Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1962]46ITR236(Bom)
V.S. Desai, J.1. The questions, which have been referred to us on this reference, arise on an application which was made by the assessee under section 27 of the Income-tax Act for cancelling the ex parte assessment and for making a fresh assessment order under section 23. His application was rejected by the Income-tax Officer and the decision of the Income-tax Officer has been confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and also by the Tribunal. The assessee is a firm of four partners with equal shares manufacturing and selling bidis at Nasik. For the assessment year 1952-53 for which the corresponding accounting year was Samvat year 2007, the assessee submitted a return of its total income on 19th February, 1953. Thereafter notices under sections 22(4) and 23(2) for the production of the assessee's books of accounts and explaining the return were issued to the firm by the Income-tax Officer and as many as sixteen adjournments were given for the purpose at the request of the asse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1962Bom4; (1961)63BOMLR552
1. The plaintiffs, who are Christians by religion, have filed the present suit for partition of certain properties belonging to the estate of one Alex Texeira. They have also in one of the prayers in the plaint stated that if necessary the estate of the deceased Alex be administered by and under the directions of this Court. By paragraph 1 of the plaint the plaintiffs have alleged that on or about 15th November, 1898 one Alex Texeira died intestate in Bombay leaving him surviving as his only heirs and next of kin according to law his widow Anna, three sons and two daughters by the said Anna. They have further alleged that the deceased Alex Texeira left immoveable properties mentioned in Ex. A to the plaint and that upon the death of the said deceased the said Anna and his three sons and two daughters became entitled to the said estate in shares mentioned in that paragraph. In several paragraphs of the plaint thereafter the deaths of some of the heirs of Alex Texeira have been referred ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1961]41ITR313(Bom)
V.S. Desai, J.1. In this reference, which the Tribunal has made to us under section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, the point in dispute is whether the receipt of the sale proceeds of the trees standing on the grasslands of the assessee for a number of years and which have been uprooted and bodily removed is capital or revenue is nature. 2. The assessee is the Raja Saheb of Miraj, who owned about 10 square miles of grasslands. On these lands there were a large number of trees which had grown spontaneously and had stood for a number of years. In the accounting year 1948-49 the assessee sold these trees by four auctions. According to the conditions of the auction, the purchaser was to pay in lump sum the amount for which he had bid at the auction. The purchase price was, however, realised by installments over a period of time so as to suit the convenience of the purchasers. There was also a term of the auction under which the purchaser was to uproot the trees and remove the roots fr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1960)62BOMLR692; [1960]40ITR210(Bom)
S.T. Desai, J.1. This reference raises some interesting questions and it came up for hearing before Chagla, C.J., and myself on 19th March, 1958. As we shall presently point out, we decided one of the two questions and gave certain directions as to question (2) and required a supplementary statement of the case from the Tribunal The reference has once again come up for hearing before this court. 2. The assessee is a bank which went into liquidation on 21st April, 1947. The assessment year with which we are concerned is 1948-49, and the liquidator made a return of the income of the bank for that year and in his return he claimed bad debts aggregating to Rs. 38,35,689. The liquidator also claimed as business expenditure an amount of Rs. 10,15,000, which represented a defalcation committed by M. C. Javeri, the bank's secretary, in respect of certain banking transactions. He also claimed as business expenditure a sum of Rs. 98,892, which represented another defalcation committed by the ban...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1961Bom130; (1961)63BOMLR44; ILR1960Bom841
1. On 21-12-1956 a consignment of 60 barrels of til oil was despatched from Belonganj station near Agra to the plaintiff at Akola who had purchased the oil from the Arjun Oil Mills, Agra. The consignment was booked under railway receipt No. 9774/56 dated 21-12-56, at Ex. D-3. The consignment was 'to self but the consignor, the Arjun Oil Mills, 'endorsed the receipt in favour of the plaintiff. The consignment was at 'owner's risk' rates and on the receipt was the following endorsement:'Loaded by sender and unloaded by sender. Drums old and dented'.The consignment travelled via Jhansi and Itarsi to Akola to which destination it was booked. It was received at Akola on 30-12-56 and when delivery was taken on behalf of the plaintiff, about three barrels were found to have been leaking and therefore open delivery was asked for. Upon weighment it was found that there was a shortage of 6 maunds and 24 seers in weight in the consignment. The plaintiff, after giving a notice, therefore, sued the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1962]45ITR275(Bom)
S.T. Desai, J.1. The assessee company was incorporated in the former Baroda State and it was at all material times a non-resident company. It carries on business of manufacturing acids and dyeing yarn and inter alia purchases yarn, dyes it and then sells the same. The assessment years are 1941-42 and 1942-43 (calendar years 1940 and 1941). During the C. Y. 1940, relevant for the assessment year 1941-42, the assessee company effected sales of dyed yarn of the total value of Rs. 14,22,996. The dispute between the assessee company and the Revenue relates to Rs. 9,53,304 in respect of goods sold by the assessee to British Indian merchants. In the calendar year 1941, relevant for the assessment year 1942-43, the total sales of the assessee company came to Rs. 19,22,107 and of that, the dispute between the assessee and the Revenue is in respect of a sum of Rs. 6,04,588 relating to sales effected to merchants in British India. Statements were filed by the assessee when the original statement ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1960)62BOMLR722
ORDER(1) A decree passed in favour of one Tukaram and against defendants 2 and 3 was set aside as against defendant No. 3 only under O. 9, R, 13, Civil Procedure Code, by the Civil Judge, Yeotmal. But while setting waside the decree as against defendant No. 3 only, no order was passed as regards the decree as against the other defendants. Defendant No. 2 then made an application under Section 151, C. P. C. and also for review under Order 47, rule 1, to the successor of the Judge Mr. Kolhekar, held that the decree proceeded on the grounds common to defendants 2 and 3 and that it should have been set aside against all the defendants i.e. defendants 2 and 3, under the proviso to Order 9, rule 13, but he held that although the order pased by his predessor was contrary to the proviso, he had no juridication to correc that illegality on a review, because illegality of cause for review under O. 47, R. 1, C. P. C. He therefore rejected the application of defenant No. 2 who has now come in revi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1961)63BOMLR41
Kotval, J.1. The judgment in this civil revision application shall also govern the disposal of Civil Revision Application No. 557 of 1959. Both these civil revision applications raise a common question of some importance. In both the cases, the landlords have filed suits for recovery of arrears of rent.2. Civil Suit No. 55 of 1959 out of which arises C.R.A. No. 556 of 1959 was for recovery of rent of two fields Nos. 46 and 38/2 of mouza Sukali, tahsil Murtkapur. Field No. 46 has a land revenue of Rs. 28 fixed and field No. 38/2, Rs. 15. The plaintiffs who cannot now under law claim more than ten times the amount of the yearly land revenue as their rent have confined their claim to that amount in both the suits. Thus in respect of field No. 46, they have claimed rent at ten times the annual land revenue (28X10 = 280) for three years, namely, 1955-56, 1956-57 and 1957-58, that is to say, Rs. 840. In respect of field No. 38/2, they have claimed rent at ten times the annual land revenue (1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1961)63BOMLR442
Datar, J.1. These three appeals arise out of three suits instituted by three different plaintiffs against the same defendant, the State of Bombay. They have been heard together and the principal points raised and argued before us are common to them; accordingly they will be disposed of by one judgment which will be delivered in F. A. No. 172 of 1956.2. F.A. No. 172 of 1956 is preferred by the State of Bombay against the decree passed in favour of the plaintiff, Dr. Raghunath Balkrishna Chandrachud, in Special Suit No. 46 of 1952.3. On March 14, 1925, Dr. Chandrachud was taken up in the former Baroda State Service as Principal Medical Officer of the State General Hospital and Chief Medical Officer of the State on an initial pay of Rs. 1,000 per month. The post on which he was appointed was the post of public service in the State. In January 1927, he was confirmed in his office and became a permanent member of the State Public Service. From April 3, 1945, his pay was increased to Rs. 2,0...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1961Bom123; (1961)63BOMLR40; ILR1960Bom834
ORDER1. The plaintiff-opponent filed a suit for possession of an open site alleged to have been purchased by him from the defendants-applicants. It was alleged that the plaintiff purchased the suit site on 19-6-1946 but that the plaintiff was dispossessed by the defendants in 1952. The defence was that the site in suit was not the site sold. The taking of forcible possession was also denied. On 9-11-1957 the parties applied to the trial Court that the matter in dispute should be referred to arbitration. Upon their agreement, the matter was referred to the arbitration of one Anandrao Chandrabhanji. This person, it may be mentioned here, was a witness in the suit on behalf of the plaintiff. The arbitrator made an award which the defendants challenged on the ground of the arbitrator's misconduct. Various allegations of misconduct were made but all the allegations going to show personal misconduct on the part of the arbitrator have been negatived. Both the Courts below have, however, found...
Tag this Judgment!