Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1949Bom254; (1949)51BOMLR272
Desai, J.1. The plaintiff is the mother-in-law of the defendant. The plaintiff says that after the marriage of her daughter with the defendant, the defendant was allowed to stay in the plaintiff's flat with the plaintiff's leave and license and that the defendant is at present in wrongful occupation of one bed-room in that flat as the license given by the plaintiff to the defendant has been withdrawn. The plaintiff submits that the defendant is a trespasser in respect of that room and that he is liable to pay damages for trespass at the rate of Rs. 50 per month or at such, other rate as this Court may determine from. June 20, 1948. The plaintiff prays that the defendant, his servants and agents may be ordered to remove himself and them from the room in the flat with their belongings and that the defendant, his servants and agents may be restrained by an order and injunction of this Court from entering the flat or occupying any room therein; and that the defendant should be ordered to p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1950Bom112
Chagla, C.J.1. [After narrating facts the judgment proceeded.] Now, with regard to the right of plaintiff 1 to claim maintenance it is perfectly true that before a Hindu wife becomes entitled to separate maintenance she must satisfy the Court that she had a justifying cause which compelled/her to leave her husband and live separately. What a justifying cause would be would depend upon various circumstances. It would depend, upon the particular period in history when the incident happened. It would depend upon the habits and ideas of people living at the particular time. It would also depend upon the social status of the parties. It may be, as the learned Judge points out, that 50 or 100 years ago concubinage was not looked upon with disfavour by members of the Hindu community; but the position is clearly different when we are dealing with the period of this suit, namely 1944. It is impossible to suggest that a Hindu wife is not fully justified in leaving her husband's house if he bring...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1949)51BOMLR106
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. This is an application in revision against three orders made by the Resident Magistrate, First Class, Amalner. The application was made in the first instance to the Sessions Judge, East Khandesh, and he having confirmed these three orders the petitioner has now come to us.2. The petitioner filed a complaint under Section 282A of the Indian Companies Act, Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 109 and 114 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the opponents. Opponents No. 1 are the managing agents and opponents Nos. 2 to 9 are the directors of the Pratap Spinning, Weaving & ., Amalner. The case went on against the opponents, and on January 10, 1947, the petitioner, who is a shareholder of the company, made an application under Section 347 of the Criminal Procedure Code that the case of the opponents should be committed to Sessions. On March 29, 1947, the learned Magistrate made an order that this application would be argued after the prosec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1949Bom365; (1949)51BOMLR633
Bhagwati, J.1. [His Lordship, after dealing with the facts of the case, proceeded :] It was further urged that it is only the inhabitants of the area who are to be subjected to a collective fine under Section 6(1) of the Act. The petitioner was no doubt living on the upper floor of the building in which the hotel and the pan-shop were situate but so far as Mahomed Aiya the alleged owner of the pan-shop was concerned, he was not staying in that building but in a room which was obtained on a lease in a building at Bapty Road or 1st Kamathipura Lane, whatever the locality may be, and therefore he certainly was not an inhabitant of that area, and the collective fine which was imposed on the petitioner an inhabitant of the area and Mahomed Aiya who was not an inhabitant of the area could not be justified under the terras of Section 6(2) of the Act. It was contended that in order to be an inhabitant of the area one has to be a permanent resident in that area. The learned Advocate General, ho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1949Bom176; (1949)51BOMLR118; [1949]17ITR180(Bom)
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. The assessee Mr. N.M. Raiji was a partner in the firm of S.B. Billimoria & Co. from 1928 onwards. The partnership was dissolved, as a result of a consent decree passed b) the High Court of Bombay, as from October 9, 1942, and Raiji ceased to be a partner from that date. In the assessment of the assessee for the year 1943-44 he showed as his personal income Rs. 6,535. As a result of the consent decree the share of the assessee in the firm from January 1, 1942, to October 9, 1942, was determined at Rs. 41,000. By reason of Section 25(4) of the Indian Income-tax Act, the firm of S.B. Billimoria & Co. was not charged to any that in respect of the period January 1, 1942, to October 9, 1942, and the Department concedes that on the sum of Rs. 41,000 received by Mr. Raiji no tax is payable. But what the Department contends is that the sum of Rs. 41,000 must be included in the total income of Mr. Raiji for the assessment year 1943-44 in order to determine the rate at which i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1949)51BOMLR113
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. The assessees are an unregistered firm consisting of two partners and had carried on business as managing agents of Hukumchand Mills of Indore and also business in cloth and money-lending at Indore as well as at Calcutta and Bombay. In this reference we are concerned with the assessment year 1936-37, the year of accounting being Maru year 1991-92, ending on October 27, 1935. The first six questions submitted to us are questions concerned with procedural matters, and a few facts may be stated in order to understand what we are called upon to decide. On August 27, 1936, the assessees made their return pursuant to a notice served on them under Section 22(2) to the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, Bombay. On April 1, 1939 that assessment was pending and on that day the Indian Income-tax Amendment Act came into force. Pursuant to Section 5(2) of the amended Act Mr. Sheehy, a Member of the Central Board of Revenue, passed an order on April 18, 1939, assigning various c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1950Bom278; (1950)52BOMLR154
Bavdekar, J.1. This is an appeal from a suit filed by the appellant to recover possession of certain lauds which he had purchased in execution of a decree which he had obtained against one Sahebrao Patil, the father of the respondent. It is no longer in dispute that at the time when the appellant obtained the decree against Sahebrao, Sahebrao and his two minor sons, one of whom subsequently died, were members of a joint Hindu family, Under the view of this Court, which has differed in this regard with other High Courts in India, the whole of the joint family property including the sons' interest therein was liable to be brought to sale in execution of the decree against Sahebrao, notwithstanding any partition which may have taken place after the date of the decree. It appears that after the date of the decree the appellant brought to sale the whole of the joint family property and himself purchased it in execution, the sons, who were minors, not having appeared to contest the execution...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1949Bom178; [1949]17ITR213(Bom)
CHAGLA, C.J. - The assessees are an unregistered firm consisting of two partners and had carrieds on business as managing agents of Hukumchand Mills of Indsore and also business ins cloth and money-lending at Indo re as well as at Calcutta and Bombay. In this reference we are concerned with the assessment year 1936-37, the year of accounting being Maru year 1991-92, ending on October 27, 1935. The first six questions submitteds to us are questions concerned with procedural matters, and a few facts may be stated in over to understand what we are called upon to dedcide. On August 27, 1936, the assessees made their return pursuant to a notice served on them under Section 22(2) to the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, Bombay. On April 1, 1939, that assessment was pending and on that day the Indian Income-tax (Amendement) Act came into force. Pursuant to Section 5(2) of the amended Act. Mr. Sheehy, a Member of the Central Board of Revenue, passed an order on April 18, 1939, assigning vari...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1949Bom158; (1949)51BOMLR79
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Bhagwati on a petition filed under the Indian Arbitration Act, holding that the petition was maintainable and adjourning it to Court for being disposed of on the merits. A few facts leading up to this petition may be stated. The petitioners' case was that on January 30, 1948, the respondents gave oral instructions for the purchase of 500 bars of silver. On February 4 the petitioners sent a contract to be signed by the respondents. The contract was delivered to the respondents and according to the petitioners an acknowledgment was obtained in the petitioners' peon book by an employee of the respondents. On February IS the petitioners sent a statement of account to the respondents. The respondents refused to accept the statement of account and in the correspondence that followed the respondents denied that there was any contract between the petitioners and the respondents. The petitioners filed this petition for a decla...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1949Bom226; 1949CriLJ789
Chainani, J.1. This is an application in revision by one G. 6. Ghatge, who is the Principal of the Hume High School, Victoria Gardens Road, Bombay, against his conviction under B. 823, Penal Code, and the sentence of fine of Be, 1 imposed on him.2. The complainant is one Abdul Jafiar Ismail Sheikh, a boy of about 16 years of age, who was a student in the 6th standard in the Hume High School, of which the accused applicant was the Principal. On 6th October 1947, in the morning the applicant was conducting 4th standard class. He then found that the complainant had been driven out of his class by Mr. Saraf, who was then teaching Algebra to the students in the 6th standard. The applicant enquired from Mr. Saraf and was informed by him that the complainant had misbehaved in the class. There is some dispute with regard to the nature of the misbehaviour, bat that is not material for the purposes of this case. The applicant then gave some strokes with a cane to the complainant on his body. The...
Tag this Judgment!