Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1952Bom310; (1952)54BOMLR273; ILR1952Bom747
Chagla, C.J.(1) This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiffs for return of a deposit made by them of a sum of Rs. 3,000 under a contract which they entered into with the defendants, who are the Trustees of the Port of Bombay. The contract was for the supply of timber, bamboos and of her miscellaneous articles during the year 1947. Under the contract, the plaintiffs had to supply materials of the value of about Rs. 30,000 and the deposit had to be made of 10 per cent, of that value. In fact, the plaintiffs supplied materials of the value of Rs. 56,000. and then they intimated to the defendants that they would not make any further supplies. Thereupon the defendants forfeited the deposit of Rs. 3,000. And the question that arose in the suit, and which arises in this appeal, is whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover the deposit.(2) It is not disputed by the plaintiffs that they committed a breach of the contract in failing to supply materials to the defendants although ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1952Bom194; (1952)54BOMLR143; ILR1952Bom639
Bhagwati, J. [1] This is an appeal by the Government of Bombay against the acquittal of the accused Mohamedbhai I. Ravji by the learned Presidency Magistrate. 18th Court. Bombay Central, on a charge under Section 171 read with Sections 271 (2) and 274 (1), City of Bombay Municipal Act, 1888 (Bom. III [3] of 1888). The accused is the landlord of certain premises, which are situated at Girgaum Road consisting of a ground and three upper floors. On 21-6-1926, the Municipal Corporation gave a public notice under Section 141(b) of the Act, intimating that sufficient water was available from the Municipal Water Works for furnishing a reasonable supply to all premises within the locality and that under Section 141 (b) of the Act water tax would be levied in respect of all such promises. It appears that the accused applied for, and obtained, a water supply to his said premises from the Municipality and paid and continued to pay, the water tax in connection with the same. By 1941 the tenants of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1952CriLJ1632
ORDERHemeon, J.1. The applicant Radhakisan Laxminarayan of Akola was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500 by the Additional District Magistrate, Akola, under Section 7 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946 for contravention of Clause 3 of the Central Provinces and Berar Sugar (Control) Order, 1949; and his appeal was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Akola. He has now come up in revision to this Court.2. The admitted facts are as follows. The applicant who is a big merchant and proprietor of the firm Raghunathdas Rampratap at Akola, held a licence to deal in sugar under the Central Provinces and Berar Sugar Dealers' Licensing Order in 1943. The firms of Rajaram Ramawatar and Bansidhar Nandlal of Bareli, Uttar Pradesh, sent a consignment of 185 bags of sugar to Akola. The consignment was to self. The invoices were received on the 15th January 1950 and the consignment arrived at Akola five days later.The railway receipts Exhibits P-16 and P-17 in respect of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1952Bom361; (1952)54BOMLR309
(1) These two appeals raise a pure question of law under Section 84 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879. The facts giving rise to the suits in which this question is raised are simple and are not seriously in dispute. I will mention the facts so far as they are relevant to the determination of the question.(2) The plaintiffs in the two suite are the same, while the defendants are different. Plaintiff No. 2 is the owner of two lands, Survey No. 391 and 368. For the year 1945-46, plaintiff No. 2 let out to defendant Kallappa Survey No. 391. Plaintiff No. 2 also let out Survey No. 368 to Gurappa. Each was an oral tenancy. Kallappa is defendant in suit No. 333, while Gurappa is defendant in suit No. 334. It is not in dispute that the period expired on March 31, 1946, in each case. On April 1, 1946, plaintiff No. 2 let out to plaintiff No. 1 the two lands for the consideration of Rs. 500 for a period of one year. The payment of rent was made in advance and this is evidenced by a receipt w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1953CriLJ743
ORDERMangalmurti, J.1. One Dhanau made an application under Section 552, Criminal P.C.R the Additional District Magistrate, Bilaspur, praying that the latter should make an order for the immediate restoration to him of his minor wife Mst. Para-buli who is at present living with her father Billi.2. The allegations in the application were that Billi was a greedy fellow, that he had already carried on negotiations for getting Parabuli married in 'churi' form to some other person and that if she remained with Billi he (Billi) would take money and get her married in 'churi' form to some other person. Billi denied these allegations and stated that he was not sending Parabuli to her husband's place because the customary 'gauna' ceremony had not taken place.3. The learned Additional District Magistrate disbelieved the witnesses examined by both the parties as they were highly interested and their evidence did not give any clear idea about the matter; and yet the learned Magistrate passed the f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1952]21ITR278(Bom)
Chagla, C.J. 1. The assessee company is incorporated in the Bahama Islands. It deals in petroleum products and sells its produce in India. Another company, the California Texas Oil Company Ltd. (hereinafter called the California company), is also incorporated in the Bahama Islands and this company holds all the shares of the assessee company. The assessee company made profits, and out of its profits it declared dividends which were paid to the California company. These dividends were assessed to tax, and the question that arises on this reference is whether the tax was rightly levied. What was attempted to be done was to assessee the dividend income of a non-resident company, and the assessment was not against the non-resident company, but against the assessee company, who were declared the statutory agents of the California company under Section 43 of the Act. Now the liability of a non-resident to pay tax is governed by Section 4(1)(c) which provides for tax to be paid by such person...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1952Bom151; (1952)54BOMLR222; ILR1953Bom156
FACTS[1] The California Texas Oil Company Ltd., was treated as a non-resident company for the purposes of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and assessed through its statutory agent, Caltex (India), Ltd., unrfder Section 48 of the Act for the assessment years 1943-44 to 1947-48, the accounting years being 1943 to 1946. The India Company as well as the California Company were incorporated in the Bahama Islands. The California Company held 100 per cent, of the shares of the India Company either directly or through its nominees. The California Company was supplying oil to the India Company daring the relevant accounting years. The California Company was not at any time a producing company, but functioned as a distributing company for the Bahrein Petroleum Company and other associated producing companies. The California Company discontinued supplying oil to the India Company as from 1-1-1947. The California Company also made payments of staff leave salaries when drawn in the United States of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1952Bom435; (1952)54BOMLR153; ILR1952Bom900
FACTS One Mahadeo and another (accused Nos. 1 and 2) were doing extensive business in silk, yarn and other articles at Rabkavi in the Belgaum district. The partners in this business were the two accused and accused 2's father-in-law, Pattan who is dead. Some time about January 1949 one Gudi, Deputy Superintendent o Police, Anti-Corruption Branch, received information that the accused had cheated Government and evaded the payment of income-tax by concealing the huge profits made by them in their business. On 25-1-1949, Gudi obtained the sanction of the District Magistrate to investigate into this matter. He then went to Rabkavi accompanied by Naik, who was an Inspector in the police department. On January 24 and 25 they searched the shops and houses of the accused and seized their account-hooks. They returned to Belgaum on January 26 with these account-books.During the time they were in Rabkavi accused 2 was said to have offered to each o them Rs. 15,000 to Rs. 20,000 in order that they...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1952]22CompCas38(Bom); [1952]21ITR82(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. We directed the Tribunal in this reference to submit a supplementary statement of the case, and that statement has now been furnished to us. The question that arises for determination is as to whether a certain sum of money was received by the assessee in British India so as to make it liable to tax. 2. The assessee is a non-resident company, and it is not disputed that its liability to pay tax depends upon receipt of income within British India. The receipt took the form of cheques being sent by Government to Aundh where the assessee carried on business, these cheques being on a bank in Bombay; and we asked the Tribunal to find as to whether the cheques were received by the assessee in full satisfaction of the debt of the Government of India to them, and whether the Government debt was discharged by the acceptance of these cheques by the assessee. We also asked them find whether the cheques received by the assessee were sent to their bank for collection and the bank act...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1952Bom306; (1952)54BOMLR216; ILR1953Bom81
Chagla, C.J.(1) We directed the Tribunal in this reference to submit a supplementary statement of the case, and that statement has now been furnished to us. The question that arises for determination is as to whether a certain sum of money was received by the assessee in British India so as to make it liable to tax.(2) The assessee is a non-resident company, and it is not disputed that its liability to pay tax depends upon receipt of income within British India. The receipt took the form of cheques being sent by Government to Aundh where the assessee carried on business, these cheques being on a bank in Bombay; and we asked the Tribunal to find as to whether the cheques were received by the assesses in full satisfaction of the debt of the Government of India to them, and whether the Government debt was discharged by the acceptance of these cheques by the assessee. We also asked them to find whether the cheques received by the assessee were sent to their bank for collection and the bank...
Tag this Judgment!