Mumbai Court March 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.
Shivappa Satawappa Vs. Gajanan Chintaman and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom107; (1953)55BOMLR843
Shah, J.1. The plaintiff filed Suit No. 408 of 1949 in the Court of the Civil Judge (junior Division) at Shahapur against the two defendants for a decree for possession of certain lands from the defendants, together with future mesne profits and costs. It was the plaintiff's ease that the defendants were his tenants, that ho called upon the defendants to vacate and deliver possession on the expiration of the month of March 1949, and the defendants having failed to deliver possession he filed the suit.2. The defendants by their written statement contended 'inter alia' that the suit lands were agricultural lands, that they were protected tenants under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (67 of 1948), and that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.3. The learned trial Judge held that the Court had jurisdiction notwithstanding the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (67 of 1948), and passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff directing the defendants to delive...
Dawoodbhai Kassamji Matiwalla and anr. Vs. Shaikhali Alibhoy
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Bom445; (1953)55BOMLR618; ILR1954Bom29
Chagla, C.J. 1. Two substantial questions have been raised in this appeal. One is as to the right of a mortgagee to the interest provided for in the mortgage deed from the date of the suit filed by him to enforce the mortgage till the period fixed for redemption, & the other is the right to costs as between attorney and client of the mortgage suit. The learned Judge below came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs, who are the mortgagees and who filed the suit to enforce their two mortgages, should not get interest on the mortgage money at the contract rate from the date of the suit, but only at the rate of 6 per cent, and he also held that the plaintiffs were entitled to the costs ofthe suit as between party and party and not as between attorney and client, and the appeal of the plaintiffs is confined to these two points decided against them by the learned Judge below.2. With regard to the question of interest, the position in law was very different prior to 1929 when Order 34 was ame...
Aspee (India) Ltd. Vs. M.L. Dahanukar and Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom35; (1953)55BOMLR614; ILR1954Bom21
Chagla, C.J. 1. This is an appeal from a decree passed by Shah J. by which he dismissed the plaintiffs' suit and deprived the first defendant company of the costs of the suit. The suit was originally filed by the plaintiffs against the first defendant company. Defendant No. 2 was subsequently added a party defendant, The suit reached hearing on April 16, 1952, before the learned Judge, and counsel for the plaintiffs informed the Court that the first defendant company had gone into liquidation. Mr. Bhagwati appeared for the first defendant company before the learned Judge. The plaintiffs intimated to the Court that they did not desire to prosecute the suit. They also intimated to the Court that as between them and defendant No. 2 it was agreed that there should be no order as to costs of the suit. The learned Judge took the view that the retainer of the attorneys of the first defendant company had terminated by reason of the company having gone into liquidation and therefore he refused ...
Govindmal Gianchand Vs. Kunj Biharilal and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom364; (1954)56BOMLR348
Tendolkar, J.1. This matter has been placed on board for speaking to the minutes of a decree under the following circumstances.2. The plaintiffs sued as a firm. Defendants. Nos. 1 and 2 had given instructions on behalf of defendant No. 3 for raising a certain loan and the claim in suit arose out of such instructions.When the suit reached hearing before me on 25-11-1952, defendant No. 2 appeared in person and admitted the claim. He stated that he had paid Rs. 44,000 already and had agreed to compromise the rest of the claim for Rs. 20,000 payable in. four instalments in terms signed by him and the-plaintiffs. The consent terms were put in and have been marked Ex. A. No decree was, however, passed on that day against defendant No. 2 because defendant No. 1 contested the suit, and I thought it advisable that a decree should be passed when the whole suit had been disposed of.Thereafter the suit was contested by the other defendants and adjourned from time to time. In the course of the evid...
Vasant Atmaram and anr. Vs. Dattoba Rajaram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-1953
Reported in: AIR1956Bom49; (1955)57BOMLR1026; ILR1955Bom1021
Shah, J.1. The following genealogy will explain the relation between the parties to this litigation: PRABHU KORADE ______________________|_________________________ | | | | Tatoba Ramchandra Atmaram Sitaram | | | Dattoba Vasant Kashinath (Died on (Deft. No. 1) (Deft. No. 2) 1-5-1935) | Rajaram== Chandrabai | Plaintiff (adopted on 15-5-1935) 2. Dattoba, son of Ramchandra, died on 1-5-1935. Rajaram, had predeceased Dattoba, leaving him surviving his wife Chandrabai. After the death of Dattoba, Chandrabai adopted the plaintiff as a son to her deceased husband. The adoption was made on 15-5-1935. The family of the parties was originally resident of the former Kolhapur State. Dattoba was conducting the family shop at Sankeshwar (in the Belgaum district) which was opened sometime in the year 1917 and he was residing permanently in Sankeshwar. Sankeshwar is at a distance of about 14 or 15 miles from the village of Ainapur which was the place where the family originally resided.It appears that...
Rajputana Textile (Agencies) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bomb ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom58; (1953)55BOMLR823; [1953]23CompCas271(Bom); ILR1953Bom1316
Chagla, C.J.1. A question of law has been referred to us by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 8(5) of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, 1947, read with Section 66(1), Income-tax Act, 1922, which arises out of the report of the Income Tax Investigation Commission.2. The assessee company was incorporated on 6-5-1943. Its capital was a paid up capital of Rs. 20 lacs divided into, 2,000 ordinary shares of Rs. 1,000 each. Before its incorporation the promoters of the assessee company entered into an agreement with M/s. E. D. Sassoon & Co., Ltd., who were the managing agents of the Apollo Mills, Ltd. Under this agreement the Sassoon Co. agreed to sell to the promoters the managing agency of the Apollo Mills for Rs. 121/2 lacs and also agreed to sell 19,76,000 shares of the Apollo Mills at the price of Rs. 4-4-0 per share, the total purchase price being Rs. 83,98,000 for the shares. The agreement also provided that the sale and transfer of the managing agency a...
The State Vs. Sidney Rodrigues and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1953
Reported in: 1954CriLJ9
ORDERHemeon, J.1. S. Rodrigues, who was prosecuted under Section 456, Penal Code at the instance of B. V. Hoogwerf, engine driver Bilaspur, was charged under that section by the Second Class Magistrate, Bilaspur; and the Additional District Magistrate. Bilaspur, has now reported the case under Section 438. Criminal P. C. with a recommendation that vile charge be quashed.2. B. V. Hoogwerf's case was, briefly stated, as follows : Prior to March 1950, the relationship between S. Rodrigues, 20 years, and him was good but he then objected to his friendship with his daughter Edith, at the time about 18 years of age. This led to bad feeling between them, and on the night of 2-7-1950 when B. V. Hoogwerf, who is an engine driver, was going on duty, S. Rodriuges-pushed him on the platform of the Bilaspur railway-station. Hoogwerf reported this to the police and to the D.L.S., Bilaspur.3. On the night of 18-8-1950, Hoogwerf's uncle woke him up and told him that someone had entered the house throu...
Firm Kaluram Sitaram Vs. the Dominion of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom50; (1953)55BOMLR595; ILR1953Bom1301
Chagla, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a judgment of Shah J- by which he dismissed the plaintiff's suit. It appeare that the plaintiff consigned four silver bars to self from the Victoria Terminus Station. Bombay, to Ballia which is situated on the Oudh Tirhut Railway. The records of the Oudh Railway show that these bars reached Ballia and the records further show that they were delivered to a person who signed his name as Yogendranath in the parcel delivery book maintained by that railway. The plaintiffs had sent the two railway receipts, under which these bars were despatched, to the Allahabad Bank at Benaras with instructions to deliver the railway receipts to one Yogendranath Ravindranath against payment of the amount for which 'hundis' were drawn. Yogendranath did not make the payment and the Allahabad Bank returned the railway receipts to the plaintiffs in Bombay. ' When the plaintiff made inquiries of the railway authorities as to the bars, he was informed that they had been d...
Maneklal Chunilal and Sons Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Centra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1953
Reported in: [1953]24ITR375(Bom)
Chagla, C.J. 1. The assessee is a private limited company and has succeeded to the business of one Maneklal Chunilal. The assessment on the income of Maneklal Chunilal was made on the 14th of June, 1937, and the assessment was for the accounting Samvat Year 1992. That accounting year closed on the 14th of November, 1936. On the 14th of March, 1939, the Income-tax Officer served a notice under Section 34 upon the assessee company and a further notice was served under Section 22 (4) to produce certain books of account. The assessee company failed to produce the accounts and thereupon the Income-tax Officer made a best judgment assessment under Section 23 (4). An appeal was preferred to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and finally to the Tribunal, who confirmed the assessment, and the question that arises before us is whether the assessee company was liable to be assessed in respect of the income of Maneklal Chunilal which escaped assessment. 2. The point which has been urged before u...
Maneklal Chunilal and Sons Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Centra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom135; (1953)55BOMLR819; ILR1953Bom1294
Chagla, C.J. 1. The assesses is a private limited company and has succeeded to the business of one Maneklal Chunilal. The assessment on the income of Maneklal Chunilal was made on 14-6-1937, and the assessment was for the accounting Sam vat Year 1992. That accounting year closed on 14-11-1936. On 14-3-1939, the Income-tax Officer served a notice Under Section 34 upon the assessee company and a further notice was served Under Section 22(4) to produce certain books of account. The assessee company failed to produce the accounts and thereupon the Income-tax Officer made a best judgment assessment Under Section 23(4). An appeal was preferred to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and finally to the Tribunal, who confirmed the assessment, and the question that arises before us is whether the assessee company was liable to be assessed in respect of the income of Maneklal Chunilal which escaped assessment. 2. The point which has been urged before us by Mr. Palkhiwala is that the assessee com...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »