Mumbai Court October 1950 Judgments
Ebrahim Saleji Vs. Abdulla Ali Reza and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-24-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Bom294; (1950)52BOMLR897
ORDERGajendragadkar, J. 1. The short question which this revn. appln. raises relates to the scope & proper effect of the provisions of Sections 28 & 29, Bombay Act LVII [57] of 1947. It is a question of considerable importance because it affects a large number of ejectment proceedings pending in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay. This question arises in this way: The opponents had made an appln. in the Ct. of Small Causes at Bombay under Section 41, Presidency Small Cause Courts Act against the petr. Their case was that the petr. opponent was in occupation of the premises in question by their leave & licence & that he refused to vacate the premises though called upon to do so after the opponents had withdrawn their leave & licence. The petr.'s defence was that he was in occupation of the premises not by leave & licence of the opponents, but as their tenant & that he was ready & willing to pay the rent & as such was entitled to the protection of the provisions of Bombay Act LVII [57] ...
Tag this Judgment!Prabhat Film Co. Ltd. Vs. Anant Vishnu Damle
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-1950
Reported in: [1951]21CompCas264(Bom)
1. A petition for winding up the Prabhat Film Co. Ltd., which is the applicants before me, was presented before the District Judge, Poona, and an objection was taken on behalf of the applicant that the District Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition. The learned District Judge held that he had such jurisdiction, and it is from that order that this revision application is preferred. 2. Section 3 of the Indian Companies Act confers jurisdiction upon the High Court in respect of company matters, but there is a proviso to that section which lays down 'that the Central Government may by notification in the Official Gazette and subject to such restrictions and conditions as it think fir, empower any District Court to exercise all or any of the jurisdiction by this Act conferred upon the Court, and in that case such District Court shall, as regards the jurisdiction so conferred, be the Court in respect of all companies having their registered offices in the district.' 3. It was u...
Tag this Judgment!State of Bombay Vs. Geoffrey Manners and Co. (No. 2)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Bom49; (1951)53BOMLR117; 1952CriLJ441
Rajadhyaksha, J. 1. We delivered the above oral judgment Reported in : AIR1951Bom45 in open Ct. on Wednesday September 13, & a writ in terms of the order made by us was issued on the same day. The Ct. was closed on 15th, 16th & 17th. On Monday the 18th morning, before we received the transcript of the oral judgment, both Mr. Amin, who had appeared for the accused, and the Advocate General saw me in the Chambers. Mr. Amin stated that if we had not signed the judgment, he would like the matter to be mentioned again in Ct. so far as the liability of the Directors, viz., accused 2 & 5, was concerned. I mentioned to them my doubts as to whether it was open to us to review a judgment which was orally delivered by us in open Ct. Both Mr, Amin & the Advocate General promised to look into the point. On Monday evening I received the transcript of the oral judgment. But in view of the fact that the matter had been mentioned to me earlier in the day, we postponed the question of settling the judgm...
Tag this Judgment!N.J. Gor Vs. M.G. Raval
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Bom336; (1951)53BOMLR174; ILR1951Bom310
ORDERChagla, C.J.1. This is an appln. in revn. against an order passed by the Pull Court of the Small Causes Ct. Bombay, setting aside the decree of the trial Ct. which dismissed the pltf.'s suit for ejectment. The Full Ct. passed the decree for ejectment in favour of the pltf.2. The contention of Mr. Patwardhan is that in view of certain events that have happened prior to the filing of this suit in the Small Causes Ct. the Small Causes Ct. had no jurisdiction to pass the decree. It would appear that the pltf. applied for a certificate from the Controller under Act VII [7] of 1944 to the effect that he required the premises reasonably & bona fide. The Controller held against him. He went in appeal to the Collector & the Collector confirmed the decision of the Controller.3. Under that Act a landlord could eject his tenant on the ground that he required the premises reasonably & bona fide only if he obtained a certificate from the Controller to that effect, & the landlord had the right i...
Tag this Judgment!State Government Vs. Bhagwan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-1950
Reported in: 1952CriLJ105
1. The respondent Bhagwan of Chand a was convicted and sentenced to undergo 3 months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 300 under Section 7(1), Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946 by the First Class Magistrate, Chanda, for contravention of Clause 3 (1), Central Provinces and Berar Food grains Control Order, 1945; but in appeal he was acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chanda. The State Government, Madhya Pradesh, have now filed an appeal against the acquittal.2. The prosecution case was, briefly stated, as follows. G.R. Dawe (P.W. 1), food supply inspector, had on 27th September 1919 come to know that the respondent had purchased 3 bags of bagad from Rao Saheb Fadnavis of Mul through his agent Murlidhar (D.W. 1); and on the following day, when G.E. Dawe inspected the respondent's shop in the Chanda Bazar, he found there 6 bags of bagad which weighed 15 maunds and 22 sesra, although he did not possess a licence for wholesale business. Thereafter, on 29t...
Tag this Judgment!Nagappa Narayan Shetti Vs. Mukambe Venkatraman Shetti
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Bom309; (1951)53BOMLR177; ILR1951Bom443
Bhagwati, J.1. This is a second appeal from a judgment of the learned Dist. J. Kanara, who confirmed the decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Honavar, in favour of the pltf. The facts which led up to this litigation may be shortly stated as under.2. One Narayan had three sons Vithal, Venkatraman & Nagappa. Vithal died first & long before 1937, leaving his widow Ganga. Venkatraman died on 18-6-1938, leaving him surviving his widow Mukambe & his son Manjanath. Manjanath died on 18-2-1939. Nagappa was thereafter the sole survivingcoparcener of the family & the present suit was filed by Mukambe, the widow of Venkatraman, against Nagappa for a partition of the joint family properties & possession of her half share therein. The pltf. alleged that after the death of Manjanath on 18-2-1939, she had a half share in the family properties & that she was entitled to the same on partition. She also claimed, in the alternative maintenance at the rate of Rs. 150 per year. The deft, contested her...
Tag this Judgment!Shankerbhai Trikamdas Vs. Ranchhodbhai Narandas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Bom335; (1951)53BOMLR172; ILR1951Bom744
Chagla, C.J.1. The question that arises for determination in this civil revn., appln. is whether the appct. is a debtor within the meaning of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors' Relief Act, & for the purpose of this appln. we are concerned with the definition given in Section 2(5)(a) of the Act. Section 2(5)(a) lays down four qualifications which have got to be satisfied before an individual is a debtor within the meaning of the Act, & we are concerned with the third qualification which is :'Who has been cultivating land personally for the cultivating seasons in the two years immediately preceding the date of the coming into operation of this Act or of the establishment of the Board concerned under the repealed Act.'In this case the Act came into force on 1-2-1947, & it has been found as a fact that the appct. was cultivating the land for a considerable period of time right up to the end of June 1946, but that he ceased cultivating from July 1946 till February 1947.2. The question that I ...
Tag this Judgment!Haji Ahmad Haji Esak and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Ci ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-1950
Reported in: [1951]19ITR331(Bom)
Chagla, C.J. 1. On this reference the assessee challenges an order of re-assessment made under Section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act. 2. It would appear that the assessee, which is a dealer in iron and steel, was assessed to excess profits tax on an income of Rs. 4,03,269 and the assessment order under the Excess Profits Tax Act was made on the February 17, 1943, and for the purpose of making this assessment the accounts of the assessee preferred an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, its contention being that the Income-tax Officer was wrong in disallowing a sum of Rs. 98,126. In the course of the hearing of this appeal the appellate Assistant Commissioner forwarded the case to the income-tax Officer Mr. D. N. Dastur for a careful scrutiny of the books of account and in this connection Mr. Dastur made his report. At the time that the assessment order under the Excess Profits Tax Act was passed, the Income-tax assessment of the assessee was not completed and this assessm...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Maganlal Jivabhai Patel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Bom33; (1951)53BOMLR127; ILR1951Bom546
Bavdekar, J. 1. This is an appln. under Section 491, Criminal P. C. & Article 226 of the Constitution by a person, who has been detained by an order made by the Dist. Mag. Ahmedabad, on 29-3-1950. The order stated that the Dist. Mag. Ahmedabad, was of the opinion that, in order to prevent the detenu from acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State of Bombay & the maintenance of public order, it was necessary to make an order detaining the said detenu. Under the Preventive Detention Act. 1950, when a detention order is made, grounds are to be furnished to the detenu as soon as may be, & on 19-6-1950, the Dist. Mag., Ahmedabad, furnished to the detenu the grounds of the detention, which are as follows:'That you are an active worker of the Communist Party & in furtherance of the aims of the organisation you have been secretly & actively engaged in organising dangerous & violent agitation so as tocause widespread disturbance of peace & disorder in the City & other parts of ...
Tag this Judgment!Haji Ahmad Haji Esak and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Bom299; (1951)53BOMLR89; ILR1951Bom748
Chagla, C.J. 1. On this reference the assessee challenges an order of re-assessment made under Section 15, Excess Profits Tax Act.2. It would appear that the assessee, which is a dealer in iron & steel, was assessed to excess profits tax on an income of Rs. 4,03,269 & the assessment order under the Excess Profits Tax Act was made on 17-2-1943, & for the purpose of making this assessment the accounts of the assessee were scrutinised by one Killawalla. Against the order of assessment the assessee preferred an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commr., its contention being that the Income-tax Officer was wrong in disallowing a sum of Rs. 98,126. In the course of the hearing of this appeal the Appellate Assistant Commr. forwarded the case to the Income-tax Officer Mr. D. N. Dastur for a careful scrutiny of the books of account & in this connection Mr. Dastur made his report. At the time that the assessment order under the Excess Profits Tax Act was passed, the income-tax assessment of the a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »