Mumbai Court October 1952 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.
State Government Vs. Amritlal Amanlal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-29-1952
Reported in: 1953CriLJ801
1. This is an appeal tiled by me State Government of Madhya Pradesh against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, in Criminal Appeal No. 262 of 1951, acquitting the respondent Amritlal who was prosecuted and convicted under Section 7 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act for contravening Clause 27 of the Central Provinces and Berar Cotton Cloth Trade Regulation Order, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Order).2. The respondent Amritlal is a dealer in cloth. He has been given a B class licence for doing the cloth business. On 17.2.1951, Phoolsingh (P. W. 1) was sent as a test purchaser with a marked ten rupee note to purchase a 'dhoti' from the shop of the respondent. The control price of a 'dhoti' was Rs. 6-3-0.3. The prosecution case was that when Phoolsingh (P. W. 1) purchased the 'dhoti' he was charged by the respondent Rs, 7-6-0 which was in excess of the control price. It was also alleged that the respondent did not issue cash memo to the purchaser nor did he ...
State Vs. Faizullabhai Abdulhussain
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Bom223; (1953)55BOMLR185; ILR1953Bom752
Rajadhyaksha, J. (1) These are five appeals filed by the State of Bombay against the acquittal of five persons who were prosecuted under Section 5, Influx from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 34 of 1948, and under Section 5, Influx from West Pakistan (Control) Art, 1949. The same point arises in all these five appeals. We shall, therefore, state the facts in respect of appeal No. 280 of 1952. In this appeal the accused entered India on or about 22-9-1948, from West.Pakistan under a temporary permit for three months. The temporary permit expired on 23-12-1948, but the accused did not return to Pakistan on or before that date. He was, therefore, alleged to have contravened the provisions of Rule 12 of the Rules framed under Section 3, Influx from West Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 17 of 1948. He was prosecuted for having committrd an offence under Section 4, West Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 17 of 1948. The accused contended that he was a permanent resident of the then Baroda State and ha...
Hirjibhoy Rustomji Patel Vs. the State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Bom228; (1953)55BOMLR122; ILR1953Bom748
FACTS One Rattanshaw, a Parsi inhabitant in Bombay, died intestate on October 9, 1950. He left him surviving his mother Meherbai and a brother Hirjibhoy (applicant). On March 22, 1951, Meherabi applied for letters of administration to the estate of her son Rattanshaw, which were granted to her on May, 2, 1951. Before she could fully administer the estate, Meherbai died on December 6, 1951.The applicant applied, On May 14, 1952, for, grant of letters of administration 'de bonis non' to administer the unadministered estate of his brother Rattanshway.Coyajee J., who heard the application, rejected it, on July 31, 1952, observing that under S. 259 the grant was only to be made to those persons only to whom the original grants might have been made and that inasmuch as the grant had already been made to the mother Meherbai, the estate was the estate of Meherbai, and in those circumstances the petitioner must in due course take out letters of administration to the estate of the mother and the...
A.A. Ansari Bombay Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-1952
Reported in: [1953]23ITR260(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. This is a reference made to us by the commissioner of Income-tax under Section 8(5) of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, No. XXX of 1947. The Central Government referred the case to the commission for investigation under section 5(1) of the Act. The commission has investigated the case and has made its report and on that report the central government has passed an order under section 8(2) directing appropriate assessment proceedings being taken against the assessee under the Indian income-tax Act and the Excess Profits Tax Act with a view to assess or re-assess the incomes shown in the schedule which had escaped assessment. 2. On this reference two questions of law have been raised, and in order to appreciate these two questions it is necessary to state a few facts. The assessee is a lorry driver and as pointed out in the report of the commission he started life from humble beginning. At one time he owned out four lorries, but by 1945 he had 24 lorri...
A.A. Ansari Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Bom219; (1953)55BOMLR160; ILR1953Bom922
FACTS (1) The assesse applied to the High Court for determination of certain question of law arising in his case, and the High Court by its order dated 17-9-1951, ordered the Commissioner of Income-tax to refer the following questions to the High Court:(1) Whether the Commission which had power to investigate and report in a case referred to them by the Central Government had any jurisdiction to estimate the income of the assessee to ascertain the loss of revenue? (2) Whether the Commission erred in law in not giving effect to the service agreements for the years 1943 onwards? (2) The Commissioner accordingly referred the above questions to the High Court and in doing so, expressed his own opinion thus:'Question No. 1: Section 5(1) of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, 1947, empowers the Central Government to refer to the Commission for investigation and report any case or points in a case in which the Central Government has prima facie reasons for believing that a ...
Mahamad Saheb Nabisaheb Ismail Magdum Vs. Kamal and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Bom338; (1955)57BOMLR291; ILR1953Bom734
(1) These two appeals raise a pure question of law which is whether the presumption raised by Section 93 Evidence Act as to clue execution and attestation or a document will apply to a certified copy of a document required to be executed and attested. The facts 'of the two cases in which this question crises arc simple.(2) The property in salt No. GO of 1946 out of which S. A. no. 1004 of 1949 arises consists of survey Nos. 61/1, SO/24, 484/3, 478/3 and 015/9 situate at Kudchi in the Belgaum District.(3) The property in suit No. 91 of'194S out of Which S. A. No. 1005 of 1949 arises consists of surrey Nos. 61/2, SO/23, 484/3 and 615/9. The-suit property in the two suits originally belonged to the family of the plaintiffs.(4) On 12-6-1395, the predecessor-or-title of the plaintiffs executed in favour of the predecessors in-title of the defendants a simple mortgage in order to secure a sum of Rs. 250-5-0. Tile mortgage deed is Ex. 59 in the case. On the same day, viz. on 12-6-1895, the pr...
Govindram Ramnath and Co. Bombay Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Centr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-1952
Reported in: [1953]23ITR1(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. The question that arises in this reference is as to the true construction of Section 12A of the Income-tax Act. The assessee is a firm and in the relevant years of account it acted as the managing agents of Seksaria Sugar Mills, Ltd. The assessee firm entered into an agreement on 22nd March, 1934, with one Mirzamull Didwania and Mahadeo Didwania and agreed to give them two annas share in the managing agency commission earned by the assessee firm. On the same date the assessee firm entered into another agreement with Hiralal Rungta and Ramsarup Batwal agreeing to pay to these two persons also two annas share in the managing agency commission. Ramsarup was adjudged insolvent in 1939 and on the 19th September, 1942, the assessee firm entered into another agreement with Hiralal agreeing to give him 1 anna instead of 2 annas share jointly to Hiralal and Ramsarup. The assessee firm was assessed in Bombay for the first time in 1942-43 and no claim was made by the assessee firm ...
Govindram Ramnath and Co., Bombay Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Cent ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Bom278; (1953)55BOMLR155; ILR1953Bom663
FACTS 1. The following questions of law were referred to the High Court.(i) Whether the declaration required to be filed under S. 12A, Income-tax Act, has to be filed at the time of each assessment or whether a declaration filed at the time of one assessment holds good for subsequent assessments? (ii) Whether in respect of the assessment for the year 1944-45, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on appeal could take into consideration the declaration filed before the Income-tax Officer after the assessment for that year was completed and give relief to the assessee Firm? Chagla, C.J.2. The question that arises in This reference is as to the true construction of S. 12A, Income-tax Act. The assessee is a firm and in the relevant years of account it. acted as the managing agents of Seksaria Sugar Mills, Ltd. The assessee firm entered into an agreement on 22-3-1934, with one Mirzamull Didwania and Mahadeo Didwania and agreed to give them 2 annas share in the managing agency commission earn...
Abbasali Hasanali Peerjade and anr. Vs. Shaikh Munir Shaikh Dagu and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Bom305; (1953)55BOMLR344; ILR1953Bom913
FACTS A certain stream which has its source in the village of Kharale passed northward through the village of Dhekwad Digar and then through the village of Narayanpur Digar on the side of the village Girasgaon and the villages Fulsar, Nimboni and other villages, ultimately meeting the river Tapi. The plaintiffs filed the present suit against the defendants on 13-10-1944, for a declaration that they had got a right, many years old, of taking water of the suit stream which passed by their village of Girasgaon by constructing a dam within the limits of the village of Girasagaon with a view to store the water in order to raise garden crops and also for an injunction to restrain the defendants from doing any act, such as the construction of a dam within the limits of Dhekwad village or digging of water channels for irrigating lands in Narayanpur Digar, to obstruct the suit stream and thereby disturn the right of the plaintiffs to take water from that stream for growing garden crops. Defenda...
Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax, Bombay City Vs. Moholal Maganlal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-1952
Reported in: [1953]23ITR45(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. The assessee was the selling agent of the Victoria Mills Ltd., and the Jubilee Mills Ltd. He was also the selling agent of the Gaekwar Mills Ltd. and Navsari Cotton and Silk Mills Ltd. The last two mills were working in the Baroda State. The assessee then floated a private limited company in the name of M. M. Shah Ltd. in the Baroda State on 12th of September, 1941. Out of 1,000 shares in this private limited company held 800 shares and his wife held the remaining 200 shares. On the 19th of September, 1941, the assessee resigned his office of selling agent of the two mills situated in the Baroda State, and this resignation was to take effect from the 1st of October, 1941, and on that very day these two mills appointed M. M. Shah Ltd. to be the selling agents of the mills. The Excess Profits Tax Officer while making the excess profits assessment for the chargeable accounting periods, calendar years 1942, 1943, 1944, 1945 and 1st of January, 1946, to the 31st of March, 194...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »