Mumbai Court April 1958 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.
Tilokchand Nathmal Agarwal Vs. Ganpatdas Bhagwandas Bairagi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom98; (1958)60BOMLR1161; ILR1958Bom1412
1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal from the dismissal of his suit of the recovery of Rs. 1,577/- from the defendant.2. It is common ground that the plaintiff who was a tenant of a block in the house situate in Nagpur in which he ran a shop for selling brasswares. After a time, the plaintiff was forced to close his business and therefore he inducted the defendant on the premises under an agreement the terms of which have been set out fully in the judgment of the lower appellate Court. It is not necessary to reproduce all those terms except one and that is that the defendant was to be liable to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 101/- per month by way of his share in the profits of the shop which the defendant was going to run in that block.3. It is common ground that for the period in suit the defendant has not paid to the plaintiff any money in pursuance of this term and therefore the latter had to institute the suit out of which this second appeal arises.4. It was contended on beha...
Wasudeo Bhairulal Agarwal Vs. Ramchandra Rao Mahadeo Rao Joshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-08-1958
Reported in: (1958)60BOMLR1247
Mudholkar, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal from the dismissal of his claim for Rs. 40,000 and interest on foot of a mortgage executed in his favour by Mahadeorao, who was respondent No. 1 to this appeal and who died during the pendency of the appeal, and by respondents Nos. 2 and 3. Respondent No. 2 had executed the mortgage also in his capacity as guardian of his son, respondent No. 4, who was then a minor.2. According to the appellant, these respondents executed a mortgage deed in his favour for a consideration of Rs. 40,000 on February 27, 1946, that out of this a sum of Rs. 10,000 was paid by him to the respondents prior to the execution of the mortgage deed, that the balance of the amount was paid by a cheque to the respondents at the time of the registration of the mortgage deed, that the amount due under the deed was payable to him within eight months and that as it was not paid within that time he was entitled to recover the mortgage money together with interest at 6 per cent...
Sunder Dumanna Shetty Vs. K.D. Billimoria and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom346; (1958)60BOMLR1314
1. Sunder Dumanna Shetty, the petitioner herein, is the proprietor of an eating house and restaurant named Shauti Bhuvan Hindu Hotel, situate at Clark Road, Jacob Cirefe, Bombay, herein-after referred to as 'the hotel'. A licence had been issued to the petitioner under the provisions of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, being licence No. 970/EHL 1954-55 in respect of the said hotel. The said licence was renewed from time to time upto 31st March 1957. On 28th February 1957 the petitioner made an application for the renewal of the said licence for the year 1957-58. On 2nd August 1957 the Commissioner of Police, Bombay, issued a notice against the petitioner, stating that for the reasons set out in the said notice the Commissioner of Police proposed not to renew the said licence in favour of the petitioner and called upon the petitioner to show cause why such action would not be taken. The petitioner was required to appear before the Commissioner of Police on 9th August 1957 for that purpose. ...
Hiralal Amritalal Shah Vs. K.C. Thomas, 1st Income-tax Officer, M. War ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom268; (1958)60BOMLR1053; [1958]34ITR446(Bom)
Chagla, C.J. 1. By this petition a notice issued by the Income Tax Officer under Section 34 dated 27-3-1957 is being challenged. The notice is in respect of escaped income of Rule 47,595 for the assessment year 1944-45 and it is not disputed that the case falls under Section 34(1) (a).2. The contention of the petitioner is that this notice is bad because it has not complied with the two conditions laid down in the proviso to Section 34(1). In order to understand this contention we must take a historical view of the evolution of this section as far as limitation is concerned. Before the amendment of this section which was in force on 27-3-1957 the period of limitation of eight years was provided with regard to the issue of notices under Section 34(1)(a) nad a period of four years for cases falling under Section 34(1)(b). By the amendment the period of limitation was removed and the Legislature provided that if the case fell under Section 34(1)(a) a notice can be served at any time. But ...
Petlad Bulakhidas Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Raj Singl. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-1958
Reported in: (1958)60BOMLR1271
Chagla, C.J.(1) This petition raises a very short question as to the interpretation of the period of limitation provided under section 33A for the making of an application by the assessee for revision.(2) The appellate Assistant Commissioner made the order on the 9th January 1956. The order was served upon the assessee on the 27th January 1956, and the assessee made the application for revision under section 33A on the 25th January 1957. the period of limitation is one year form the date of the order or within such further period as the Commissioner may think fit to allow on being satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within that period, and the contention of the Department is that limitation begins to run from the date of the order viz., the 9th January 1956, and in as much as the application was made on the 25th January 1957 the application is out of time. On the other hand, the contention of the assessee is that limitation begins t...
Shantilal Rawji Vs. M.C. Nair, Iv Income-tax Officer, E Ward, Bombay, ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-1958
Reported in: [1958]34ITR439(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. This is a petition which has come before us as a result of the judgment delivered by us on the 26th June, 1957 in appeal No. 105 of 1956. The facts were briefly stated in the judgment but they may be recaptitualte here. 2. An assessment order was passed on 10th March, 1953, against the petitioner in respect of his income for the assessment year 1948-49. The total income assessed was Rs. 95,928 and on of the items of this income was a one-third share from Bombay Zone Works in respect of which a contract had been taken by the Joint Hindu family of which the assessee wa a coparcener. It appears that the assess had paid advance tax on his own estimate under section 18A and after the assessment order had been sassed, the Income-tax Officer discovered that penal interest amounting to Rs. 7,562-10-0 had not been charged to the assessee. The penal interest was due under section 18A(6) inasmuch as the assessee had not paid any advance tax in respect of the income of Rs. 49,808 sh...
Lalbhai Ghatabhai Vs. S.M. Kadri, Income-tax Officer, Circle Ii a
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-1958
Reported in: [1958]34ITR449(Bom)
Chagla, C.J. 1. Normally even in a very bad case, there is always something to be said for the Taxing Department. In this case nothing whatever can be said for the action they have taken. What is challenged by this petition is a notice issued under section 34 on the 27th March, 1957, for the assessment year 1948-49. This notice would only be valid if it fell under section 34(1)(a), and the contention of the Department is that the case of the assessee does fall under section 34(1)(a). 2. Now, the assessee is a firm which was registered by the Income-tax Department and it was assessed as a registered firm. It is not suggested by the Department that this firm omitted or failed to make a return or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment. What is urged by the Department is that they have now discovered that this is an illegal partnership and therefore they wish to assess not the partnership but the association of persons constituted by the partners. Now t...
Petlad Bulakhidas Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Raj Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-1958
Reported in: AIR1960Bom12; [1959]37ITR264(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. This petition raises a very short question as to the interpretation of the period of limitation provided under section 33A for the making of an application by the assessee for the making of an application by the assessee for revision. 2. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner made the order on January 9, 1956. The order was served upon the assessee on January 27, 1956, and the assessee made the application for revision under section 33A on January 25, 1957. The period of limitation is one year from the date of the order or within such further period as the Commissioner may think fit to allow on being satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within that period, and the contention of the Department is that limitation begins to run from the date of the order, viz., January 9, 1956, and inasmuch as the application was made on January 25, 1957, the application is out of time. On the other hand, the contention of the assessee is t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›