Mumbai Court October 1948 Judgments
Shivdas Singh Ajodhya Singh Vs. King-emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-23-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ343
ORDERHemeon, J.1. The applicant Shitvdassingh of Nagpur was convicted and sentenced to undergo sis months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 100 under Section 8, Central Provinces and Berar Regulation of Letting of Accommodation Act, 1946, for contravention of Clause 8, Central Provinces and Berar Collection of Information and Letting of Houses Order, 1946, by the Pirat Class Magistrate, Nagpur, In appeal, the First Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, maintained the conviction but altered the sentence to the imprisonment already undergone, viz., 1 day, and fine of Rs, 600. The applicant has now come up in revision to this Court.2. On 2lst June 1947, E. N. Goutam (P. w. 3) Bent Control Inspector, saw that 2 blocks of the applicant's house were occupied by P. J. Trivedi (P. W. 1) and Kakubhai (P. W. 2) and learned from them that they had been occupied since April 1947 on a monthly rental of Rs. 25. At the time of the Inspector's visit another block of the house was under const...
Tag this Judgment!King Emperor Vs. Abdullah S/O Ismail and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-22-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ693
ORDERHemeon, J.1. After the receipt of a report from the Station Officer, Khapa, that members of. party No. 1 had closed a path leading to a well with tatta fencing and thereby inhibited party No. 2 and their womenfolk from fetohing water from it, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Saoner, passed a preliminary order on 13th June 1947 under Section 145, Criminal P. C. After evidence had been recorded, he found that the area in question was an open area which the villagers, espe. cially party No. 2, were entitled to use and he ordered that this area be kept open and that party No. 2 be put in possession of it until evicted therefrom in due course of law.2. The Second Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, has now reported the case under Section 438, Criminal P. C, with a recommendation that the order which purported to be under Section 145 be so altered as to bring it into conformity with Section 147 (a), Criminal P. C.3. Section 147 relates to a dispute regarding a right of user over land or wat...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Mofussil Vs. the Western India ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-21-1948
Reported in: (1949)51BOMLR437
Oaksey, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated March 26, 1945, which was delivered on a reference made under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.2. The question for determination in this appeal is whether the respondent company, being assessed to tax in respect of the profits and gains of its life insurance business under Rule 2(b) of the schedule to the Act, is entitled under the third proviso to Section 4(1) of the Act to a deduction of Rs. 4,500 in respect of certain income derived by it from the investment of part of its business funds outside British India, which income however was not brought into or received in British India.3. The facts of the case are as follows:-4. The respondent company is resident in British India and carries on the business of life insurance in British India with its head office at Satara in the province of Bombay. It has no branches outside British India. All its profits are derived from its lif...
Tag this Judgment!Phanindra Chandra Neogy Vs. the King
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-21-1948
Reported in: (1949)51BOMLR440
Simonds, J.1. This appeal is brought by special leave from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal dismissing the appeal of the appellant, Phanindra Chandra Neogy, from the conviction and sentence passed on him by the Chief Magistrate, Calcutta, on April 10, 1946.2. The conviction was for an offence under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence was one of twelve months' rigorous imprisonment. It is convenient to set out the charge which was in these terms:That you Phanindra Chandra Neogy, on or about the 19th day of September, 1945, in the Town of Calcutta being a public servant to wit, a Railway servant and an inspector in the office of the Regional Controller of Priorities accepted from one Sohanlal a gratification other than your legal remuneration to wit, the sum of Rs. 500 only as a motive or reward for showing favour to the said Sohanlal in the exercise of your official functions relating to an application by the said Sohanlal for being ...
Tag this Judgment!Chandu Sajan Patil and ors. Vs. Nyahalchand Panamchand and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-1948
Reported in: AIR1950Bom192; (1950)52BOMLR214
Chagla, C.J.1. The question referred to this Full Bench is whether a civil suit will lie to establish the right of members of the public to carry a non-religious procession through the public streets. A suit was filed on behalf of the Hindu community of Sakur against the Muslim community of the same place for a declaration that the Hindu community had a right to conduct religious and social processions accompanied with music along certain public thoroughfares upon which certain Muslim mosques abutted. In 1938 the Muslims attempted to obstruct a Dasera procession from marching with music near one of the moseques. The Magistrate issued an order prohibiting the Hindus from carrying out their procession unless they obtained a declaration of their right from a competent civil Court. Hence the suit. The suit was decreed by the trial Court and the decree was confirmed by the learned Extra Assistant Judge at Ahmednagar. The Muslims came in second appeal to this Court, and that appeal having co...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Vs. the Great Eastern Life ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-1948
Reported in: (1949)51BOMLR938
John Beaumont, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, dated October 6, 1944, upon a reference made to that Court under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, raising two questions relating to the computation of the profits and gains of the Bombay branch of the respondent company (hereinafter called 'the assessees').2. The assessees are a company incorporated in the Straits Settlement having their head office at Singapore and carrying on life insurance business in British India through their branch office at Bombay. It is therefore a company not resident in British India. The year of assessment is the year 1939-40, and the previous year, that is the year of charge, is the calendar year 1938. The amendments to the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, made by the Indian Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1939, which came into force on April 1, 1939, apply to the year of assessment. The Act of 1922 as so amended by the Act of 1939 will herei...
Tag this Judgment!Vishwanath Keshav Joshi Vs. B.M. Sukhadwalla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-1948
Reported in: AIR1949Bom250; (1949)51BOMLR276
Bhagwati, J.1. The matter comes up before me for trial of issue as to the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain proceedings in execution of a decree passed by this Court, the decree being for an amount above Rs. 2,000 and below Rs. 10,000. The decree was passed in the suit on April 2, 1948, and this application for execution was made by the judgment-creditor on September 22, 1948.2. A point was raised as to whether in view of the passing of the Bombay City Civil Court Act, XL of 1048, this Court had jurisdiction to entertain this application for execution of the decree. The Bombay Act XL of 1948 was enacted by the Legislature and received the assent of the Governor General on May 10, 1948. It came into force by a notification in the official Gazette from August 16, 1948. Section 3 of that Act provided that notwithstanding anything contained in any law, the Bombay City Civil Court was to have jurisdiction to receive, try and dispose of all suits and other proceedings of a civil nature...
Tag this Judgment!Vishnuprasad Narandas Modi Vs. Narandas Mohanlal Modi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1948
Reported in: AIR1950Bom4; (1949)51BOMLR602
Gajendragadkar, J.1. When we dealt with First Appeal No. 1 of 1945 and dismissed it with costs on 23rd August 1948, Mr. N.C. Shah for the appellant applied for a refund of court-fees paid by him on the memo of his appeal on the ground that through mistake excessive court-fee had been paid by the appellant. We then directed him to argue this matter before the Taxing Officer and left it open to the Taxing Officer to send the matter back to us if he felt any difficulty in deciding it or if he otherwise thought that the point was of such importance that it should be disposed of by a judgment from the Court itself. Accordingly the matter was argued before the Taxing Officer and he has sent it back to us because he says there is no ruling of our Court on the point in question and that the said point is likely to arise in many other appeals. That is how this matter has come to us again for the determination of the question of the proper court-fees payable in the present appeal.2. This questio...
Tag this Judgment!Balvantrao Venkatrao Vs. Satappa Shidappa and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1948
Reported in: AIR1951Bom8; (1950)52BOMLR681
Chagla, C.J. 1. [After narrating facts the judgment proceeded.] A preliminary point has been taken by Mr. Dharap that the suit wasnot maintainable by the plaintiff. Mr. Dharap contends that if the existence of a mortgage ischallenged, then a suit would not lie under Section 15D, Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act, for accounts. According to Mr. Dharap, the plaintiff must first get rid of the impediment of thesale-deed before he could come under Section 15D for accounts. He must first file a suit to set asidethe sale-deed and after that was done then onlyhe could maintain a suit for accounts under theDekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act. Section 15Dpermits an agriculturist whose property ismortgaged to sue for an account of the amount of principal and interest remaining unpaid on the mortgage and for a decree declaring thatamount. It also permits him at any time beforethe decree to apply for redemption if it be found that on the taking of accounts any amount is due to the mortgagee. Secti...
Tag this Judgment!Nilkanth Ramchandra Chandole Vs. Rasiklal Mulchand Gujar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1948
Reported in: AIR1949Bom210; (1949)51BOMLR280
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. This second appeal arises from a suit filed by the plaintiff, a landlord, to eject the defendant, his tenant, who is the appellant before us. Both the lower Courts took the view that the defendant was in arrears of rent to the extent of five months and that therefore he was not ready and willing to pay the rent, and passed a decree for ejectment in favour of the plaintiff. In this second appeal it has not been contended before us that the decree passed by the two lower Courts was not a proper decree. What has been contended before us is that in the events that have happened the decree can no longer stand and the same must be set aside.2. The decree of the trial Court was passed on November 14, 1946. Act LVII of 1947 came into operation on February 13, 1948, and it is urged before us that the rights of the parties are to be determined by the provisions of that Act and not of the Act which was in force when the suit was filed and the decree passed in favour of the pla...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »