Mumbai Court September 1954 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 Vs. A.H. Bhiwandiwalla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Bom161; (1954)56BOMLR1172; 1955CriLJ666; ILR1955Bom192; (1956)IILLJ153Bom
Gajendragadkar, J.1. These two appeals arise from orders of acquittal passed by the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate in favour of the respondent. In both the cases the respondent was charged under Section 92 of the Factories Act (Act LXIII of 1948). The respondent is the occupier of Wadia Mahal Salt Works, which, according to the prosecution case, is a factory as defined under Section 2(m) of the Factories Act. This factory is situated near Koliwada, Sion, Bombay 22.In the case from which Criminal Appeal No. 761 of 1954 arises, the charge against the respondent was that, before occupying or using tile said premises as a factory, he had failed to submit to the Chief Inspector of Factories, Bombay State, a written notice of occupation in Form No. 3 as required under Section 7(1) of the Factories Act and the rules made thereunder. In the companion case from which Criminal Appeal No. 762 of 1954 arises, the charge was that the respondent had failed to submit to the Chief Inspector of Fa...
ScIndia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bomb ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Bom230; (1955)57BOMLR98; [1954]26ITR686(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. The assesses before us is the Scindia Steam Navigation Co., Ltd., arid the assessment year is 1946-47.2. The company had a ship by the name of 'El Madina' which was purchased at the cost of Rs. 24,95,016. It was lost as a result of enemy action on 16-3-1944. Government paid compensation of Rs. 20,00,000 on 17-7-1944, and Rs. 23,00,000 on 22-12-1944, for the loss of this ship. Depreciation of this ship was allowed from time to time and its written-down value in the assessment year was Rs. 15,68,484. The Income-tax Officer included the difference between these two amounts, viz. Rs. 9,26,532, in the total income of the Company for the assessment year 1946-47. The assessee contended that it was not liable to pay tax on this amount and the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Income-tax Officer and has referred the following question of law to us:--'Whether the sum of Rs. 9,26,532 was properly included in the assessee company's total income computed for tbe assessment year 194...
Jaswantray Manilal Akhaney Vs. State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Bom259; (1955)57BOMLR55; 1955CriLJ1049; ILR1955Bom54
Dixit, J.1. This criminal application raises a question under Section 403(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In order to appreciate the question raised, it is necessary to mention facts relevant to the determination of the question. 2. The applicant was a director of an insurance company which will, for brevity's sake, be called the 'Union Life Insurance Company.' On March 31, 1949, the applicant made a return, as required by Section 28 of the Insurance Act, 1938. It appears that an administrator took charge of the affairs of this company, he having been appointed by the Central Government. If the return made is a false return, the consequence is to be found in Section 104 of the Act, which provides that 'whoever, in any return, report, certificate, balance-sheet or other document, required by or for the purposes of any of the. provisions of this Act, wilfully makes a statement false in any material particular, knowing it to be false, shall be punishable' as mentioned in that sectio...
A.P. Damodara Shenoy Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Bom269; (1955)57BOMLR93; ILR1955Bom95
Chagla, C.J. 1. The question that arises on this reference is the liability of an agent to be assessed to tax on behalf of the principal. It appears that the assessee who was a non-resident in the assessment year 1943-44 was carrying on his own individual business in Bombay. He acted as commission agent of Messrs. A. N. Guna Shenoy & Bros, who are the non-resident principals, and as such commission agent in the assessment year he sent to Mattancherry in the Cochin State where Messrs. A. N. Guna Shenoy & Bros. were carrying on business, goods of the value of Rs. 3,56,990. These goods were supplied from time to time in the course of the assessment year.The Income-tax Department treated the assessee as the agent of Messrs. A. N. Guna Shenoy & Bros. and assessed him to tax in respect of the income of Messrs. A. N. Guna Shenoy & Bros., and this reference raises the question of the liability of the agent to be assessed in respect of income of this firm of Messrs. A. N. Guna Shenoy & Bros.2. ...
A.P. Damodara Shenoy Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-1954
Reported in: [1954]26ITR650(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. The question that arises on this reference is the liability of an agent to be assessed to tax on behalf of the principal. It appears that the assessee who was a non-resident in the assessment year 1943-44 was carrying on his own individual business in Bombay. He acted as Commission agent of Messrs. A. N. Guna Shenoy & Bros. who are the non-resident principals, and as such commission agent in the assessment year he sent to Mattancherry in the Cochin State, where Messrs. A. N. Guna Shenoy & Bros. were carrying on business, goods of the value of Rs. 3,56,990. These goods were supplied from time to time in the course of the assessment year. The Income tax Department treated the assessee as the agent of Messrs. A. N. Guna Shenoy & Bros. and assessed him to tax in respect of the income of Messrs. A. N. Guna Shenoy & Bros. and this reference raises the question of the liability of the agent to be assessed in respect of income of this firm of Messrs. A. N. Guna Shenoy & Bros. 2....
Kashinathsa Yamosa and ors. Vs. Narsingsa Bhaskarsa and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Bom368; (1955)57BOMLR516
Bavdekar, J.1. This order refers to the distribution of the stamp duty and penalty which has actually been paid by defendant 1 in both the suits for the purpose of rendering admissible in evidence certain instruments.2. Mr. Kotwal who appears on behalf of defendant 1--appellant contends that he is entitled to the refund of the amount of stamp duty and penalty which he has paid from the other co-sharers under the provisions of Section 44(1), Indian Stamp Act. That section runs as follows:'When any duty or penalty has been paid under Section 35, Section 37, Section 40 or Section 41, by any person in respect of an instrument, and, by agreement or under the provisions of Section 29 or any other enactment in force at the time such instrument was executed, some other person was bound to bear the expense of providing the proper stamp for such instrument, the first-mentioned person shall be entitled to recover from such other person the amount of the duty or penalty so paid.'Now, the opening w...
Shankar Raoji Patil Vs. Mahadu Govind Chawan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-1954
Reported in: (1955)57BOMLR65
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. Respondent No. 1 filed an application before the Mamlatdar contending that he had been dispossessed by his landlord, that the landlord had put the petitioners in possession, and as he was a protected tenant, he was entitled to an order restoring possession to him. The Mamlatdar held that the landlord had not dispossessed respondent No. 1 but he held on a plea taken by the petitioners that they were the sub-tenants of respondent No. 1 and therefore he dismissed respondent No. 1's application. Respondent No. 1 went in appeal to the Prant Officer. The Prant Officer upheld the finding of the Mamlatdar that the landlord had not dispossessed respondent No. 1, but he differed from the Mamlatdar with regard to the issue of sub-tenancy and held that the petitioners were not the sub-tenants of respondent No. 1 but they were trespassers and passed an order of possession in favour of respondent No. 1. The petitioners went in revision to the Ravenue Tribunal and the Revenue Trib...
Kallappa Joteppa Ajur Vs. Murigeppa Rudrappa Gugwad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-08-1954
Reported in: (1955)57BOMLR178
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. The Mamlatdar, on an application of the landlords, who are opponents Nos. 1 and 2, ordered the tenant, the petitioner, to hand over possession of the lands leased to him on the ground that he had filed to pay rent for more than three years from 1947 to 1951. The tenant appealed to the transfer. The Prant Officer dismissed that appeal. The tenant went in revision to the Revenue Tribunal and the Revenue Tribunal also dismissed the revision application.2. Now, the only point urged by Mr. Reddy before us is that the Prant Officer did not exercise the jurisdiction vested in him of hearing the appeal preferred to him on merits. It appears that the tenant made an application for adjournment. That application was refused and the order made by the District Deputy Collector is to the following effect:The appellant is absent although served with notice. The appeal is therefore dismissed. The appellant should be informed by post. The respondents have been informed in Court.Now,...
P.N. Films Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Bom381; (1955)57BOMLR753; ILR1955Bom346
Coyajee, J. 1. This petition is presented by petitioner No. 1, a private limited company, and petitioner No. 2, who is a director of that company challenging the validity of a certain order dated 7-4-1954, emanating from the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and signed by the Under Secretary to the Government of India exercising powers under Section 5, Sub-section (4) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, on behalf of the Central Government directing that certain parts of a film 'Prisoner of Golconda' should be excised from all copies of the film and for production of the certificate granted by the Central Board of Film Censors for a proper amendment.This order was served on petitioner No. 2 in Bombay. According to the petition, the petitioners produced a certain film called 'Prisoner of Golconda' at a very heavy cost and thereafter approached the Central Board of Film Censors in Bombay. That Board made certain cuts and amendments. Aggrieved by that the petitioners went to the Revisin...
Philatelie Orient Vs. Kodak, Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-1954
Reported in: (1955)57BOMLR175
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. The opponents are the landlords and they filed an ejectment suit against defendants Nos. 1 and 2. Defendant No. 1 was their tenant and he assigned his right, title and interest in the tenancy to defendant No. 2. The Small Causes Court mada an ejectment order which has been confirmed in appeal, and this is an application in revision against that order.2. Now, what the Small Causes Court held was that the action of defendant No. 1 in assigning the tenancy came within the prohibition of Section 15 and was not saved by the proviso to that section, and this is the decision that is being challenged by Mr. Rele before me. Now, under Section 12 of the Bombay Rent Act the tenant is protected if he observes and performs the conditions of the tenancy in so far as they are consistent with the provisions of the Act, and Mr. Rele has drawn my attention to the different language used between this section and the original Section 9 of the Act of 1944. There, the obligation upon the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›