Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1953CriLJ46
ORDER1. This is a reference under Section 21 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949. The Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants has found the respondent guilty of conduct which renders him unfit to be a member of the Institute as he sent circular letters to several persons soliciting professional work which amounts to misconduct as defined in Section 22 of the Act read with Clause (e) of the schedule. That clause runs thus:Solicits clients or professional work either directly or indirectly, by circular, advertisement, personal communication or interview or by any other means.The Council has, however, observed that the misconduct was more due to ignorance of the rules and lack of professional experience than to any wrong motive or dishonesty and while recommending that the name of the respondent be removed from the Register of the Institute it has added that in view of the extenuating circumstances the removal may be nominal only and the respondent may be permitted to apply f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1953Bom13; (1952)54BOMLR561; ILR1953Bom117
Chagla, C.J.[1] This appeal raises a very short question as to the liability of the Union of India to discharge a liability arising under a contract which was entered into prior to partition and in respect of goods which according to the Union of India belonged to Pakistan on the appointed day, viz. 15-8-1947. In March 1947 the Government of India had certain quantities of longcloth for sale as disposal of surplus stock, and these goods were lying at the Ordnance Parachute Factory in Lahore. These goods were purchased by the plaintiffs, who are residents of Baroda, by three sale notes executed on 10-3-1947. Under these sale notes the plaintiffs had to pay a sum of Rs. 34,758-15-5. The contract contained in these sale notes provided that the goods sold had to be stamped for which certain charges had to be paid by the purchaser and that the stock had to be removed within 21 days of the stamping of these goods. The evidence shows, and the finding of the learned Judge is also to the same e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1953Bom88; (1952)54BOMLR617; ILR1953Bom558
FACTS 1. The following questions of law were referred to the High Court:''(1) Whether the revised assessments for the chargeable accounting periods 1941, 1943 and 1943 are liable to be cancelled on the ground that the Excess Profits Tax Officer erred in invoking the provisions of Section 15, Excess Profits Tax Act? (2) Whether the Excess Profits Tax Officer, having found that some of the assets which were not intended to be used after the war were used after the war, could legally reduce the allowance made to the assesses company by the Central Board of Revenue under Section 26(3), Excess Profit Tax Act?' Chagla, C.J. 2. There is absolutely no merit in the case of the assesses, but Sir Jamshedji rightly reminds us that the Income-tax Act does not concern itself with equity, and that we must strictly construe the provisions of the Act as the Legislature has enacted them, and, if the tax-payer is entitled to a relief, whether equity is on his side or not, he should be given that relief. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1952]21ITR71(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. There is absolutely no merit in the case of the assessee, but Sir Jamshedji rightly reminds us that the Income-tax Act does not concern itself with equity and that we must strictly construe the provisions of the act as the Legislature has enacted them, and, if the taxpayer is entitled to a relief, whether equity is on his side or not, he should be given that relief. Fortunately in this case we can reconcile both law and equity. 2. The assessee company was assessed to excess profits tax for the year 1941, 1942 and 1943 and in respect of all these three years of assessment he succeeded in getting an order of the central board of revenue under Section 26(3) of the Act. That section provides that 'If on an application made to it through the excess profits tax Officer the central board of revenue is satisfied that the computation in accordance with the provisions of schedule I of the profits of a business during any chargeable accounting period would be inequitable', owing to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1953Bom59; (1952)54BOMLR629; ILR1953Bom182
Yyas, J. [1] This is an application under Article 228 of the Constitution of India, in which the order of detention passed by the District Magistrate, Ahnicdabad, on 29.3-1950, and served on the poti-tioner on 14-6-1950, and confirmed by the Government of Bombay on 16-5-1951, on the report of the Advisory Board, is sought to be challenged. [2] The petitioner was arrested on 14-6-1950, in pursuance of an order of detention which was passed against him by the District Magistrate of Ahmedabad on 39-3-1950. The grounds oi detention were furnished to the petitioner by the District Magistrate on 19-6-1950. In criminal Application NO. 951 of 1950, which also was made under Article 296 of the Constitution of India, this order of detention was challenged by the petitioner. But that application was rejected by this Court on 10-10-1950. Thereafter the petitioner filed an ap-plication for habeas corpus before tho Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of the Constitution and that application also...
Tag this Judgment!