Mumbai Court June 1947 Judgments
Musst. Jaggo Bai Vs. Hari Har Prasad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-1947
Reported in: (1948)50BOMLR535
Morton, J.1. This is an appeal, by one of the two defendants in an action, from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, whereby the present appellant was ordered to pay to the plaintiff in the action, the respondent Rai Bahadur Hari Har Prasad Singh (hereafter called 'the respondent') the sum of Rs. 26,000, with interest thereon at the rate of 4 per cent, per annum from December 16, 1928, down to the date of payment. The other person named as a respondent, Seth Beni Chand, is not before their Lordships' Board and no question arises as to him.2. The relevant facts are as follows. On February 18, 1921, one Babu Bindeshwari Prasad executed a mortgage of a village called Nayagaon in favour of the appellant and her son Seth Beni Chand to secure a total sum of Rs. 60,000 with interest. On December 16, 1928, the appellant signed a document whereby, after referring to the mortgage of February 18, 1921, she stated:I, the executant, myself paid the entire amount of debt, from my o...
Tag this Judgment!The Collector of Bombay Vs. Issac Penhas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1947
Reported in: (1947)49BOMLR709
Leonard Stone, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Bhagwati dated October 29, 1946, whereby he ordered that the respondent, i.e. the appellant in this Court, do pay into Court a fine of rupees one hundred for the contempt of this; Hon'ble Court committed by him in not obeying an interim order made on September 28, 1946, in having, in contravention of the said order, ordered and directed the Government representative Ramkrishna Dinanath Shirsat to make an inventory of the furniture and other articles in flat No. 13 of the second floor of the building called 'Rupayatan' situated at 69 Marine Drive, Bombay, and to lock up the flat by putting a lock upon the outer door of the said flat and 'driving out the people who might be in possession thereof.' It is further ordered that the respondent should pay to the petitioner his costs of the rule nisi and of the order as between attorney and client.2. That order was made upon a rule nisi issued by the learned Judge on Septemb...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Abdul Hafiz Hassan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-1947
Reported in: (1947)49BOMLR807
Sen, J.1. This is an appeal by the Government of the Province of Bombay against the acquittal of Abdul Hafiz Hassan who was tried in the Court of the Special First Class Magistrate (Riots), Ahmedabad, on a charge under Section 19(e) of the Indian Arms Act, 1878, for contravention of Section 13 which prohibits every person from going armed with any arms except under a licence and to the extent and in the manner permitted thereby. The prosecution case was as under. On July 1, 1946, a communal riot broke out in Ahmedabad City. On July 4, at about 2-30 a.m. Head Constable Natwarlal received a telephone message that stones were falling in Dudwali Pole. He at once started with two other policemen, namely, Head Police Constable Bahudinkhan and Police Constable Jayantilal, and went in a bus to Dudwali Pole. He was told there that the stones were coming from the Muslim locality nearby in Rentia Wadi and accordingly the police party went to that Muslim Mohalla in the said Wadi. There they found ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Yusofalli Noorbhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-1947
Reported in: (1947)49BOMLR802
Sen, J.1. This is an appeal by the Government of the Province of Bombay against the acquittal of Yusofalli Mulla Noorbhai who was tried by the Presidency Magistrate, 6th Additional Court, Bombay, for contravention of the provisions of Clause 6 of the Hoarding and Profiteering Prevention Ordinance, an offence punishable under Clause 13(1) thereof. The accused was the sole proprietor of a firm named Alladin Dhanji, which dealt in crockery, and the case against him was that on or about May 26, 1945, he offered for sale a number of articles at prices which were higher than those allowed by the Hoarding and Profiteering Prevention Ordinance, such conduct on his part amounting to contravention of the provisions prescribed in Clause 6. The accused had previously been tried in case No. 284/S of 1945 on the same facts by the same Magistrate, but he was acquitted on the ground that the sanction required under Clause 14 of the Ordinance, which purported to have been given by the Controller Genera...
Tag this Judgment!Malik Damsaz Khan Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax, Punjab and N.W.F ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-1947
Reported in: (1948)50BOMLR532
Simonds, J.1. The substantial question raised in this appeal which is brought from the judgment of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, North-West Frontier Province, is whether an order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Rawalpindi Range, of January 18, 1942, imposing on the appellant a penalty of Rs. 14,000 under Section 28 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, as amended up to the relevant date, is a valid order.2. The question arises in this way. The appellant during the years 1937 and 1938 carried on business as a supply contractor at Bannu in the North-West Frontier Province, supplying livestock, wood and vegetables to the military units stationed in Waziristan. On April 13, 1938, a notice was sent to him under Section 22(2) of the Act requiring him to furnish on or before May 13, 1938, a return for the year 1938/9 of his income for the previous year 1937/8. He did not do so. After two attempts to serve him with notice under Section 22(4) of the Act to produce accounts or d...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›