Mumbai Court September 1949 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Gajanan Yeshwant Kale Vs. Pandurang Govind Chithade
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Bom178; (1950)52BOMLR238
Gajendragadkar, J.1. The first question referred to the Full Bench is: 'Whether property inherited by a woman from her parents is saudayika or non. saudayika stridhana ?' This question assumes that such property is stridhana and the point which it seeks to raise is whether it is such stridhana as would be within the absolute dominion of the woman who inherits it, so, that she can dispose of it in any manner she likes, either by an act inter vivos or by will.2. The development of Hindu law on the question of woman's right over her property bears eloquent testimony to the fact that Hindu law was never static and rigid, but Was always elastic and progressive. It never rested itself blindly on ancient Sutra or Smriti texts, but took cognisance of new customs and beliefs growing in Hindu society and made changes and adjustments in its provisions from time to time so as to bring them in line with the social conscience of the community. For this purpose, the Hindu commentators pressed into se...
In Re: Jerbai Framji Metha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Bom243; (1950)52BOMLR236
ORDERTendolkar J.1. This is a reference under Section 18, Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Upon its being called out for hearing, Mr. Banaji appeared for the Government with Mr. K. T. Dasai. Counsel foe the claimants raised a question as to who that Government was entitled to appear on a reference under Section 18; and the matter has now been fully argued before me.2. In order to determine whether the Government has any locus standi in these proceedings, it is necessary to consider the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Under Section 3(c) of that Act the expression 'Collector' has been defined as meaning the Collector of a District and any officer specially appointed by the Local Government to perform the functions of a Collector under this Act. Section 4 of the Act provides for the publication of a preliminary notification if the Local Government is of opinion that any land is needed for any public purpose. It also provides that the Collector shall cause such a notice to be published ...
In Re: Bhaurao Karbhari Aware
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Bom126
Weston, J.1. This is an application made by one Bhaurao Karbhari Aware for exercise of our powers under Section 491, Criminal P. C in relation to one Dagdu Vithal Zolekar, uncle of the applicant, who is under detention by order of the District Magistrate of Ahmednagar made under Section 2 (1), Bombay Public Security Measures Act, 1947.2. The order detaining the detenu has been made by the District Magistrate of Ahmednagar on 24th March 1949. The material part of the order is as follows :'And whereas I, R. C. Joshi, Esquire I. C. S., District Magistrate, Ahmednagar, am notified that the said Dagdu Vithal Zolekar is likely to act in a manner prejudicial to the public safety of Akola town and other villages in Akola Taluka, District Ahmednagar.''Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the said Act, I hereby direct that the said Dagdu Vithal Zolekar be detained.'Later, on 8th April 1949, the District Magistrate furnished to the d...
Seksaria Biswan Sugar Factory Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Bom200; (1950)52BOMLR91; [1950]18ITR139(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. The assessee is a limited company which was incorporated in the year 1939 and the object of the company is manufacture and sale of sugar. On 26th October 1943, the assessee company advanced a sum of Rs. 5,00,000 to Messrs. Agarwal and Co., on a demand promissory note. The managing agents of the assessee company are partners in this firm. It is found as a fact by the Tribunal and it is admitted by the assessee company that the assessee company had not in the past advanced any such sum in similar circumstances to any other person.2. The question that arises for our determination is whether this sum of Rs. 6,00,000 constitutes, within the meaning of Rule 1 (1) (b) of Schedule II to the Excess Profits Tax Act, a debt due to the assessee. If so, it would go to increase its capital as contemplated by schedule II of that Act, The Tribunal took the view that the business of the company was not money-lending business and therefore the advance made by the assessee company was not ...
Jesingbhai Ujamshi Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Bom198; (1950)52BOMLR94; [1950]18ITR23(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. The assessee is a partnership firm consisting of Jesingbhai and his son Manilal and his grandson Shantilal. The firm came into existence in 1924, and in 1924 the partners were Jesingbhai, Manilal and Mangaldas, the father of Shantilal. Mangaldas died in 1941 and Shantilal was introduced into the partnership. This firm does business at Ahmedabad and its business consists of sarafi, insurance, brokerage, cotton, etc., and there is a partnership deed defining the shares of the partners which is dated 26th January 1984. According to this partnership deed, the shares of the three partners are 5 annas each and 1 anna is reserved for charity, but as that share is completely under the control of Jesingbhai it has been found by the Department, and that finding is accepted by the Tribunal, that that share really belongs to Jesingbhai. Therefore, the shares are 6 annas to Jesingbhai and 6 annas each to the other two partners. These three partners also carried on another business at...
Ramesh Thaper Vs. the Province of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Bom213; (1950)52BOMLR62
Chagla, C.J1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Coyajee J. by which he held that a petition for a writ of certiorari which was asked for by the petitioner and the appellant before us was not maintainable and the writ could not be issued against the Province of Bombay.2. The short facts which led up to this petition may be stated. The appellant is the editor and publisher of a weekly called 'Cross Roads,' and on 21st July 1948, he made a declaration as required by the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act before the Chief Presidency Magistrate. He had some difficulties in getting the necessary paper for printing the weekly and therefore the weekly could not be printed, and he filed a new declaration before the Chief Presidency Magistrate and the Chief Presidency Magistrate made an order calling upon him to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,000 under Section 7 (1), Press (Emergency Powers) Act. This was some time in April 1949, and the petitioner carried out the order by making the necessary depos...
Chunilal Mayachand and Co. Vs. A.N.L. Fernandes
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Bom259; (1950)52BOMLR61
Chagla, C.J.1. These three appeals raise a common question, and the question is whether the learned Judge below was right in refusing leave under Clause 12, Letters Patent, for the filing of the three salts which the appellants wanted to file in this Court. All the three suits are filed on promissory notes. In Appeal No. 53 of 1949 the promissory note provides that the moneys advanced in the promissory note are payable either in Bombay, Poona or elsewhere, and in the other two appeals the promissory note provides that the moneys are payable wherever demanded. In all the three cases the attorney for the plaintiff called upon the defendant to pay the moneys due under the promissory note in Bombay. Therefore it is clear that in all these three cases moneys under the promissory note were payable in Bombay and it is also clear that in a suit on a promissory note the fact that the money a are payable within jurisdiction is a material part of the cause of action.2. It is perfectly true that t...
Virupaxappa Appa Mahajan Vs. Shankar Mallappa Kavare and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Bom260; (1950)52BOMLR294
Rajadhyaksha J.1. This is an appeal by the original plaintiff against an order dismissing the suit passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Satara, in Special civil Suit No. 42 of 1945. The few facts that are necessary to state for the purpose of this appeal are these:2. Defendant 1 had obtained a mortgage decree against the plaintiff in Suit No. 290 of 1940 in the Court of the Civil Judge at Islampur, and an order was made for the payment of Rs. 2,600 and odd and costs payable by the plaintiff in instalments. There was a provision in the decree that in default of payment of any two instalments the whole amount was to be recoverable at once. There were defaults for the years 1941 and 1942 and thereupon defendant 1 filed a darkhast, No. 915 of 1942, in the Court of the Civil Judge at Islampur for recovering the whole amount by sale of the mortgaged property. On 7th October 1942, the papers were transferred to the Collector for execution under Section 68, Civil P. C. 25th January 1944...
Rajrathna Naranbhai Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Bom197; (1950)52BOMLR89; [1950]18ITR122(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. The only question that we have to consider in this reference is, what is the proper depreciation that should be allowed to the assessee in respect of machinery.2. The assessee is the Rajrathna Naranbhai Mills Co., Ltd., and they are situated in the Baroda State. They were assessed to income-tax for the first time in the year 1940-41. Now one of the permissible allowances in respect of the business is Under Section 10(2) (vi) for depreciation of buildings, machinery, plant or furniture being the property of the assessee, to the extent of a sum equivalent to such percentage on the written down value thereof as may in any cage or class of cases be prescribed. Written down value is defined in Section 10 (5) (c) as in the case of assets acquired before the commencement of the Indian Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1989, the actual cost to the assessee less for each financial year since the acquisition the amount of depreciation applicable to the assets at the rates in force for e...
Rainu Vs. the Crown
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Bom92; 1950CriLJ510
ORDERHemeon, J.1. The applicant Rainu was convicted and sentenced to undergo two concurrent terms, each of 6 months rigorous imprisonment, and to pay a fine of RSection 100 under 33. S80 and 454, Penal Code, by the First Olasa Magistrate, Rai-pur; and his appeal was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Raipur. He has now come up in revision to this Court.2. The prosecution case briefly stated was as follows. Shakuntala Bai (P.W. 1) is the wife of Manrakhanlal, who is the brother of the applicant Rainu but lived separate in mess and reBidenoe from him. On 36th May 1947 when Shakuntala Bai was staying at her maternal uncle's house in Rajim, he received the telegram Ex, P 8 which purported to have come from her father-in-law, Bhangi PraBad (P.W. 6) and asked him to send her to Arang at an early date. She accordingly went to Arang with her box of jewellery and placed it in the room occupied by her in a house at that place. She then learnt from her father-in law that the applioant and not he ha...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »