Mumbai Court October 1955 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.
Durgaprasad Prasannakumar Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom357; (1956)58BOMLR75; 1956CriLJ704; ILR1956Bom305
Dixit, J.1. These two appeals raise a question under Section 3(v) Press (Objectionable Matter) Act, 1951. The facts of the two cases which give rise to the appeals are simple and they may be shortly stated.2. The appellant is the keeper of a press known as Nirbhaya Mudranalaya situate at Vithal Wadi, Ranade Road, Dadar, Bombay 22. He is a publisher of a weekly called 'Hindu' published in Marathi language, which is printed at the said press. On 5-5-1954 he made a declaration to that effect before the Chief Presidency Magistrate Bombay.3. In its issue of 19-7-1954, there appeared an article headed 'Statement of repentant Kamal Vijayalaxmi became Hindu again' under pen, name 'Veerketu'. The Commissioner of Police Greater Bombay, having taken the view that the said article was objectionable within the meaning of Section 3 (v) of the Act, filed before the Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, a complaint against the appellant, firstly, as the keeper of the press and, secondly as the publisher of ...
Girdharlal B. Bhatia Vs. Mangharam Jeewandas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1955
Reported in: (1956)58BOMLR267
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. A rather interesting question arises in this appeal as to the liability of a non-displaced person with regard to a debt for which he is liable jointly and severally with a displaced person.2. The two defendants to the suit, from which this appeal arises, carried on business in the name and style of Hirdaram Bahrumal Bros, at Quetta and Sukkur and they passed ten promissory notes for Rs. 10,000 each in favour of various persons and those persons endorsed the promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff and the plaintiff filed a summary suit on these ten promissory notes. Defendant No. 2, who is a displaced person, applied to the Tribunal set up at Jodhpur for the adjustment of debts of displaced persons, for the adjustment of his debts, and the suit with regard to him was stayed in this Court. When the suit came on for hearing as against defendant No. 1, who as just pointed out is not a displaced person, he raised a contention that even with regard to him the suit sho...
Sanja Bandaji Vs. Ahmedabad Jaybharat Cotton Mills Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom612
1. The following genealogy shows the relationship between the parties to this dispute. ANANTBHAT (dead on 12-11-1924) ____________________________|___________________________ | | |Harbhat (dead) Vasudeo Dadbhat | (dead in 1907) (given in adoption) | | | Narayan (Plff.) __|________________________________________________________ | | | |Yedneshwar Narsinh Shripad Vasudeo(deft. 2) (deft. No. 3) (deft. No. 4) (deft. No. 5)Anantbhat died on 12-11-1924. His son Dadbhat had gone out of the joint family by adoption before the death of Anantbhat. Vasudeo had predeceased Anantbhat and he died in 1907. Harbhat the eldest son was alive at the date of the death of Anantbhat. Anantbhat held at the time of his death several properties two out of which were S. Nos. 110 and 111.After the death of Anantbhat there was a partition of some of the joint family properties. But S. Nos. 110 and 111 were not divided because S. No. 111 was a Dharmadaya property, and it was assumed that the Vat Hukums which were ...
Homi Wadia Vs. Dwarkadas Sunderdas Kapoor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom125
1. This is a revisional application by defendant 2 and the only point which has been raised on his behalf by Mr. Sukthankar is that the Pull Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 38, Presidency Small Cause Courts Act in that it interfered with the decree passed by the learned Trial Judge on question of fact.2. The dispute lies within a very narrow compass. It appears that the plaintiff gave certain ornaments to the partnership of defendants 1 and 2. This partnership, according to the plaintiff, was then engaged in producing a picture known as 'Sinbad the Sailor'. For the price of the ornaments sold by the plaintiff he brought the present suit and he impleaded defendants 1 and 2 to his suit. Defendant 1 did not dispute the fact that he had taken the ornaments from the plaintiff.He, however, denied that defendant 2 was a partner in the production of this picture. Defendant 2 made a similar plea, but remained absent at the trial. The learned trial Judge believed defendant 1, disbe...
Rambhau Ganjaram Vs. Rajaram Laxman and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom250
1. One Laxman died in the year 1938 leaving him surviving three sons and a widow Chandrabhagabai. On the death of Lax-man, Chandrabhagabai entered upon the management of her husband's property, his sons being all minors. Chandrabhagabai died in the year 1943 and one Anandrao maternal uncle of the plaintiffs entered upon the management of the property of the minor sons of Laxman and posed himself as de facto guardian of the minors.On 27-10-1943 Anandrao de facto guardian of the plaintiffs sold certain properties belonging to the minor plaintiffs to the defendant for satisfying debts which had been incurred for the marriage ceremony of plaintiff 1 which had taken place about six months before October 1943.After plaintiff 1 attained the age of majority plaintiff 1 filed suit No. 84 of 1940 in the Court of the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, at Shrigonda, against the defendant for a declaration that the sale deed dated 22.10-1943 passed by Anandrao, their maternal uncle as their guardi...
income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay and ors. Vs. S.C. Cambatta and C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1955
Reported in: [1956]29ITR118(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. The question that arises for our consideration in this appeal does not seem to have considered by any Court. Perhaps the reasons is - so it seems to us - that the answer is ver obvious. It appears that the petitioner company transferred to a subsidiary company the business of Eros Theatre & Restaurant and the subsidiary company paid Rs. 5,00,000 for goodwill. An application was made to the Appellate Tribunal under section 66(I) of the Income-tax Act with regard tot he assessment of the petitioner company, the Income-tax authorities having held that in respect of the petitioner company's chargable accounting period 1943 the Excess Profits Tax Officer was not buond to take into consideration the valu of the goodwill in computing the average capital for the purpose of section 6(I) of the Excess Profits Tax Act. As the Tribunal rejected the application the petitioner comany then approached the High Court under section 66(2) and we directd the Tribunal to state a case, and th...
S.C. Prashar Vs. Vasantsen Dwarkadas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1955
Reported in: [1956]29ITR857(Bom)
Desai, J.1. By this petition the petitioners seek a writ in the nature of prohibition or other appropriate writ, order or direction directed to respondent No. 1 who is the Income-tax Officer, Market Ward, Bombay, and respondent No. 2, the Union of India, restraining respondent No. 1 from taking any steps or proceedings in pursuance of a show cause notice issued by him on the firm of Purshottum Laxmidas, who are petitioners No. 2 before me. On April 30, 1955, respondent No. 1, acting under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, issued the notice : 'Whereas I have reason to believe that your income assessable to income-tax for the year ending March 31, 1943, has been under assessed, I, therefore, propose to reassess to income allowance that has been under-assessed : I hereby require you to deliver to me within 35 days of the receipt of this notice a return in the attached form of your total income and total world income assessable for the said year ending March 31, 1943. This notice is being...
Borough Municipalities, Bhusawal Vs. Bhairulal Gulabchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom226
1. The plaintiff was the owner of an agricultural land S. No. 149/A situate within the municipal limits of the town of Bhusawal. The plaintiff obtained permission of the Collector for of East Khandesh to convert the land to non-agricultural use. He then divided the land into 32 building plots. He also set a part of land for construction of roads.Thereafter the plaintiff sold the Plots as building plots to various purchasers. By 1948 the plaintiff had disposed of 26 out of the 33 plots, and he was on 7-5-1947 the owner of the remaining six plots which were on the western finge of S. No. 149/A. On 7-5-1946 the Municipality of Bhusawal served upon the plaintiff a notice under Section 115(1), Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925, calling upon the plaintiff to construct a road on the west of the six plots which were of the ownership of the plaintiff.The plaintiff was given three months' time to construct the road. The plaintiff did not comply with the notice and sold the six plots to one Pri...
Bhimbhai Nathubhai Vs. Amritlal Morarji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom263
ORDER1. This is a revisional application by the plaintiff and it arises from proceedings instituted by the plaintiff under Section 5 of the Mamlat-dars Courts Act. The plaintiff claimed the right of way through Survey Nos, 98/2 and 101 of Kachholi belonging to the defendant. The statutory issues were framed by the Mamlat-dar. He found the right established. He also found dispossession proved within the statutory period. Thereupon he decreed the suit.When the matter went in revision to the District Deputy Collector, Navsari, the District Deputy Collector felt that this was a complicated matter and the Mamlatdar should have referred it to a civil Court under the first pro- viso to Section 5. On this view, the revisional Court has set aside the order passed by the Mamlatdar and has dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The plaintiff has come to this Court in revision against this order passed by the District Deputy Collector.2. Mr. Patel for the petitioner contends that, in reversing the decisi...
S.C. Prashar and anr. Vs. Vasantsen Dwarkadas and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom530; (1956)58BOMLR184; ILR1956Bom374
Chagla, C.J.1. This is appeal arises out of a petition filed challenging a notice issued by the Income-tax Officer under Section 34, Income-tax Act and praying for a writ restraining the Income-tax Officer from proceeding further pursuant to that notice.2. It appears that the firm of Purshottam Laxmidas, who are the second petitioners, was started on 28-10-1935 and in this firm there were two partners Dwarkadas Vussonji and Parmanand Odhavji. Dwarkadas died on 1-4-1946 and Vasantsen the first petitioner is his son. Another firm by the name of Vasantsen Dwarkadas was started on 28-1-1941 and in that firm there were three partners, Vasantsen the first petitioner, Narandas Shivji and Nanalal Odhavji, and this firm was dissolved on 24-10-1946.The firm of Vasantsen Dwarkadas filed a return of income for the assessment year 1942-43 and it also claimed registration as a firm. The Income-tax Authorities refused registration and came to the conclusion that the firm of Vasantsen Dwarkadas belong...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »