Mumbai Court April 1955 Judgments
Hangamabai Vs. Zamsing Deosing and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-22-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Bom436; (1955)57BOMLR875; ILR1955Bom993
Chagla, C.J. 1. The question that arises for determination in this Full Bench is whether an application presented by a creditor under Section 4 of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act was in time. The creditor wanted to make an application to the Erandol Court in East Khandesh District and he sent the application by registered post from Jal-gaon on 31-7-1947. The application reached the Court on 1-8-1947. Under Section 4 the application had to be presented to the Erandol Court before 1-8-1947. The view taken by the trial Court was that the application was in time. The District Court took the view that inasmuch as the' application reached the Court on 1-8-1941, it was out of time and the District Court therefore dismissed the application. The creditor came in revision to this Court, and Mr. Justice Gajendragadkar and Mr. Justice Shah have referred this question to the Full Bench as there is a conflict of decisions on this point. 2. Now, it is well settled, as we shall pre-' sently...
Tag this Judgment!The State Vs. Pandurang Baburao
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-22-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Bom451; (1955)57BOMLR868
Chagla, C.J.1. The accused was charged with having committed an offence under Section 409, Penal Code, in that in January 1951 while being in charge of the villages Harchori and Road Khandkar as a talati he committed criminal breach of trust in respect of Rs. 101-6-0 by dishonestly misappropriating the amount and he failed to credit this amount into the Ratnagiri Sub-Treasury by 5-1-1951. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ratnagiri, convicted the accused and sentenced him to one month's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100, in default simple imprisonment for 15 days.The accused appealed to the Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri, and the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused on the preliminary ground that inasmuch as the accused was prosecuted without a sanction, the trial of the accused was bad and the order of conviction cannot stand. The State has come in appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge.2. The view taken by the Sessions Judge ...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Bhuriben Lallubhai Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay North, K ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-1955
Reported in: (1955)57BOMLR880; [1956]29ITR543(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. This reference raises a fairly short and simple question.2. The assessee for the assessment years 1949-50 and 1950-51 had various sources of income and one of the sources of income was interest on fixed deposit. That income was assessable to tax under section 12 as being an income from other sources. In the year 1949-50 she received interest on fixed deposit in the sum of Rs. 2,256 and in the year 1950-51 she received a sum of Rs. 2,904. Now in these two years, she borrowed various sums of money for the purpose of meeting here household expenses, purchasing jewellery and meeting advance tax payment and she had to pay interest on these borrowings. In the year 1949-50, she paid Rs. 1,648 as interest and in the year 1950-51 she paid Rs. 2,530 as interest. The assessee claimed to deduct these two sums from the interest earned by her from her fixed deposit and her claim was based on section 12(2) of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal has negatived her claim and the assessee has...
Tag this Judgment!Bhuriben Lallubhai Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay North
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom41
Chagla, C.J.1. This reference raises a fairly short and simple question.The assessee for the assessment years 1949-50 and 1950-51 had various sources of income and one of the sources of income was interest on fixed deposit. That income was assessable to tax under Section 12 as being an income from 'other sources.' In the year 1949-50, she received interest on fixed deposit in the sum of Rs. 2,256-0-0 and in the year 1950-51 she received a sum of Rs. 2,904-0-0.Now, in these two years, she borrowed various sums of money for the purpose of meeting her household expenses, purchasing jewellery and meeting advance tax payment and she had to pay interest on these borrowings. In the year 1949-50, she paid Rs. 1,648-0-0 as interest and in the year 1950-51 she paid Rs. 2,530-0-0 as interest. The assessee claimed to deduct these two sums from the interest earned by her from her fixed deposit and her claim was based on Section 12(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act. The Tribunal has negatived her clai...
Tag this Judgment!Radhabai Mohandas Vs. State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Bom439; (1955)57BOMLR827; 1955CriLJ1564; ILR1955Bom1039
Chainani, J.1. This is an application in revision against the order passed by the Presidency Magistrate, Bandra, acquitting the respondent.2. The applicant is the wife, of the respondent. She married the respondent in Sind in 1941. After the partition of India the respondent and the applicant came to Bombay. They lived together at Mahim for three years. Disputes then started between them. Since some time in 1951 they have been living separately. On 8-6-1952, the respondent contracted a second marriage at Gwalior. The applicant learnt about this in August 1932 and reported the matter to the police. The police investigated the matter and then sent up a charge-sheet against the respondent under Section 5, Bombay Prevention of Hindu Bigamous Marriages Act, 1946. I will refer to this Act hereafter, as ''the Act'. Section 5 read with Section 4(b) makes it on offence for a person domiciled in the Province of Bombay to contract a marriage during the life time of his spouse, outside the Provinc...
Tag this Judgment!Mahomed Oomer Mahomed Noorulla Sahib Vs. S.M. Nooruddin
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-20-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom76; (1955)57BOMLR1006; ILR1955Bom976
Chagla, C.J.1. This appeal is a continuation of a rather chequered and on the whole unfortunate litigation. As far back as 21-8-1942, the respondent made an application to the Registrar of Trade Marks for registration of his trade mark 'HAUTIN' which he wanted to use in connection with the sole of bidis. On 31-12-1948, the Registrar directed the registration of the trade mark, but limited it to Trichinopnly and Tanjore districts.The respondent instead of being content with that decision, committed the folly of appealing against that decision, and the appeal came before Snail, J. and that learned Judge on 4-9-1950, remand-ed the matter back to the Registrar and asked him to consider whether he should not register the respondent's trade mark without limitation.Against that decision the appellant, who has opposed the registration, came in appeal to this Court and the main ground of appeal was that Shah, J, had refused to deal with his cross-objections as in the opinion of the learned Judg...
Tag this Judgment!Lachmandas H. Advani and anr. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-19-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom43; (1955)57BOMLR910; ILR1955Bom970
Chagla, C.J. 1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. K.M. Vakil, Judge of the City Civil Court, Bombay, who dismissed an application made by the applicants under Section 13, Displaced Persons (Debt Adjustment) Act, 70 of 1951, on a preliminary ground. The learned Judge took, the view that the Union of India, which was the respondent to the application, was not bound by Act 70 of 1951 and that the said Act did not enable a displaced person to make an application against the respondent under Section 13 of the Act.2. Now, the judgment of the learned judge raises a very important and a very large question. To a large extent the learned Judge's judgment is based on the prerogative of the Crown and the well known English principle that the Crown is not bound by a statute which abridges its prerogative unless expressly or by necessary intendment it acquiesces in the abridgement of the prerogative.The learned Judge has also relied on a judgment of the Privy Council reported in -- 'Province...
Tag this Judgment!Charity Commissioner Vs. Padmavati and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-15-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom86
Chagla, C.J.1. This is an appeal against a judgment of Coyajee J.,' and preliminary objections are taken by Mr. Purshottam on behalf of respondent 1 that the appeal is barred by limitation. The judgment of Coyajee J., was delivered in an Originating summons and the learned Judge answered most of the questions on 11-8-1954.Some questions were not answered and certain directions remained to be given, and therefore the Originating summons came on again before the learned Judge on 15-9-1954 on which day he delivered his final judgment. Therefore the period of limitation for an appeal on the Original Side is 20 days. The appeal was filed on 8-12-1954. Primp, facie, therefore, the appeal is barred by limitation.2. Now, what is contended by Mr. Desai isthat he is entitled to exclusion of time under Section12 (2). Limitation Act. His contention is thattime was requisite for getting a copy of the ordermade by Coyajee J., and that time can be excluded under the provisions of Section 12 (2). As a...
Tag this Judgment!Kevaldas Kilabhai Vs. Chhotabhai Bhailalbhai Patel and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-14-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Bom454; (1955)57BOMLR844; ILR1955Bom962
1. This appeal arises from a suit to recover Rs. 7,500 at the foot of an equitable mortgage made by defendant 1 in favour of the plaintiff. The circumstances giving rise to the suit cut of which the appeal arises are briefly these.2. The plaintiff is a firm under the name and style of Kevaldas Kilabhai, Bombay. Chhota-bhai Bhallalbhai. who is defendant 1, owed monies to the plaintiff firm in the sum of Rs. 12,000 and odd, and for the amount, he executed a promissory note in the plaintiff's favour. It seems that the plaintiff firm filed a suit on the Original Side of this Court, and a decree was passed in plaintiff's favour on 2-9-1947. In suit No. 1370 of 1947. The plaintiff applied for permission to file a separate suit on the strength of the equitable mortgage under Order 2 Rule 2, and the permission was granted on 15-5-1947. The plaintiff has, accordingly, filed this suit on 11-7-1949, to enforce the equitable mortgage.3. Defendant I filed a written statement, and his principal cont...
Tag this Judgment!State of Bombay Vs. Nagindas Maneklal and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom89; (1955)57BOMLR913; ILR1956Bom31
Chainani, J.1. These are three appeals by the State of Bombay against the decree passed by the Joint Civil Judges, S.D., Ahmedabad, and confirmed in appeal by the Extra Assistant Judge, Ahmedabad, restraining the Ahmedabad Municipality and the State of Bombay 'from recovering urban immovable property tax from the plaintiffs on the basis of their properties being considered one building only.' The appeals have been heard together, as they involve a common point of law relating to the interpretation -of Section 22, Bombay Finance Act, 1932.2. These three appeals arise from three different suits. The plaintiffs in these suits are cousins and are owners of three properties, which form parts of one building. The land, on which this building stands, was purchased in 1940. The whole building was built at one time and thereafter it was divided into three portions, which were given different Municipal Census Nos. 2347, 2348 and 2348A. A portion in front of the entire building was kept joint for...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »