Mumbai Court March 1954 Judgments
Manbodh S/O Nando Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-1954
Reported in: 1955CriLJ728
1. These are two connected appeals filed by the appellants accused persons against their various convictions and sentences passed against them by the Sessions Judge, Raigarh, in Sessions Trial No. 22 of 1953.2. Both the appellants along with two other persons Perma and Tilu were jointly tried for , offences punishable Under Section 302, Penal Code, for committing murder of Mst. Bilo, Madho and Bodhl and also on the charge of attempt to commit murder, punishable Under Section 307, Penal Code of Hira, Lochan and Balmati. The relation between the parties is that Hira and the appellant Manbodh are brothers. Hira's wife's name is Bila. Madho, Bodhi and Lochan are sons of Hira and Bilo, and Balmati is their daughter. The appellant Mst. Moda is the wife of the appellant Manbodh. Perma is son of Manbodh and Mst. Moda. Tilu is son-in-law of Manbodh and Moda.3. The prosecution case is that Hira was staying at Mouza Tuba, police station house Bharsa-bahar Jaspur sub-division. Hira and Manbodh had...
Tag this Judgment!Kantilal Chimanlal Shah Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay North, ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Bom53; (1954)56BOMLR810; ILR1954Bom1260
Chagla, C.J.1. The assessee is the heir and legal representative of one Chimanlal Lallubhai Shah. One Jivanlal had dealings with this Chimanlal and he became the debtor of Chimanlal. The transactions between Jivanlal and Chimanlal continued up to S. Y. 1944 and thereafter there were no further transactions. In S. Y. 1995 and 1996 the debit balance was carried forward and interest was added to it. In S. Y. 1993 Chimanlal obtained, a transfer of mortgage from one Doongershi Goculdas to whom Jivanlal had mortgaged his property and he maintained in his books of account an account in respect of this mortgage. In S. Y. 1996 the mortgaged property was sold and a balance of Rs. 2,952 was found in favour of the mortgagor. A sum of Rs. 25 being tax paid in respect of this property was debited to this account and the balance 'of Rs. 2,927 was transferred to the debtor's account in S. Y. 1997. As a result of this transfer there was a final debit balance of Rs. 14,898. Chimanlal wrote off this amou...
Tag this Judgment!Naran Velji Vs. Ranjitsingh Jamnadas Kapadia
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Bom42; (1954)56BOMLR889; 1955CriLJ103; ILR1954Bom1377
Shah, J. 1. The petitioner Naran Veljl is a boy about nine years old. On 28-2-1953, at about 4-15 p.m. he was knocked down by a motor vehicle driven by one Ranjitsingh Jamnadas Kapadia, Thereafter a complaint was lodged before the police against Kapadia charging him with having driven his motor vehicle rashly and negligently. The police treated the case as one of 'accident', and did not take any proceedings against the accused on the complaint. A private complaint was then filed in the Court of the Presidency Magistrate, 16th Court, Bombay, charging the accused with having committed offences under Sections 279 and 338, Penal Code. The learned trial Magistrate alter examining the complainant & two witnesses and after examining the accused passed an order on 17-11-1953, acquitting the accused. Against the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Magistrate, the complainant has come to this Court in revision.2. Normally, this Court does not interfere in its re visional jurisdiction ...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Ramchandra Patkar and ors. Vs. Gangadhar Keshav Musale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Bom175; (1954)56BOMLR893; ILR1954Bom1256
1. This is a second appeal in execution, which raises a question of law, viz. whether the decree under execution requires registration. The circumstances giving rise to the darkhast out of which the appeal arises are shortly these:2. On 15-12-1943, the appellants filed Suit No. 727 of 1943 against the respondent to recover possession of the property in suit, which is a field bearing Survey No. 2087, situate at Mouje Kutre in the Chiplun taluka of the Ratnagiri District. On 16-1-1945, the trial Court granted the appellants a decree for possession. From the decree made in the suit the respondent preferred an appeal in the District Court at Ratnagiri, and in the appeal there was a compromise between the parties on 25-2-1946. The compromise decree provides as follows:'The possession of the suit property, along with the cattle-shed of the appellant may be retained with the appellant up to the end of May 1950, on a condition to pay the rent of Re. one a year. After the expiry of the said per...
Tag this Judgment!Jeshinghbhai Ujamshi Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-1954
Reported in: [1955]28ITR454(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. This reference arises on a misapprehension on the part of the Tribunal as to the law that we laid down in the case of Jeshinghbhai Ujamshi v. Commissioner of Income-tax. We were considering the case of the same assessee and it appeared that the assessee had two firms one at Bhavnagar which he had started in 1918 and the other in Ahmedabad which he had started in 1934, and the question that arose was whether when there are common partners in two firms they can in the eye of the income-tax law constitute two separate firms. The view take by the Tribunal was that if the partners are common there can only be one firm, and in coming to that conclusion they applied the principle of ordinary civil law. We differed from that view and we pointed out that a firm was a taxable unit under the Income-tax Act, and for the purpose of the Income-tax Act a firm was an entity which it was not under the ordinary civil law, and therefore we sent back the case to the Tribunal in order to det...
Tag this Judgment!Kantilal Chimanlal Shah Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay North, ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-1954
Reported in: [1954]26ITR303(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. The assessee is the heir and legal representative of one Chimanlal Lallubhai Shah. One Jivanlal and dealings with this Chimanlal and he became the debtor of Chimanlal. The transactions between Jivanlal and Chimanlal continued up to S. Y. 1994 and thereafter there were no further transactions. In S. Y. 1995 and 1996 the debit balance was carried forward and interest was added to it. In S. Y. 1993 Chimanlal obtained a transfer of mortgage from one Doongershi Goculdas to whom Jivanlal and mortgaged his property and he maintained in his books of account an account in respect of this mortgage. In S. Y. 1996 the mortgaged property was sold and a balance of Rs. 2,952 was found in favour of the mortgagor. A sum of Rs. 25 being tax paid in respect of this property was debited to this account and the balance of Rs. 2,927 was transferred to the debtor's account in S. Y. 1997. As a result of this transfer there was a final debit balance of Rs. 14,898. Chimanlal wrote off this amount...
Tag this Judgment!Jayantilal Motilal Pathak Vs. Dayaram Ranchhoddas Soni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Bom111; (1954)56BOMLR836; ILR1954Bom1253
ORDER1. This Civil Revision Application raises a question under Section 13(1)(c), Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The facts leading up to the suit in which the question arises are shortly these :2. The opponent is the owner of the suit property, of which the applicant is a tenant. The tenancy is evidenced by a rent-note executed by the applicant on 15-3-1939. It appears that the applicant was prosecuted for an offence under the Bombay Prohibition Act. The offence in relation to which the prosecution was launched took place on 10-11-1949, and the conviction was recorded against the applicant on 30-6-1950.3. The opponent said that the applicant was a tenant in arrears, not having paid the rent since 1-1-1951, and also that he was guilty of conduct falling within the meaning of Section 13(1)(c), Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.4. The trial Court decreed the opponent's suit. The applicant preferred an appeal In the District Court...
Tag this Judgment!Shantilal Vadilal Shah and anr. Vs. State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Bom508; (1954)56BOMLR709; ILR1954Bom1245
Chagla, C.J. 1. A book by the name of 'Aghor Van' was published in Ahmedabad in November 1951. It was published in the Gujrat Printing Press. On 15-8-1953, Government instituted proceedings against the keeper of the press under s. 4, Press (Objectionable Matters) Act (LVI of 1951). While those proceedings were pending, the Advocate General gave a certificate on 24-7-1953, Under Section 11 of the Act and acting on that certificate the Government issued an order forfeiting all the books on 5-8-1953.The keeper of the press has come before us on two petitions, one challenging the order of forfeiture and the other complaining of the action of Government in issuing the order of forfeiture and giving publicity to it in the press while the judicial proceedings were pending and alleging that Government is guilty of contempt.In the petition challenging the order of forfeiture it has been contended that Act LVI of 1951 is 'ultra vires' of the Constitution. We have heard this petition first as it ...
Tag this Judgment!Western India Vegetable Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Bom13; (1954)56BOMLR732; [1954]26ITR151(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. The assessee company was incorporated on the 29th of December, 1945, and it obtained a certificate of commencement of business on the 20th of April, 1946. The business of the assessee company was that of running an oil mill. 2. The assessee company was assessed to tax on its business profits for the assessment year 1947-48 and it claimed various expenses as allowable deductions aggregating to Rs. 27,884-11-9. The view taken by the Income-tax Officer was that the assessee company had only commenced business when it purchased the groundnut mill on the 1st of November, 1946, and therefore he disallowed all the expenses which were incurred prior to the 1st of November, 1946. The assessee company went in appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and substantially the view taken by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was that the expenses incurred after getting the certificate of commencement of the business should be treated as expenses incurred for the purpose of carry...
Tag this Judgment!Zenith Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-1954
Reported in: (1954)56BOMLR737; [1954]24CompCas89(Bom); [1954]26ITR256(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. The assessee is an insurance company doing life insurance and also general insurance in the nature of marine, fire and other insurance, and the question that arises is the mode of computing the losses incurred by the company in its life insurance business. 2. Now, the profits and gains of a life insurance business have to be computed not in the manner laid down in the Income-tax Act but in the manner laid down in the rules contained in the Schedule to the Act, and what falls for construction in this reference is rule 2. Rule 2(a) provides that the profits and gains of life insurance business shall be taken to be either the gross external incomings of the preceding year from that business less the management expenses of that year, and sub-clause (b) of the rule provides for profits and gains to be computed after making certain deductions by taking the annual average of the surplus arrived at by adjusting the surplus or deficit disclosed by the actuarial valuation made, fo...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »