Mumbai Court April 1947 Judgments
Srinivas Mall Bairoliya Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-28-1947
Reported in: (1947)49BOMLR688
Du Parcq, J.1. The appellants were convicted on November 4, 1943, by the Deputy Magistrate of Darbhanga, under the Defence of India Rules relating to the control of prices and were sentenced to terms of imprisonment. The Sessions Judge confirmed the convictions and the sentences. Applications to the High Court of Patna for the revision of the judgment of the Sessions Judge were dismissed. The appellants obtained special leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court to His Majesty in Council.2. Srinivas Mall Bairoliya (hereafter called the 1st appellant) was at the material time acting as salt agent for part of the district of Darbhanga, He had been appointed to this office in October, 1942, by the District Magistrate. It was his duty to sell to licensed retail dealers the supplies of salt which were allocated by the Central Government to his part of the Darbhanga district., Sitaram Prasad, who will be referred to hereafter as the 2nd appellant, was employed by the 1st appellant, ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwat Ram Vs. Ramji Ram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-28-1947
Reported in: (1947)49BOMLR693
Madhavan Nair, J.1. These are consolidated appeals by the plaintiffs, defendant No. 2 and defendant No. 5, from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Patna dated May 8, 1941, which varied a decree and judgment of the third Subordinate Judge of Patna dated April 10, 1937, decreeing the partition of the joint family property.2. The appeals arise out of a suit for partition instituted by plaintiff No. 1 (hereinafter called the plaintiff), and his son, plaintiff No. 2, against defendant No. 1 (hereinafter called the defendant) and defendants Nos. 2 to 4, the other members of a joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law. Defendant No. 3 was a minor at the time of the suit but became a major subsequently. Defendant No. was born more than 3 years after the suit began, and was made a party to the suit.3. The following questions raised by the plaintiffs, defendant No. 2, and defendant No. 5, respectively, in their appeals, arise for determination before the Board:-1. Whether items 2...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Chowringhee Properties, Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-22-1947
Reported in: (1947)49BOMLR686
Uthwatt, J.1. This is an appeal by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bengal, from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Bengal, the matter corning before the High Court on a reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (as amended), made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta Bench.2. The question at issue is whether it was rightly decided by the High Court that the respondent company on an assessment under that Act to tax on its income from buildings was entitled to an allowance in respect of interest payable under certain debentures issued by it to the Allahabad Bank. The facts are simple, the relevant statutory provision is free from ambiguity, and the point is short. Exceptionally the nut is not scattered on emerging from its shell.3. Prior to the tax year 1937/1938 the company deposited with the bank certain of its bearer debentures (forming part of a large series) as security for the moneys for the time being owing by it to the bank on...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Jehangir B. Irani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-1947
Reported in: (1947)49BOMLR811
Leonard Stone, C.J.1. This is a revisional application against the judgment dated December 18, 1946, of Mr. F.T. Deatkar, Honorary Presidency Magistrate, Municipal Court, Fort, Bombay, by which he fined the applicant Rs. 10 for an alleged offence against the Bombay Municipal Act, 1888.2. As appears from the opening paragraph of the Magistrate's judgment, the applicant Mr. Jehangir B. Irani was charged under Section 401(1) of that Act read with Section 471, for conducting stall No. 469 in the Crawford Market on August 26, 1946, without a license from the Municipal Commissioner.3. Section 401 provides that no person shall without a license from the Commissioner sell or expose for sale any animal or article in any Municipal market, and the penalties for a breach of that section are not only as is provided by Sub-section (2) of it, that is to say summary removal from the market, but also under Section 471 and the schedule therein referred to, a fine which may amount to Rs. 50. By Section 4...
Tag this Judgment!Mahadeo Bhimashankar Madhave Vs. Fatumiya Husseinbhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-17-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Bom337; (1948)50BOMLR221
Dixit, J.1. This second appeal raises a question of law which is whether the appellants' darkhast is barred by limitation, and the facts necessary to understand the question are these.2. In a suit to enforce a mortgage one Pandurang Bhikaji Shete obtained a preliminary mortgage decree on June 27, 1938. From that decree the defendant preferred an appeal and the appellate Court made on November 16, 1935, an order declaring the appeal to have abated since the judgment-debtor's heirs had not been brought upon the record, he having died after the filing of the appeal. Prior to that, the preliminary decree was made final on March 7, 1935. On March 30, 1935, the decree-holder applied by darkhast No. 618 of 1935 to execute the final decree, and on September 14, 1985, that darkhast was disposed of. In 1936 the decree-holder's sons, acting through their mother as guardian, assigned the decree to one Balvant, who is the uncle of appellants Nos. 1 and 2 and the husband of appellant No. 3. Balvant ...
Tag this Judgment!Charles E. Ring Vs. the Collector of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-1947
Reported in: (1948)50BOMLR146
Tendolkar, J.1. This is a petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari against the Collector of Bombay. The petitioner is a tenant of a building known as Wellesley House, situate at Cooperage, Bombay. It appears that sometime in 1943 the Bombay Xavierian Corporation Limited (which I will hereafter refer to as the Corporation) purchased this property for the purpose of conducting a school therein. Having purchased it, they gave a notice to the petitioner to vacate the flat in his occupation by the end of September 1943. The petitioner claimed protection under the Bombay Rent Restriction Order, 1942. On October 5, 1948, the Corporation applied to the Rent Controller for a certificate that the flat was reasonably and bona fide required by them for their own use and occupation under the provisions of Clause 8 of the Bombay Rent Restriction Order, 1942. After hearing the parties the Rent Controller intimated to the said Corporation that he was unable to issue the certificate applied for. ...
Tag this Judgment!Ghanta China Ramasubbayya Vs. Moparthi Chenchuramayya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-1947
Reported in: (1948)50BOMLR547
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, dated April 22,1941, which reversed a judgment and decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Bapatla, dated January 31,1939. The plaintiffs are the appellants before the Board. The appeal arises out of a suit to set aside an adoption. The following genealogical table shows the relationship of the persons concerned in the appeal: Moparthi Venkayya. : ______________________:______________________________ : : Perayya Pitchayya : (wife pullamma, died ____________:___________ June 19, 1937 : : (Daughter by a Venkayya Punnayya previous wife) (died) (died) Punnamma (m. : : Gantha pitchaya Rangayya : :(1st Defendant) __________________ : 2nd Respondent : : : : Ramasubbayya Perayya : : 4th Defendant) (died). : : 4th Respondent : : _____________:__________ : : : : Ramasubbayya Rangayya : (Ghanta) (Ghanta) ___:______________________ 1st Plff.) 2nd Plaintiff) : : 1st appellant 2nd A...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bhagwati
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-15-1947
Reported in: (1947)49BOMLR678
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Central and United Provinces (hereinafter called 'the appellant'), from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, dated October 15, 1940, passed on a reference made under Section 66(2) of the Indian. Income-tax Act No. XI of 1922 which set aside an order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, dated September 7, 1938.2. The assessee (hereinafter called 'the respondent') was assessed to income-for the year 1935-36 on the allowance of Rs. 12,000 per annum which she was receiving for maintenance as the widow of one Kalyan Singh. The tax payable comes to Rs. 875.3. The question of law referred to the decision of the High Court was 'whether the sum of Rs. 1,000 per month received by the petitioner (meaning the respondent) in the account year 1934-35 was received by her as a member of a Hindu undivided family within the meaning of Section 14(1) of the Act.' That section re...
Tag this Judgment!J.K. Gas Plant Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-1947
Reported in: (1947)49BOMLR591
Patrick Spens, C.J.1. This group of appeals all arise out of proceedings initiated against the various appellants for alleged offences contravening orders or regulations made under the war emergency legislation. As certain submissions against such proceedings being allowed to be continued were sought to be established in all the cases and other submissions with like purpose were advanced in more than one case, it was thought convenient that all the appeals should be called on and dealt with by this Court together. All counsel agreed to this course. For purposes of this judgment and to clarify the grounds of the decision in each case, we shall deal at length with the arguments submitted on behalf of the appellants and record the decisions of the Court and the reasons therefor in Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1947. Thereafter we shall apply the results of such decisions to each of the other appeals.CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1 OF 1947.2. This appeal arises out of the initiation of proceedings on Feb...
Tag this Judgment!Province of Punjab Vs. Pandit Tara Chand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-1947
Reported in: (1947)49BOMLR697
Zafrulla Khan, J.1. Shorn of details that are no longer relevant the facts of this case are as follows: The respondent was appointed Sub-Inspector of Police by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Punjab, on January 2, 1911. On March 19, 1938, the Superintendent of Police, Amritsar, an officer subordinate to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, recorded an order purporting to dismiss the respondent from service. After exhausting his remedies by way of departmental appeal the respondent instituted a suit on April 14, 1942, against the Punjab Province claiming a declaration that the order of the Superintendent of Police of March 19, 1938, was void and of no effect inasmuch as it was made by an officer subordinate to the authority by which the respondent had been appointed and thus contravened the direction laid down in Section 240(2) of the Constitution Act. He also claimed arrears of pay from March 20, 1938, till January 2, 1941, the date on which he was normally due to retire fro...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »