLR534
John Beaumont, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal, made on July 19, 1944.2. On June 14, 1944, the High Court, on the application of the respondents, issued a rule nisi calling upon the appellant to show cause why an information in the nature of quo warranto should not be exhibited against him 'as to by what authority he is exercising and performing or claiming to exercise or perform the powers and duties which may be performed or exercised by the Chairman and the Commissioners of the Howrah Municipality.' By the said Order of July 19, 1944, the High Court made absolute the rule nisi. On December 14, 1944, the High Court ordered that the appellant's appeal to His Majesty in Council against the said Order of July 19, 1944, be admitted.3. The facts leading to the issue of the said orders of the High Court are simple. On June 9, 1944, His Excellency the Governor of Bengal, purporting to act under the powers conferred on him by Rul...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A.H. Wadia
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1947
Reported in: (1947)49BOMLR633
Stone, C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and when it was called on in this Court, Mr. Setalvad, on behalf of the Commissioner, drew our attention to the fact that although a reference was asked for by the assessee, 'the Gwalior Darbar,' that is to say, the State of Gwalior, as long ago as October 5, 1940, no reference was in fact made for six years. Mr. Setalvad pleaded in excuse for this gross delay the other work of the authorities concerned. I feel that no such excuse can be any exoneration for such a grievous lapse, which amounts to a denial of justice to the taxpayer who under the law is compelled to pay the full tax demanded pending a decision on the reference by this Court. It is most unfair, and it is to be hoped that the authorities will so conduct their affairs in the future that delays of this sort will not be heard of again.2. The questions submitted to us, which are six in number, concern the assessment made on the Gwalior D...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Vs. A. H. Wadia, as Agent to t ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1947
Reported in: [1947]15ITR367(Bom)
STONE, C.J. - This is a reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, and when it was called on in this Court Mr. Setalvad, on behalf of the Commissioner, drew our attention to the fact that although a reference was asked for by the assessee, 'the Gawalior Durbar,' that is to say, the State of Gawalior, as long ago as the 5th October, 1940, no reference was in fact made for six years. Mr. Setalved pleaded in excuse for this gross delay the other work of the authorities concerned. I feel that no such excuse can be any exoneration for such a grievous lapse, which amounts to a denial of justice to the taxpayer who under the law is compelled to pay the full tax demanded pending a decision on the reference by this Court. It is most unfair, and it is to be hoped that the authorities will so conduct their affairs in the future that delays of this sort will not be heard of again.The question submitted to us, which are six in number, concern the assessment made on the Gwalior Durb...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›