Mumbai Court June 1948 Judgments
The Premier Construction Co., Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-1948
Reported in: (1949)51BOMLR3
John Beaumont, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated March 27, 1945, given upon the reference of a question of law made to the Court under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act by the Appellate Tribunal.2. The question referred to the High Court was in the following terms :Whether, in the circumstances of this case, that portion of the income received by the assesses from the principal company of Marsland Price and Company Limited which is proportionate to the 'agricultural income' earned by the principal company, is 'agricultural income 'within the meaning of Section 2(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and exempt from assessment under the provisions of Section 4(3)(viii) of the Act.3. The High Court answered this question in the negative, taking the same view of the law as had been taken by the Income Tax Officer, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay, and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Their Lordships...
Tag this Judgment!In Re : Shoilen Dey
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-1948
Reported in: AIR1949Bom75; (1948)50BOMLR596
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. The detenu in this case was detained for the reason which was furnished to him by the Police Commissioner on April 7, 1948, that he was inciting a section of labourers of Tata Air India, Bombay, to use violence against the officers of Tata Air India, and that he was also inciting this section of workers to acts of sabotage. Now, it is a patent fact which has not been disputed by the Commissioner of Police in his affidavit that there is no such company in existence as 'Tata Air India.' What the Police Commissioner was meaning, according to him, was the Air India, Ltd., and he very naively says in his affidavit that he used the expression 'Tata Air India, Bombay' because according to him the Air India, Ltd., belongs to Tatas. That again is an incorrect statement. Air India, Ltd. does not belong to Tatas, it does not belong to anyone. It is a limited company and it belongs to shareholders of that company. Now, the Government Pleader has urged that the Commissioner of P...
Tag this Judgment!Kadappa Bapurao Desai Vs. Lingappa Ramchandra Desai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-1948
Reported in: (1949)51BOMLR173
John Beaumont, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, dated March 8, 1940, which reversed a judgment and decree of the Joint First Class Subordinate Judge of Belgaum, dated October 28, 1937, dismissing the plaintiff's suit with costs.2. The property in suit is an impartible estate governed by the rule of lineal primogeniture and is deshgat, patilki and nadgavdki watan property. It consists of land subject to Government assessment and is governed by the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879, and the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act, III of 1874, (known as the Watan Act) as amended by Act V of 1886. The parties are Hindus, subject to the Bombay school of the Mitakshara law.3. The question for decision in this appeal is as to the nature of a transaction which took place in the year 1887. On that date Rayappa and his younger brother Mallappa were members of a joint family. Whether the family included the members of a younger branch to which the a...
Tag this Judgment!Veeraswami Vs. Narayya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-1948
Reported in: (1949)51BOMLR932
MacDermott, J.1. These consolidated appeals are from two judgments and two decrees dated February 8, 1943, of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, which reversed a judgment and two decrees dated July 29, 1941, of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Coconada.2. The appeals arise out of two connected suits. Of these one-No. 38 of 1940-was brought by the appellant, Sara Veeraswami or Veerraju, (hereinafter called the appellant-plaintiff) against the first and second respondents for specific performance of an alleged oral agreement to reconvey certain properties which had been sold to them. The other suit-No. 32 of 1940-was brought by these respondents against the appellants and others to obtain possession of the said properties. The first named respondent having died in the course of the proceedings, his legal representative, the third respondent, was added as a party to each suit.3. The circumstances of the dispute leading to this litigation have been fully stated in. the judgments ...
Tag this Judgment!Dattatraya Laxman Kulkarni Vs. Daulata Hari Chavan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-1948
Reported in: AIR1950Bom136
Bavdekar, J.1. This is a second appeal which raises a question as between the purchaser at an auction sale held in execution of a decree upon a prior mortgage and the puisne mortgagee who, oven though the mortgage was prior to the date of the suit, was not made a party to the prior mortgagee's suit. The prior mortgage was not with possession, and the puisne mortgage was, and it is common ground now that, at the date when the property was sold in execution of the prior mortgagee's decree, it was in possession of the puisne mortgagee. Ho was dispossessed in execution of the decree and had gone to the Court already under Section 9, Specific Relief Act; but he was defeated there, because the Court took the view correctly that he had been dispossessed in due course of law.2. There were several defences taken in this case by the purchaser, who is the prior mortgagee himself ; but one defence which was not taken was that the prior mortgagee had no notice of the puisne mortgage. The puisne mor...
Tag this Judgment!Governor-general in Council Vs. Municipal Council
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-15-1948
Reported in: (1949)51BOMLR927
Simonds, J.1. In this appeal, which is brought from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Madras affirming a judgment of the principal Subordinate Judge at Madura, two main questions arise for consideration. The first, which turns upon the true meaning and effect of certain sections of the Indian Railways Act (IX of 1890) is whether in the circumstances of the case and upon a true construction of that Act and particularly of the proviso contained in Section 11(3)(b) thereof the Provincial Government of Madras had power to issue a requisition to the South Indian Railway Company, which will be referred to as 'the Railway', to enlarge at its own cost one of its culverts from a water way of 6 feet to one of 20 feet as a further or additional accommodation work for the use (as the appellant alleges) of the respondent, the Municipal Council of Madura. The second question, which only arises if the Provincial Government had no such power, is whether the Railway is under and by virtue o...
Tag this Judgment!Pragdas Mathuradas Vs. Jeewanlal, Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-08-1948
Reported in: (1949)51BOMLR178
Morton, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal in its civil appellate jurisdiction, dated March 27, 1945, reversing a judgment and decree of the same Court in its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, dated January 14. 1948. The appeal arises out of an action by the respondent company against the appellant firm claiming damages for breach of a contract for the supply of tin.2. It is necessary to set out the proceedings in the Courts in India in some detail, as the findings of fact by the learned trial Judge, and the attitude adopted by the appellant firm in regard to these findings of fact, are of great importance. 'The learned trial Judge (McNair J.) stated the events leading up to the action as follows :-.The plaintiff company sue the defendant firm for damages for breach of contract for the supply of tin. On December 8, 1941, there was a telephone conversation between N.T. Shaha of the plaintiff company and Ranchor...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kamakhya Narayan Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-06-1948
Reported in: (1949)51BOMLR182
Uthwatt, J.1. These four appeals are brought from judgments of the High Court of Judicature at Patna whereby four separate references made to that Court under Section 66(2) of the India.) Income-tax Act, 1922, as amended, were answered in favour of the assessees, the respondents to the several appeals.2. All appeals raise the question whether interest on arrears of rent payable in in respect of land used for agricultural purposes is exempt from income-tax as being agricultural income within the definition of that phrase contained in Section 2(7) of the [ndian Income-tax Act. In the second appeal a further question is raised to which their Lordships will refer later.3. Under Section 4(3)(viii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, agricultural income is exempt from assessment to income-tax. Agricultural income is defined in Section 2 of the Act as follows :-(1) 'agricultural income' means-(a) any rent or revenue derived from land which is used for agricultural purposes and is? either asse...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›