Mumbai Court October 1961 Judgments
Jaiprakash Mangilal Agarwal Vs. Lilabai and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-31-1961
Reported in: AIR1963Bom100; (1962)64BOMLR322; ILR1962Bom417
Naik, J. 1. This appeal raises some interesting questions under Hindu Law. The circumstances leading to this appeal may be briefly set out as follows; Sitaram Agarwal of Arvi owned considerable property, both moveable and immoveable. He adopted one Kisanlal as a son. After the adoption of Kisanlal, a son named Mangilal was born to him from his wife Parubai. After the death of Sitaram in 1914, his two sons Kisanlal and Mangilal succeeded to the property by right of survivorship. They continued to enjoy the property as coparceners till 1938. In that year, there was a partition between Kisanlal and Mangilal and, in that partition, Kisanlal was awarded 1/4th share and Mangilal 3/4th share in the joint family property. Mangilal got 13 malguzari villages and lands to the tune of about 1600 acres in addition to cash and moveable of considerable value. Mangilal had two wives, Saraswatibai and Trivcnibai. A daughter was born to Mangilal from Saraswatibai, called Durgabai. Saraswatibai died on 1...
Tag this Judgment!Damodar Krishnaji Nirgude Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay South
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-30-1961
Reported in: [1962]46ITR1252(Bom)
Tambe, J.1. This is a reference under sub-section (1) of section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The assessee is an individual. The year with which we are concerned is the assessment year 1956-57, the accounting year being S.Y. 2011 (period October 27, 1954, to November 14, 1955). The assessee had been in the prior fifteen to twenty years assessed as an individual in respect of the entire property which was his self-acquired property. The property consists of both moveables and immoveables including shares in certain partnership firms. By the deed dated 29th of November, 1954, the assessee declared that he had thrown all his self-acquired properties in to the common hotchpot of a Hindu undivided family consisting of himself, his wife and a minor son. The deed further effected a partition between the assessee, his wife and his minor son, allotting certain property out of the aforesaid properties thrown into the hotchpot to their separated shares. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Tulsiram Sitaram and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-27-1961
Reported in: AIR1963Bom1; 1963CriLJ44; ILR1962Bom404
ORDER1. Tulsiram s/o. Sitaram, a ferry contractor, of village Tamaswadi, and his two servants Koudu and Shripat, have filed this revision application against their conviction under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, confirmed by the Sessions Judge. The applicant Tulsiram issentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50/- and applicants Koudu and Shripat are sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four months and a fine of Rs. 25/- each. Imprisonment in default of payment of fine has also been imposed. 2. On the two banks of river Kanhan are villages Tamaswadi and Potaghat. For the people of Tamaswadi to come to Nagpur they have to cross the river in boats. Ferry service is provided by licensed ferry owners under the control of the Janpad Sabha, Ramtek. The applicant Tulsiram was so licensed to provide ferry service between these two points in the year 1959. He held licence for this purpose from 1-6-1959 to 30-9-1959. The Janpad authorities made rules for issue of...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i Vs. Ramnath A. Podar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-27-1961
Reported in: [1963]47ITR423(Bom)
Tambe, J.1. This is a reference under sub-section (1) of section 66 of the Income-tax Act. The assessee is Shri Ramnath A. Podar, sole surviving executor of the will of Seth Anandilal Bansidhar Podar. We are concerned with the assessment years 1947-48 to 1956-57. 2. One Anandilal Bansidhar Podar died testate on 6th May, 1940, leaving behind him two sons, Ramdev and Ramnath. He had left a will of date 18th March, 1940, and considerable property. It appears that Anandilal (whom we would hereafter refer as the testator) had, during his lifetime, lost his wife and two sons by name, Rambilas and Ramniranjan. The testator, with a view of obtaining spiritual benefit to his late wife, his late sons and himself, made certain dispositions by his will and they are contained in paragraph 11 of the will. The directions given by the testator in paragraph 11 are : That one lakh of rupees each for his deceased wife and two deceased sons be set apart for being spent towards charitable objects. He furth...
Tag this Judgment!Jairam Parmar Vs. Sales Tax Officer Nagpur, Circle Ii, Nagpur and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-27-1961
Reported in: 1962(64)BLJR2476; [1962]13STC477(Bom)
Kotval, J.1. On 22nd May, 1957, the petitioner was assessed to sales tax for the period between 7th November, 1953, and 26th November, 1954, in regard to his turnover as a registered dealer in sanitary goods. By the same order a penalty of Rs. 2,000 was levied on him. He was assessed to sales tax of Rs. 8,888-0-9 on a 'best judgment assessment' made under section 11(4) of the C.P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 (XXI of 1947) (hereafter referred to as the Sales Tax Act). The petitioner appealed but the appeal failed because he did not deposit the amount of sales tax ordered to be deposited. The appeal was dismissed on the short ground that the petitioner failed to make the deposit. That dismissal took place on 9th December, 1957. In a revision before the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeals), Eastern Division, the assessment was revised and the petitioner was saddled with sales tax amounting to Rs. 6,657-74 nP. The penalty was likewise reduced, and a penalty of only Rs. 1,500 was...
Tag this Judgment!Devu Rau Chavan Vs. Jasingrao Narayanrao Ghorpade
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-27-1961
Reported in: (1962)64BOMLR97
H.K. Chainani, C.J. 1. The dispute in this application is about survey Nos. 193 and 194. These lands belong to opponent No. 1. When he was a minor, his estate was under the management of the Court of Wards. In 1948 the Court of Wards leased the lands for a period of ten years to petitioner No. 1. Opponent No. 2 stood as a surety for petitioner No. 1. In 1949 opponent No. 1 attained majority. Subsequently petitioner No. 1 took the assistance of opponent No. 2 in cultivating the lands. There arose a dispute between petitioner No. 1 and opponent No. 2 as to whether they were in joint possession of the entire lands. According to petitioner No. 1, he had taken opponent No. 2 as a partner for cultivating the lands. Opponent No. 2's case, on the other hand, was that half of the lands had been sub-let to him by petitioner No. 1 and that he was in exclusive vahivat of half of these lands. Since 1950-51 opponent No. 2 was shown along with petitioner No. 1 as a tenant in the record of rights. On ...
Tag this Judgment!Manilal Manekji (Private) Ltd. Vs. Municipal Committee, Malkapur and a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-26-1961
Reported in: AIR1963Bom3; (1962)64BOMLR471; ILR1962Bom508
Kotval, J. In this petition is challenged a notice demanding the bales and bojas tax by the Municipal Committee, Malkapur, from the petitioner Manilal Manekji (Private) Limited of Malkapur. The impugned notice demands the taxes as follows : S. No.Name of wardAmount of all years PaidUnpaidProcessFeeTotal dueName of serverDate ofserviceDate of server's return12345678910 181956-57Rs. 250/-43.18nP0.50nP Ukhandi Patil. 1957-58Rs. 250/-1323.50nP 1958-59Rs. 250/-2207.25nP 1959-60Rs.979.37nP 1960-61Rs.1995.37nP Total6548.68nP 6549.18nP 2. No doubt, in the petition itself various other demands of the opponent Committee against the petitioner have been referred to and their amounts mentioned and some grounds also raised; but in the arguments before us Mr. Mandlekar on behalf of the petitioner has confined himself to the demand of the tax by the notice of demand dated 12-12-1960 at annexure A. In their return the Committee have admitted that in regard to the years in question for which, the notic...
Tag this Judgment!Namdeo Govind and ors. Vs. Mumtaz Begum
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-26-1961
Reported in: AIR1964Bom101; (1962)64BOMLR467; ILR1962Bom397
1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff as the alienee from one of tie coparceners against the coparceners and the members of the joint Hindu family for general partition. The material tacts are set out below: Govinda nad a wife Kashibai and four sons, saknaram, Namdeo, Hanmant and Bhanuaas. On 20-3-1940, Govinda passed a sale- deed in respect of house No. 101 in favour of the plaintiff tor a sum of Rs. 795/-. Tne four sons of Govinda filed a suit, (Civil Suit No. 94-A of 1951), against the original plaintiff for possession of the sun house alter setting aside the alienation effected by the father. Govinda was a party to the suit. The suit was decreed on 3-5-1951 and the plaintiff preferred civil appeal No. 51-A of 1951. Tne appeal came to be dismissed on 6-9-1952. Exhibit P-1 is a copy of tha judgment in that appeal. While dismissing the appeal am appellate court allowed four months time to the plaintiff for vacating the premises. The appellate Court suggested that,...
Tag this Judgment!Jadavji Narsidas and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-26-1961
Reported in: [1963]47ITR411(Bom)
Tambe, J. 1. In compliance with the requisition of this court under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, the Tribunal has drawn up a statement of the case and referred the following two questions to us : '1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in disallowing the sum of Rs. 2,23,162 (rupees two lakhs twenty-three thousand one hundred and sixty-two) which was claimed as a bad and irrecoverable debt 2. Whether on the facts of the case the debt of Rs. 2,23,162 (rupees two lakhs twenty-three thousand one hundred and sixty-two) became in law a bad debt in S. Y. 2004 ?' 3. We are here concerned with the assessment year 1949-50, relevant account year being S. Y. 2004, i.e., the period November 13, 1947, to November 1, 1948. The assessee is a partnership firm, carrying on extensive forward business in several commodities including bullion. The forward business in gold and silver is carried under the name and style of Messrs. Jaswantlal Ja...
Tag this Judgment!Keshavji Morarji and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City- ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-26-1961
Reported in: [1963]47ITR418(Bom)
V.S. Desai, J.1. Two questions have been referred to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act and they are as follows : '(1) Whether on the facts of the case the provisions of section 16(3) (a) (iv) are applicable to the two trusts created by Keshavji Morarji and Jaysingh Keshavji both on February 22, 1952 and (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the creation of a trust by the assessee in favour of his minor grand-children, concurrently with there creation of a trust by the assessee's son in favour of the assessee's daughters, constitutes an indirect transfer of assets to his children, for the purposes of section 16(3) (iv) of the Act ?' 2. The assessee, Keshavji Morarji, transferred a sum of Rs. 5,00,000 to his son Jaysinh, on the 14th of June, 1952. Thereafter, on the 22nd of February, 1954, Keshavji made a settlement of Rs. 4,41,000 in favour of his minor grandchildren, who were the son and daughter r...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »