Mumbai Court February 1953 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.
Bhailal AmIn and Sons Ltd. Vs. R.P. Dalal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1953
Reported in: [1953]24ITR229(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of Mr. Justice Tendolkar who dismissed the petition preferred by the appellants for an order upon the Income-tax Tribunal to make a reference to the High Court under section 66 (I) of the Indian Income-tax Act. 2. The petitioners are a company incorporated in Baroda and they were assessed to income-tax in Baroda under the Baroda State Income-tax Act on 30th May, 1949, for the assessment year 1947-48, which corresponded to the accounting year 1946. The petitioners then filed an appeal in the Court of the Huzur Adalat, which right of appeal was given to them under the Baroda law. In March, 1949, the State of Baroda merged with India, and on 31st December, 1949, the Taxation Laws (Extension to Merged States and Amendment) Act, 1949, was passed. Under this Act, by section 3 of the Act, the Indian Income-tax Act of 1922 was brought into operation and extended to all the merged States as from 1st April 1949. By section 7 of the Act it was prov...
Bhailal AmIn and Sons Ltd. Vs. R.P. Dalal and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Bom441; (1953)55BOMLR586; ILR1953Bom212
Chagla, C.J. 1. This is an appeal from a decision of Mr. Justice Tendolkar who dismissed the petition preferred by the appellants lor an order upon the Income Tax Tribunal to make a reference to the High Ccurt under Section 66(1), Indian Income-tax Act.2. The petitioners are a company incorporated in Baroda and they were assessed to income-tax in Baroda under the Baroda State Income Tax Act on 30-5-1949, for the assessment year 1947-48, which corresponded to the accounting year 1946. The petitioners then filed an appeal in the Court of the Huzur Adalat, which right of appeal was given to them under the Baroda law. In March 1949 the State of Baroda merged with India, and on 31-12-1949, the Taxation Laws (Extension to Merged States and Amendment) Act, 1949, was passed. Under this Act, by Section 3 of the Act, the Indian Income-tax Act of 1922 was brought into operation and extended to all the merged Statesas from 1-4-1949. By Section 7 of the Act it was provided ;'If, immediately before ...
Maganbhai Ranchhodbhai Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1953
Reported in: 1953CriLJ1573
ORDERHemeon, J.1. The applicant Maganbhai of Gondia was convicted and sentenced to undergo 4 months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 353, Penal Code by the Second Class Magistrate, Gondia; and in appeal, the appellate Magistrate, Bhandara, affirmed the conviction but replaced the sentence by a fine of Rs. 500/-. The applicant has now come up in revision to this Court.2. The prosecution case was, briefly stated, as follows. On 1.11.1950, V.N. Kukde (P.W. 6), Sub-Inspector. Central Excise, went, in accordance with the Superintendent's direction, to the applicant's godown in order to verify the stock of tobacco in it before issuing a permit for removing that commodity from it. When he met the applicant and apprised him of this, the applicant asked him to produce a written order from the Superintendent and refused to weigh the stock. V.N. Kukde then asked him to accompany him to the Superintendent, but he became angry and announced that he would not do so or weigh the stock, V.N. Kukde...
Bajirao Yeshwantrao Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1953
Reported in: 1954CriLJ425
Hemeon, J.1. The appellant Bajirao and his. father Yeshwantrao were prosecuted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of Kishan on the night of the 28th February 1951. at Linga, Chhindwara tahsil; and during the trial charges under Sections 468 and 474 'ibid' were added against the appellant. Yeshwantrao and he were both acquitted under Section 302, but the Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara, convicted and sentenced the appellant to undergo two terms, each of 4 years rigorous imprisonment, and to pay two fines, each of Rs. 1,000/-, under Sections 468 and 474. In appeal, I held that the addition of the charges during the trial might have been prejudicial to the appellant and quashed the convictions and sentences. The State Government, Madhya Pradesh, thereafter moved the Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara, to file a complaint against the appellant under sections 468 and 474 of the Indian Penal Code. The objections raised by the appellant were overruled and the A...
Eruch J. Bapasola and anr. Vs. B.D. Mirchandani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom56; (1953)55BOMLR582
Chagla, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Tendolkar J. who dismissed a petition filed by the appellants for a writ against the Custodian of Evacuee Property. The petitioners purchased the property in question on 23-2-1950. One Tyabji Abdul Kayum was in occupation of flat No. 1 on the ground floor of this property. On 22-9-1950, the petitioners gave a notice to the tenant terminating his tenancy as from 31-10-1950. On 19-10-1950, the order was passed declaring Tyabji as an evacuee and on 26-10-1950, a notification was issued vesting the tenancy rights of the tenant Tyabji Abdul Kayum in the Custodian. On 23-3-1952, the petitioners went into possession of this flat. On 9-4-1952, the Custodian allotted this flat to one Ramchandani and on 2-5-1952, the petitioners filed this petition for a writ preventing the Custodian from taking possession of this flat. The learned Judge below took the view that the petitioners were not entitled to the order they asked for.2. Now, the questio...
Martab Ali Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-19-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom297; (1954)56BOMLR150
1. The plaintiff sues to recover from the defendant a sum of Rs. 80,291-11-0 as compensation for loss occasioned to him by non-delivery of certain bales of cloth, consigned to Gujranwalla station by the plaintiff's agents in Bombay and delivered to the-B. B. & C. I. Railway. The defendant is the successor-in-title of the Governor-General in-Council and the B.B. & CJ. Railway has now/ vested in the defendant as its owner and administrator. 2. It is the plaintiff's case that Messrs. Murlidhar Mohanlal, the plaintiff's agents in Bombay, purchased and consigned on his behalf 85 bales-of cloth for delivery to themselves at Gujranwalla station in the Punjab. According to the plaintiff, a railway receipt bearing No. B-49 485979 dated August 4, 1947, was issued by the railway company in favour of the plaintiff's agents and the consignment was booked at railway risk except in respect of 5 put of the 85 bales. The goods-did not reach their destination as about the middle of August 1947 there wer...
Krishnarao Vithobaji Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-19-1953
Reported in: 1953CriLJ1556
ORDERHemeon, J.1. The applicant Krishnarao was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine1 of Rs. 100/- under Section 7, Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946 by the Additional District Magistrate, Wardha, for contravention of Clause 3, Central Provinces and Berar Foodgrains Control Order, 1945; and his appeal was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Wardha. He has now come up in revision to this Court. Janrao, Bhaiyya and Pandurang, his servants, were discharged by the trial Court.2. The prosecution case was, briefly stated, to the effect that, although the applicant was not licensed to deal as a wholesale dealer, he had on each of 4 occasions purchased and sold grain which exceeded 5 maunds in weight during March and April 1950 at Wardha.3. The applicant admitted in examination that these transactions had taken place, but he claimed that as he was not an 'arhatiya' within the scope of the Central Provinces and Berar Foodgrains Control Order, 1945, he was not required to be licensed....
Ahmedalli AbdulhuseIn Kaka and anr. Vs. M.D. Lalkaka and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom33; (1953)55BOMLR573; ILR1953Bom800
Chagla, C.J. 1. There is not much substance in this appeal. An order made by the learned Chief Judge of the Court of Small Cause's, Bombay, under Section 507, Bombay Municipal Corporation Act was challenged by the petitioners who asked for a writ of 'certiorari'. The learned Judge dismissed the petition, and from that order of dismissal this appeal is pre-ferred.2. The petitioners are the owners of a property situate at Abdul Rehman Street. Two notices were served by the Municipality upon the petitioners calling upon them to carry out certain repairs. Plans were submitted by the landlords to the Municipality; those plans were not approved of by the Municipality, and a further notice was served upon the owners drawing their attention to the fact that a part of the property abutted upon Abdul Rehman Street and was within the set back line, and the owners were called upon to carry out the repairs and to demolish that part of the building which was within the set back line. The owners then...
Jivraj Gordhandas and anr. Vs. Gaganmal Ramchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Bom430; (1953)55BOMLR562; ILR1953Bom1168
Chagla, C.J. 1. A creditor's petition was presented for adjudicating the appellants insolvents on 3-12-1951. This petition was dismissed on 1-4-1952. On 11-10-1952, the respondents applied to the Insolvency Judge to set aside the order of dismissal and to substitute them in place o the petitioning creditors. The Insolvency Judge granted that application on 6-1-1953, and from that order this appeal is preferred.2. The first contention of Mr. Desai is that the Court had no jurisdiction to grant' this application in view of the fact that the application for substitution was made after the petition was dismissed, and reliance is placed on Section 92, Frssidency-towns Insolvency Act. That section provides that 'Whore the petitioner docs not proceed with due diligence on his petition, the Court may substitute as petitioner any other creditor to whom the debtor is indebted in the amount required by this Act in place of a petitioning creditor.' Mr. Desai is right when he contends that Section ...
Narandas Munmohandas and ors. Vs. the Indian Manufacturing Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Bom433; (1953)55BOMLR567; ILR1953Bom877
Chagla, C.J. 1. This is an appeal against the Judgment of Desai J. and the appeal involves a very short question as to the construction of Section 30(2), Companies Act, and the construction becomes necessary under circumstances which we will presently relate. Plaintiff No. 1 is the father of plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 and they filed a suit for a declaration that certain shares which they held in the first defendant company were not subject to the lien of the company and that the company was not entitled to enforce a lien against these shares. The shares with which we are concerned are five shares registered faintly in the names of plaintiffs 1 and 2, 44 shares registered jointly in the names of the three plaintiffs, and three half shares also registered jointly in the names of the three plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also had one share jointly with Bal Harkuverbai, the wife of plaintiff 1, and with regard to this share the question arises because of the counterclaim to which a reference will ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »