Mumbai Court September 1956 Judgments
Karbhari Vithoba Vs. Anusuya Karbhari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-1956
Reported in: AIR1958Bom425; (1957)59BOMLR116; ILR1957Bom353
Shah, J. 1. This revision application raises a question about the court-fee payable on a petition filed under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, XXV of 1955.2. The Court-fees Act as amended by Bombay Act XII of 1054 prescribes by Section 7 read with Schedule I, Article 1 that on plaints, written-statements, pleadings, or set-off or counter-claims or memoranda of appeals or of cross-objections presented to any Civil or Revenue Court, court-fee ad valorem depending upon the value of the subject-matter of the suit shall be paid. Schedule II Article 1 prescribes court-fee payable on applications or petitions of different categories. Clause (b) prescribes a fixed court-fee of ten annas on an application or petition when presented to a Civil Court, Schedule II, Article 17 prescribes a fixed court-fee for plaints in certain suits described therein. Clause (vii) of Article 17 prescribes a fixed court-fee for 'other suit where it is not possible to estimate at a money value the subject-matte...
Tag this Judgment!Laxman Dhondu Badgujar Vs. D.M. Paranjape
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-1956
Reported in: (1957)59BOMLR96
Shah, J. 1. The opponent obtained a decree on January 21, 1951, in suit No. 95 of 1951 of the file of the Civil Judge (J.D) at Chalisgaon directing the petitioners to pay Rs. 5,000 and costs of the suit with future interest on Rs. 4,000, by annual instalments of Rs. 705. The decree contained a default clause. The petitioners did not pay the instalments as directed by the decree. The opponent thereafter lodged an insolvency notice under Section 6-A of the Provincial Insolvency Act in the Court of the Civil Judge (S. D.), Jalgaon, on May 3, 1954, in the form prescribed by rules framed by this Court under Section 79 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. The notice was duly served upon the petitioners. The petitioners appeared in answer to the notice and contended that the decree was not enforceable and the notice was liable to be set aside. The learned Civil Judge rejected the contentions raised and by his judgment dated October 11, 1954, made the notice absolute. On October 22, 1954, the opp...
Tag this Judgment!Sitaram Dhaku Chawan Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1956
Reported in: AIR1958Bom439; (1957)59BOMLR39; 1958CriLJ1380; ILR1957Bom114
Dixit, J.1. The case from which this appeal arises was tried by Mr. B.C. Vakil, Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, with the aid of a jury of 9. Two accused persons, Sitaram Dhaku Chavan and Keshav Shankar, were charged with having committed an offence of murder of one Kisan Shankar under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Keshav was also charged with having committed an offence of hurt having been caused by him to Govind Shankar, brother of Kisan, an offence punishable under Section 324 of the Code. At the end of the trial, the jury returned in favour of the two accused persons an unanimous verdict of not guilty in respect of the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34. But the jury, by a majority verdict of 7 to 2, returned a verdict of guilty against accused No. 1 for an offence under Section 302. The jury returned an unanimous verdict of not guilty in favour of accused No. 2 in respect of the charge under Section 324. The learned Judge accepted ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramdas Popat Patil Vs. Fakira Pandu Patil and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1956
Reported in: AIR1959Bom19; (1957)59BOMLR46
Bavdekar, J. 1. The land in the present application under Article 227 originally belong to one Dhana Supadu. He created two mortgages upon it in the year 1928, the first a morgage in favour of one Madhav Martand, and then a morgage in favour of one Rajmal Lakhichand. We will not be concerned with the second mortgage in the present case. Madhav Martand sued upon his own mortgage in suit No. 511 of 1928 joining as parties to it Rajmal and the original mortgagor. Rajmal himself purchased the property pendente lite in the year 1932. Subsequently on 10.4.1935 Madhav obtained a decree for sale upon the first mortgage, and in execution of the decree brought the mortgaged property to sale. The application for execution was made in the year 1938, and while it was still pending--it is not quite clear whether in the year 1939 or 1940-41 -- Rajmal let the property to opponent No. 1. Subsequently in that application for execution made by Madhav, the property was sold on 17-3-1953, and the petitione...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Balasaheb Baburao Shirke
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Bom243; (1957)59BOMLR36; 1957CriLJ1236; ILR1957Bom291
Shah, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of acquittal passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Satara, in Criminal Case No. 949 of 1955. The accused Balasaheb Baburao Shirke was charged before the learned Magistrate for offence under Section 42(1) read with Section 133 and under Sections 22(1) and 38(1) read with Section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It was the case of the prosecution that the accused, who was a driver of motor vehicle No. BMW 3134, drove the vehicle with six adults and two children from Parali to Satara, a distance of seven miles, having agreed to receive from each of the passengers six annas as fore for the journey and had thereby contravened the provisions of Section 42(1) read with Section 123 and Sections 22(1) and 38(1) read with Section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act. At the trial, three witnesses were examined for the prosecution. They were J.S. Ankale, a Survey Mamlatdar, Pandurang Shantaram Karkhanis, resident of Satara, who had gone to Parali, an...
Tag this Judgment!Dinkar Bhagwant Salekar Vs. Rau Babaji Mahamulkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-1956
Reported in: (1957)59BOMLR101
Bavdekar, J.1. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution made by one Dinkar, who has purchased from one Bhiku his mirashi rights in property ; redeemed a mortgage effected upon the property i.e. the mirashi rights on June 5, 1923, by Bhiku and his brother Rango, and then sued for possession the mortgagee's tenant Rau and obtained a decree for possession, and actual possession in execution of the decree on April 20, 1954, The original mortgagee was Khashaba, and he sold his mortgagee rights to one Sakharam in the year 1931-32. Sakharam let the property to Rau in the year 1934-35, since when Rau has been in possession of the property, till he was evicted in execution of a decree of the civil Court on April 20, 1954. When Rau was evicted by the civil Court on April 20, 1954, he made an application to the Mamlatdar under the provisions of Section 29 of the Bombay Tenancy Act claiming that he was, as a tenant, entitled to the possession of the property and he should be pu...
Tag this Judgment!Vishwanath Gopal Oil Mill Vs. S.C. Prashar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-1956
Reported in: [1957]32ITR344(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. Respondent No. 1 served a notice upon the petitioners under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act dated January 5, 1956. The notice was served on January 13, 1956. By this notice the petitioners were asked to submit their return by February 17, 1956. The petitioners asked for extension of time and the final application for extension was made by them on March 15, 1956, and the time was extended upto March 29, 1956. On March 27, 1956, the petitioners wrote to respondent No. 1 challenging his jurisdiction to issue a notice or to assess them and this letter reached respondent No. 1 on March 31, 1956. Respondent No. 1 refused to entertain the application of the petitioners with regard to his jurisdiction on the ground that the jurisdiction was challenged beyond time, and on that the petitioners have come before us on this petition. 2. Section 64(1) of the Income-tax Act lays down which Income-tax Officer has to assess a particular assessee, and sub-section (3) of section 64...
Tag this Judgment!Vishwanath Gopal Oil Mill Vs. S.C. Prashar and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-1956
Reported in: AIR1958Bom459; (1957)59BOMLR1; ILR1957Bom157
Chagla, C.J.1. The first respondent served a notice upon the petitioners under Section 34 of the Indian Income Tax Act dated 5-1-1956. The notice was served on 13-1-1956. By this notice the petitioners were asked to submit their return by 17-2-1956. The petitioners asked for extention of time and the final application for extension was made by them on 15-3-1956 and the time was extended upto 29-3-1956. On 27-3-1956 the petitioners wrote to the first respondent challenging his jurisdiction to issue a notice or to assess them and this letter reached the first respondent on 31-3-1956. The first respondent refused to entertain the application of the petitioners with regard to his jurisdiction on the ground that the jurisdiction was challenged beyond time, and on that the petitioners have come before us on this petition.2. Section 64(1) of the Income Tax Act lays down which Income-tax Officer has to assess a particular assessee, and Sub-section (3) of Section 64 provides:''Where any questio...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Ii Vs. R.M. Raja
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-1956
Reported in: [1957]31ITR217(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. The assessee in the year of account carried on extensive business in oil, oil-crushing and banking, at Junagadh, Veraval and Shahpur all of which were India States at the relevant date. He also carried on business in Bombay an oil mill also carried on business in Bombay and he owned in Bombay an oil mill known as the Raja Oil Mills. The Tribunal has found as a fact that in the course of the banking business in the year of account there was a large flow of money to the tune of Rs. 30,00,000 in both directions, and the net result of this flow was that there was an excess of Rs. 2,907 in British India. The Income-tax Officer considered individual items of remittances from the Indian States into India, and he came to the conclusion that four items totalling to Rs. 1,85,000 were liable to be included in the total incomes of the assessee under section 4 (1) (b) (iii). In appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held, following the case reported in Commissioner of Income-tax...
Tag this Judgment!Machinery Manufacturers Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-ta ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-1956
Reported in: [1957]31ITR203(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. The assessee company was incorporated on the 15th May, 1946. After incorporation the business that the assessee company did was to sell in India certain textile spinning machinery made by H & B American Machine Co., of United States of America. There was also an arrangement with this American Company by which the assessee company was to manufacture these machines in India and sell them and for this purpose the assessee company set up a factory. The building of the factory was completed before the 31st March, 1950, the major portion of the plant and machinery was also installed in this factory, but the actual production of textile machinery was not started till four or five months after the 31st March, 1950. We are concerned with the year of account of the assessee company which ends on the 31st March 1950, and for that year of account the assessee company claimed initial depreciation within the meaning of section 10 (2) (vi) of the Income-tax Act. That depreciation was n...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »