Mumbai Court March 1957 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.
Motiram Mesaji MaraThe Vs. Mankarnikabai Baliram Marathe
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1957
Reported in: (1957)59BOMLR714
Gokhale, J.1. In this appeal a point of law has been raised on a preliminary objection as to whether the appeal abates as a whole in view of thefact that the present respondent No. 2 Anusuya died sometime in December 1955 and the appellant has not brought her heirs on the record within time. It appears that on February 19 last this appeal came up for hearing before Mr. Justice Mudholkar, and at the request of Mr. D.T. Mangalmurti, the learned advocate for the appellant, it was adjourned for a fortnight to enable him to take steps to bring on record the legal representatives of Anusuya, and the order further stated that if no steps were taken, the appeal should be put up for hearing on the Board. When this appeal came on for hearing Mr. Jakatdar, the learned advocate who appears for respondent No. 1, has raised a preliminary objection that the appeal cannot proceed because it has abated as a whole as Anusuyabai's legal representatives have not been brought on record. This preliminary ob...
P.N. Films Ltd. and anr. Vs. Overseas Films Corporation Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom10; (1957)59BOMLR406; ILR1957Bom520
Chagla, C.J. 1. An interesting point, which does not seem to have been covered by a decision of any High Court so far, arises on this appeal. The respondents filed a summary suit against the appellants on the 1st July 1955 and the summons was served on 1st September 1955. The appellants failed to file an appearance and a decree was passed on 16th September 1955. The decree was sealed on 17th November 1955 and a copy of the decree was served upon the appellants on 24th November 1955. On 3rd December 1955 the appellants took out a notice of motion to set aside the decree and Mr. Justice Coyajee dismissed that motion taking the view that the notice of motion was barred by limitation.2. Now, if limitation begins to run from the date of the decree, viz., 16th September 1955, and Art. 164 of the Limitation Act applies, then prima facie the notice of motion is barred by limitation. Mr. Gauba wanted to argue that limitation begins to run not from 16thSeptember 1955 when the decree was passed, ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City - I, Bombay Vs. Army and Navy ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom23
Chagla, C.J.1. The question raised in this reference lies in a very narrow compass. Under Section 10 of the Indian Finance Act, 1942, an option was given to an assessee who became liable to pay excess profits tax to make a deposit of one-fifth of the amount of the excess profits tax; and if he did so, he became entitled to be refunded one-tenth of the amount of the excess profits tax or one half of the said deposit, whichever was less. There was a proviso to this section and the proviso was that in respect of any profits which were also liable to assessment to excess profits tax under the law in force in the United Kingdom, it was unnecessary to make the deposit. In other words, an assesses who was liable to have his excess profits taxassessed in the United Kingdom had the benefit of the refund provided by Section 10 (1) without incurring the obligation to make the deposit provided by that section. Now this voluntary deposit contemplated by Section 10 (1) was made obligatory by clause ...
State of Bombay Vs. Bai Moti and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom18; (1957)59BOMLR663; ILR1958Bom547
Dixit, J.1. These are several applications which raise a common question under Section 31 of the Court-fees Act, 1870. In order to understand the question, it is sufficient to state the facts in C. R. A. No. 1116 of 1956.2. In regular suit No. 202 of 1954 the parties to the suit arrived at a compromise and a consent decree was taken. This was after the issues were settled, but before the evidence was recorded. The plaintiffs, relying on Section 31, claimed a refund of half the amount of Court-fees and the learned Judge issued notice to the Government Pleader. The Government Pleader objected, contending that as in this case the consent decree was taken after the issues were settled, the plaintiffs were not entitled to claim half the amount of Court-fees. The learned Judge allowed the plaintiffs the refund of the Court-fees as claimed, and the Slate of Bombay has come up in revision.3. Now, Section 31, by Sub-section (1), provides:'When any suit in a Court is settled by agreement of part...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City I Vs. Army and Navy Stores Ltd ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-1957
Reported in: (1957)59BOMLR518; [1957]31ITR959(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. The question raised in this reference lies in a very narrow compass. Under section 10 of the Indian Finance Act, 1942, an option was given to an assessee who became liable to pay excess profits tax to make a deposit of one-fifth of the amount of the excess profits tax; and, if he did so, he became entitled to be refunded one-tenth of the amount of the excess profits tax or one-half of the said deposit, whichever was less. There was a proviso to this section and the proviso was that in respect of any profits which were also liable to assessment to excess profits tax under the law in force in the United Kingdom, it was unnecessary to make the deposit. In other words, an assessee who was liable to have his excess profits tax assessed in the United Kingdom had the benefit of the refund profits by section 10 (1) without incurring the obligation to make the deposit provided by that section. Now this voluntary deposit contemplated by section 10 (1) was made obligatory by clause...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›