Mumbai Court August 1951 Judgments
Sidhramappa Andannapa Manvi Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Bom287; (1952)54BOMLR163
Chagla, C.J.[1] The joint family, of which the assessee was at out time a member, had advanced certain loans to the Warad family. On partition of that joint family, the debts due to the family came to the share of the assessee. A suit was filed by the assessee for recovery of those debts against the Warad estate, but the suit was dismissed by the trial Court. There was an appeal to this Court, but this Court dismissed the appeal on 29-9-1941. The question that arose for consideration by the income-tax authorities was as to when these loans advanced by the family to the Warad estate became a bad debt. The Income-tax Officer held that the loans were not advanced in the course of the pint family business and therefore the claim of the assesses to deduct this amount as a bad debt was disallowed. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner on appeal held that the debt had become a bad debt many years prior to the year of assessment. Then there was an appeal to the Tribunal, and the Tribunal held t...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendrasinghji Ranmalsinghji Vs. Ishwarsinghji Ranmalsinghji and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Bom243; (1952)54BOMLR99; ILR1952Bom675
FACTSOne Ranmalsinghji, the Thaker of Miyagam died on 6-6-1933, leaving him surviving his widow Shriji Kuvarba (defendant 3) and four sons Keshrisinghji, Mahendrasinghji (plaintiff), Iahwarshinghji and Mansinghji (defendants 1 and 2). He left various moveable and immoveable properties, the immoveable properties consisting inter alia of jat inam watan lands admeasuring 760 acres 21 gunthas in the Wagra and Broach talukas of the Broach District. Keshrisinghji as the eldest son succeeded to the gadi and enjoyed the suit lands as also the toda giras allowance of Rs. 1,437 which was granted by the British Government On the death of Ranmalsinghji disputes arose between the brothers. The lands were entered in the first instance in the records of the Government in the name of Keshrisinghji by the Mamlatdar. In regard to the Wagra lands, however, on appeal to the Prant Officer the decision of the Mamlatdar was reversed and the Prant Officer ordered on 28-13.1931, that the names of all the broth...
Tag this Judgment!Miraj State Bank Ltd. Vs. Nabi Bapu and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Bom363; (1952)54BOMLR239; ILR1952Bom653
Gajendragadkar, J.(1) This is a revisional application by the plaintiff in which an order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangli, directing the transfer of the suit under Section 19 of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors' Relief Act (Bom. XXVIII (28) of 1947) is challenged before us. The plaintiff is the Miraj State Bank Limited and in the suit that the plaintiff had filed against the defendants a claim was made for Rs. 7,294-9-0. This suit was filed in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangli. On September 11, 1950, the defendants applied to the Court under Section 19, Sub-section (1), of the Act, and alleged that they were debtors within the meaning of the Act and that their total debts did not exceed Rs. 15,000. They, therefore, claimed that the suit should be transferred for disposal in accordance with the provisions of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors' Belief Act. The plaintiff resisted this application on the ground that the claim made by the bank in the prese...
Tag this Judgment!K.P. Mushran Vs. B.C. Patil and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Bom235; (1951)53BOMLR1009; ILR1952Bom995
Chagla, C.J.[1] These two petitions challenge certain orders passed by the authority under the Payment of Wages Act, and the facts which I am about to state do cot redound very much to the credit of the railway authorities who are the employers.[2] Respondent 2, who is the employee, was detained under the Preventive Detention Act on 19-2-1949, and the railway authorities passed an order on 23-2-1919, suspending respondent 2 from service. On 1.6.1949, respondents was released from detention, and the period of suspension ended on l5-1-1950. Under certain rules, the employee was compelled to go on leave from 16-1-1950 to 11.6.1950, on full pay, from 12.6.1950, to 7-10-1950, on half pay, and from 8-10-1950 without any pay at all. Even to day this employee is on compulsory leave and no pay is being given to him. He has not been charged with having committed any act which is contrary to the rules of service, and no result of any departmental enquiry if a departmental enquiry has indeed been ...
Tag this Judgment!Digambar Gopal MaraThe Vs. Vithoba Jogu Hagir
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Bom274; (1952)54BOMLR236
Vyas, J. [1] This second appeal arises out of a decision of the Assistant Judge, Satara, by which he allowed au appeal of the original defendant, against whom a decree for possession was passed by the trial Court, and ordered the suit of the plaintiff to be dismissed.[2] The plaintiff who is the present appellant filed Suit NO. 442 of 1945 in order to recover possession of the property in suit, a land at Wai, from the defendant, who is respondent in this appeal, on the allegation that the defendant was his annual tenant, that the agreed rent was Rs. 90 per year and that the said tenancy had been terminated by the plaintiff by giving him (defendant) a notice under Section 84, Bombay Land; Revenue Code. The notice wag given on 13-11-1944, and it is the case of the plaintiff that the tenancy of the defendant was terminated thereby with effect from 31-3-1945. Notwithstanding the termination of tenancy the defendant did not quit the land and hence the present suit was filed by the plaintiff...
Tag this Judgment!State Government Vs. Rukhabsa Jinwarsa and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-1951
Reported in: 1953CriLJ1032
ORDER1. This is an appeal by the State Government, Madhya Pradesh, against the order of acquittal, dated 8.2.1951, of the Court of Shri W.S. Deshmukh, Magistrate First Class, Akola.2. The respects. Rukhabdas Jinwarsa & Dharamchand Hirasa Ruiwala, owner & manager respectively of the Narandra Gin and Press Factories, Karanja, were prosecuted for bleaches of Sections 52 and 63, Factories Act, 1948, punishable under Section 92 of the Act. The breaches according to the prosecution, were detected by Shri A.P. Verkhedekar, Inspector of Factories on Sunday, 26.2.1950 when he inspected the factory. He drew up a complaint on 15.4.1950 and forwarded a copy to the respondents with the following endorsement:They may make their representation, if any, to the District Magistrate, Akola, direct within 10 days from the date of the issue of this endorsement before the prosecution is finally sanctioned by the District Magistrate Akola.The District Magistrate, Akola, sanctioned the prosecution of the resp...
Tag this Judgment!Satyendra Kumar Vs. Hind Constructions Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Bom227; (1952)54BOMLR37
Chagla, C.J.[1] This appeal arises out of a petition filed by the appellant to set aside an award. Shah J. dismissed that petition and it is from that order of dismissal that this appeal is preferred. The appellant and the petitioner entered into an agreement with the respondent company, the Hind Constructions. Ltd., by which he agreed to act as a sub-contract or in respect of a contrast which the respondents had taken. That agreement was entered into on 5th January 1948. In respect of the payment to be made under the agreement there were disputes between the petitioner and the respondent company and the disputes were referred to the arbitration of Dr. Pandya on 3th January 1949. Dr. Pandya waa the general manager and an ex-officio director of the Hind Constructions Ltd. Dr. Pandya directed that an interim payment of Rs. 40,000 should be made to the petitioner of 11th January 1949, and on 13th January 1949, he made his award. By this award he directed a further sum of Rs. 10,000 to be ...
Tag this Judgment!Rehmankhan Dawoodkhan and ors. Vs. Bombay Iron Syndicate
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Bom23; (1952)54BOMLR714
ORDER[1] These two chamber summonses are taken out by Messrs. Shah Traders, a firm doing business at North Brook Street in Bombay, and Messrs. Shriram Murlidhar, a firm carrying on business at Kalbadevi, Bombay, for a direction vacating the order passed by me on 13-4-1951, granting leave to servo a warrant issued by the Commissioner for. Taking Accounts and to serve notice under Order 30, Rule 5, Civil P. C., and for an order that the issue, whether the applicants are partners in the defendant firm, be directed to be tried, and that ail further proceedings before the Commissioner pending the hearing and final disposal of the issue be stayed.[2] In order to understand the nature of the application it is necessary to notice a few facts. One Rehmankhan Dawoodkhan, who will hereafter be referred to as'the plaintiff, filed suit No. 1206 of 1947 in this Court against tne Bombay Iron Syndicate, a firm carrying on business at Vithalbhai Patel Road, Bombay, hereinafter referred to as the defend...
Tag this Judgment!Mohamed Oomer, Mohamed Noorullah Vs. S.M. Noorudin
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Bom165; (1952)54BOMLR28
Chagla, C.J.[1] This is an appeal which arises out of an order made by the Register of Trade Marks. The respondent applied for registration of his trade mark on 21-8-1942. The application was advertised on 1-10-1945, and the appellant filed his notice of opposition on 23-3-1946. The respondent submitted his reply on 13-7-1946. On 5-12-1947, the appellant filed affidavits in which he referred to a certain panchnama dated 19-10-1947. The case of the appellant was that his father was the proprietor of the trade mark which the respondent was seeking to register, and that by this document of 1937 his father had given leave and licence to the respondent to use the trade mark and the trade mark was to be used by the respondent only so long as the leave and licence had not been revoked. An affidavit was made by the respondant in reply to the affidavit of the appellant, but no reference was made in this affidavit to the panchnama relied upon by the appellant in his affidavit. At the hearing bef...
Tag this Judgment!Jekisondas Maganlal and anr. Vs. Nanabhai Jhinabhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Bom105; (1952)54BOMLR708
ORDER(1) By consent order dated September 30, 1947, one Mohanlal Nathubhai was appointed. Receiver (without remuneration and without security) in suit No. 1890 of 1947 to take charge of all assets, out standings, all the books of account, papers, vouchers and furniture of the firm of R. Ramanlal with powers under Order XL, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, as also with power to pay the debts of that firm, and to engage employees. The Receiver so appointed entered into the management and collected the outstanding and paid debts due by the firm. It appears that the Receiver settled and adjusted some of the claims of the firm against the debtors of the firm and paid other persons who made claims against the firm as creditors. The Receiver thereafter filed his accounts before the Commissioner for Taking Accounts. The plaintiffs in the suit objected to the form in which the accounts were filed. The Commissioner for Taking Accounts thereupon directed the Receiver to file revised accounts, ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »