Mumbai Court September 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.
Subraya Ram Bhatta Vs. Pyara Krishna Gauda and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom691; (1956)58BOMLR101; ILR1956Bom223
ORDER1. The plaintiff's suit to recover Rs. 186-8-0 from his tenants as arrears of rent for the years 1950-51 and 1951-52 has been dismissed by the learned trial Judge on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim. The lands in question are Survey Nos. 103, 116 and 235 of Mavinkurve village and the plaintiff's case was that they had been let out to the tenants for cultivation and the tenants were liable to pity the amount claimed by Him by way of arrears of rent.The plea raised by the defendants against this claim was that a suit to recover arrears of rent in respect of agricultural lands could not be tried by a Civil Court and this plea has been upheld by the learned trial Judge. The view taken by the learned Judge that a claim for arrears of rent due in respect of agricultural lands cannot be entertained in a Civil Court is challenged before me by Mr. Vaidya on behalf of the landlord in the present revisional application.2. Mr. Vaidya contends that the...
Ganpati Joti Kumbhar Vs. Jayasingrao Abasaheb and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom749; (1956)58BOMLR20; ILR1956Bom51
Dixit, J.1. These two special civil applications raise an interesting question under Section 88(1)(b), Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The facts leading up to the applications are simple, but the facts in each application will have to be stated separately.2. In Special Civil Application No. 1449, 'the facts are these. The land in dispute is a piece of land which is described as Block No. 32 situate at a village called Murgud in the Kagal Jahagir of the former Kolhapur State. The owner is the Rajasaheb of Kagal and by a lease dated '10-12-1948 the land Was given to the applicant Ganapathi upon a lease for a period of 4 years. The period of the lease would expire on 9-12-1952.3. In Special Civil Application No. 1450 of 1955, the facts are these. Two pieces of land described as Block Nos. 4 and 5 situate at a village Yamage in the same Jahagir of the former Kolhapur State are of the ownership of the Rajesaheb of Kagal and by a lease dated 18-12-1947 the Rajesaheb granted ...
Dayaram Bhaktibhai and anr. Vs. Maganlal Sunderji and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom172
1. The plaintiffs filed suit No. 111 of 1946-47 in the Court of the Civil Judge, J.D.at Kathor in the former Baroda State against the defendants for a decree forpossession of certain agricultural land. A consent decree was passed in thesuit on 20-7-1948. The decree provided that the defendant Maganlal Sunderji dodeliver possession of the suit land to the plaintiffs on 8-4-1951.It furtherprovided that if the defendant Maganlal Sunderji failed to deliver possession tothe plaintiffs, the plaintiffs may take possession through Court by filing anapplication for execution. It was then provided in the decree that defendantMaganlal Sunderji shall take the produce and shall give certain specifiedamounts to the plaintiffs.It was alsoprovided that if the defendant Ma ganlal Sunderji failed to make the paymentwith in the specified time, the plaintiffs were entitled to recover the samefrom the person and every kind of property of the defendant Maganlal Sunderjee.2. The Stateof Baroda merged with th...
Savitribai Dattatraya Laxman Vs. Martand Dattatraya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom237
1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for redemption filed by the plaintiff Marutrao Dattatraya Uplawikar in the Court of the Second Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, at Kolhapur. The lands in dispute are R.S. Nos. 293 and 294 which are held in Sub-Inam from the Dumaldar of the village. The plaintiff claimed to redeem the lands alleging that the lands in suit are mortgaged on 15-8-1913 by Appa Raghu and by Babaji who claimed to be the adopted son of Appa.The plaintiff further alleged that Babaji was proved in suit No. 59 of 1921 not to have been adopted by Appaji and Kashibai grandmother of the plaintiff was the heir of Appa on intestacy, and ultimately on the death of Kashibai the plaintiff became entitled to all the property which was held by her, and therefore the plaintiff was entitled to redeem the suit lands.2. The suit was resisted by the defendants who are the heirs of the legal representative of the original mortgagee and the Dumaldar of the village as well. The defenda...
Shankar Iranna Gumdel Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom280; [1956]29ITR806(Bom)
Chagla, C.J. 1. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family and it carried on adat business in cloth at Sholapur and it also had a commission agency business at Sirshilla in the Hyderabad State at the material time. The year of account is Shake year 1867-68 (5-11-1945 to 24-10-1046).In this year the assessee received in Shalapur from Hyderabad a sura of Rs. 23,039/- and this amount was included in the total income of the assessee by the Income-tax Officer as a remittance from an Indian State which was liable to pay tax.It appears that in the assessment year. 1946-47 the profit made by the assessee in his Hyderabad business was Rs. 10,788/- and in the assessment year 1947-48 the profit made was Rs. 15,872/-.The contention of the assessee was that to the extent of Rs. 10,788/- undoubtedly the sum of Rs. 23,039/- represented remittance of past profits and was liable to tax, but with regard to Rs. 12,251 it did not represent past profits and therefore could not be brought to tax.The contentio...
Laxmidas Devidas Kapadia Vs. Mathuradas Dwarkadas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1955
Reported in: (1955)57BOMLR1118
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. This is one of those usual applications which seek to extend the time granted by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court for making a deposit in a summary suit. The only difference between this application and others is that it is a little more ingenious than the others we have dealt with in the past.2. A civil revision application was preferred to this Court under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code challenging an order made by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court in a summary suit on a promissory note directing that the petitioner should make a deposit of Rs. 9, 500 by a certain date. The civil revision application was admitted by Mr. Justice Shah and the application came up for final hearing before Mr. Justice Bavdekar. At that stage the petitioner contended that he challenged the rules framed by this Court under which the provisions of Order XXXVII were made applicable to the City Civil Court and his contention was that these rules were ultra vires as...
Madholal Sindhu Vs. Asian Assurance Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-1955
Reported in: (1954)56BOMLR147
1. Balkrishna Bhagwan Deshmukh, however, had no personal knowledge of the events that happened on or about July 10, 1940. He had been merely the sub-accountant in the head office of the bank at that time and was duly concerned with the writing of the books of account of the bank. An attempt was, however, made by Mr. Somjee to prove through this witness the various documents consisting of letters and documents executed by Jamnadas in favour of the bank and also the resolutions of the executive committee of the bank and the letters addressed by the bank to Nissim by proving the handwriting in which all the same purported to have been written. The attempt was obviously to prove the handwriting of these various documents without calling in evidence the persons who had written the same or who were acquainted with the contents thereof so that they might not be subjected to cross-examination at the hands of the counsel for the Official Assignee.2. The witnesses who could have proved those doc...
Shiv Omkar Maheshwari Vs. Bansidhar Jagannath
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom459; (1956)58BOMLR3; ILR1956Bom100
Gajendragadkar, J.1. On 26-4-1951 the appellant had applied to the City Civil Court for setting aside an award No. 19 of 1951 made against him. Pending the said application, the respondent had applied on 10-9-1951 for extension of time to make the award. The two proceedings were consolidated and on 20-6-1955 the learned trial Judge allowed the respondent's application for extension of time and dismissed the petitioner's application for setting aside the award. It is against this order that the present appeal has been preferred.2. Both the appellant and the respondent were and are members of the East India Chamber of Commerce. It appears that this association had established a market or Exchange for effecting forward transactions inter alia in silver pieces. Consistently with the Articles of Association, Bye-laws were framed to regulate the transactions effected by members of the association in the said Exchange in respect of several commodities including silver pieces.In about January ...
Sadu Yesu Vs. Ganpat Laxman and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom672
ORDER1. A suit filed by the plaintiff against the petitioner and two others under Section 19(1) (a), Mamlatdars Courts Act was dismissed by the Mamlatdar on the ground that the plaintiff had not shown that he was in possession of the land. Statutory issues required to be framed under Section 19(1) were found upon by the Mamlatdar against the plaintiff and in favour of the petitioner. The plaintiff's revisional application was, however, allowed by the District Deputy Collector, who answered the statutory issues in favour of the plaintiff. That is why defendant No. 2 has come to this Court In revision.2. It appears that the District Deputy Collector set aside the order passed by the Mamlatdar on two grounds. The District Deputy Collector did not agree with the Mamlatdar's appreciation of evidence and so he thought that it was open to him to consider the evidence afresh and come to his own conclusions on questions of fact. The validity of this course has been challenged before me by Mr. A...
Brijmohan Lakshminarayan Vs. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax, Bomba ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-15-1955
Reported in: [1956]30ITR350(Bom)
Chagla, C.J. 1. This reference arises out of the excess profits tax assessment. The assessee carries on business in cloth, cotton, bullion, seeds, etc. at Kalbadevi Road and he also carries on business in the Share Bazar in shares and securities, and the question that arose for determination for the Tribunal was whether the interest received by the assessee from shares and securities which were entered to excess profits tax. 2. With regard to shares, the position was that certain shares were transferred from the Kalbadevi shop to the Share Bazar shop, and therefore the assessee gave up his contention with regard to dividends received on those shares, but with regard to the securities which entered in the books of account of the Kalbadevi shop the assessee maintained the position that the interest received on those securities could not be assessed to excess profits tax, and the Tribunal merely records its opinion that interest from Government securities clearly stands on the same footin...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »