Mumbai Court March 1956 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.
Sohrab N. Tavaria Vs. Jafferali G. Padamsee
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-1956
Reported in: (1956)58BOMLR680
Gajendragadkar, J. 1. These two revisional applications raise a point of limitation under Section 8 Sub-section (2), of the Bombay Rent Control Act, VII of 1944. This question arises in this way. Three suits had been originally filed by the plaintiff against his tenants for ejectment and for arrears of rent and compensation from May 1, 1952, to January 31, 1954, and for mesne profits for the period subsequent thereto until possession was given to him. The property let out to the defendants is known as 'Candy Castle' and it is situated opposite the Strand Cinema at Colaba. The claim for rent and compensation was resisted by the defendants on the ground that they had paid an amount of Rs. 10,000 each in two suits and Rs. 11,000 in one suit as premia to the plaintiff and' that they were entitled to deduct the said amounts out of the rent payable by them to the plaintiff. By consent the three suits were tried together since they raised common questions of fact and law. The learned trial Ju...
Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City Vs. Shirinbai K. Kooka
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Bom586; (1956)58BOMLR709; ILR1956Bom693; [1956]30ITR753(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. The question submitted to us in this reference should have really presented no difficulty but for a recent decision of the Supreme Court reported in 'Kikabhai Premchand v. Commr. of Income-tax' : [1954]1SCR219 , which has been very strenuously relied upon by the Advocate General as supporting his contention.The assessee who is a woman purchased shares for investment and on 1-4-1945 she converted these shares into her stock-in-trade and carried on a business in shares. Some of these shares were sold in the assessment year 1947-43, and the question that had to be considered was how was the profit of the assessee to be ascertained with regard to the price realised by her on the sale of these shares? Was the profit to be ascertained on a difference between the price realised and the price at which she had originally bought these shares, or the difference between the price realised and the market price ruling on 1-4-1945 when these shares were converted into stock-in-trade?2....
Madhavlal Sindhoo Vs. V.R. Idurkarand anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1956
Reported in: [1956]30ITR332(Bom)
1. This is a petitions for a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ in a matter arising under the Income-tax Act. The facts leading up to this petition are not in dispute and I shall state them succinctly. 2. The petitioner was served with a notice dated 23rd March, 1949, under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act by the Income-tax Officer, Calcutta. It was stated in the notice the Income-tax Officer had reasons to believe that the income of the petitioner for the assessment year 1944-45 had escaped assessment and therefore it was proposed to reassess the income of petitioner. The Petitioner was required to deliver a return to the Income-tax Officer within 35 days from the receipt of that notice. An enquiry was held in pursuance of that notice. The Income-tax Officer, Calcutta, by an order made on 1st August, 1949, decided the case in favour of the petitioner. Another similar notice dated 9th March, 1953, was issued under the same section by the Income-tax Officer, A-V wa...
The State of Bombay Vs. S.L. Apte
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-1956
Reported in: (1956)58BOMLR578
Gajendragadkar, J.1. This appeal raises an interesting question of law under Section 26 of the General Clauses Act and Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. The question arises in this way: The two respondents were tried for an offence under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 105 of the Indian Insurance Act in Criminal Case No. 82 of 1953. They were both convicted and sentenced for both the said offences. When the order of conviction and sentence imposed on them by the learned trial Magistrate was challenged before the learned Sessions Judge at Poona in Criminal Appeal No. 77 of 1954, the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the order of conviction under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code but set aside the order of conviction under Section 105 of the Indian Insurance Act. He held that the proceedings instituted against them under Section 105 were invalid and incompetent in the absence of a complaint as required by the said Act. Thereafter the State obtained sanction f...
indramani Pyerelal Gupta and ors. Vs. W.R. Natu and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Bom518
Chagla, C.J.1. By the petition which was dismissed by Coyajee, J. the appellants challenged an amendment effected by the Central Government in by-law 52AA of the By-laws of the East India Cotton Association Ltd. on 21-1-1956 and a notification issued by the Forward Markets Commission on 24-1-1956. By this notification hedge contracts for February delivery were closed at Rs. 700/-and for May delivery at Rs. 686/8/- with effect from 25-1-1953.The petitioners have entered into hedge contracts for both these deliveries and by the petition they souhgt an order upon the respondents who are members of the Forward Markets Commission to cancel the said notification and not to fake any steps in enforcement of the said notification.2. A little background to the points which arise for decision in the petition is perhaps necessary and therefore a few facts may be stated. On 22-12-1955 Government issued a directive to the East India Cotton Association to prevent the price of cotton rising beyond Rs....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›