Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1924Bom325; (1924)26BOMLR155; 79Ind.Cas.1012
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This suit arises out of a contract by which the defendant Bank in Bombay agreed to purchase from the plaintiffs in Manchester fifty bales of American bleached yarn double 40 c. i.f. Bombay on certain terms. The contract itself is contained in two telegrams, viz., one dated December 17, 1919, despatched by the Bank to the plaintiffs at Manchester and the second despatched from Manchester by the plaintiffs on December 24, 1919.2. On December 24, 1919, the plaintiffs also wrote to the Bank in Bombay as follows:--We duly received your two telegrams of the 17th instant asking us to place sundry orders at the best possible prices, for which we thank you. We beg to confirm our cable informing you that we had placed.' [Then they set out the price of the goods.] 'We may say that we have booked these prices at the lowest possible prices and earliest shipment. In the present state of our market it is impossible to guarantee delivery, and it must be understood, in case ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1934Bom307; (1934)36BOMLR643
Divatia, J.1. This appeal arises in execution proceedings of a decree obtained by the present respondent against the appellants, who are the judgment-debtors. The decree was passed on November 24, 1923, for Rs. 5,550 in suit No. 973 of 1921. Two years later, another suit was filed by the present appellants against the respondent. That was suit No. 1169 of 1923 in which the appellants ultimately got a decree in their favour against the respondent on February 20, 1925. An appeal was filed against this latter decree by the present respondent on June 15, 1925, and that appeal was decided finally on January 27, 1930, by the appellate Court, which confirmed the trial Court's decree.2. Now, the events that led to this appeal arose in this way3. The present respondent filed his darkhast No. 70 of 1924 against the appellants on January 16, 1924, and therein he applied for the execution of the whole of the decree obtained by him, i. e., to recover Rs. 5,550 with interest and costs. After this da...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1940Bom97
Beaumont, C.J.1. This suit is brought by the plaintiff on behalf of herself and all other holders of the second preference shares in the Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., against the company claiming in effect to establish that the company were not entitled to deduct from dividends on the second preference shares income-tax for the years 1922-23 to 1934-35 inclusive on the ground that in those years the company's income was assessed at nil and the company was exempted from payment of income-tax. The suit was heard by a Bench of three Judges because it was represented to me that large sums were at stake and that an appeal would almost certainly be preferred to the Privy Council, and that the questions at issue depended on documentary evidence, and raised only matters of law. The plaint in para. 21 raises a case of fraudulent misrepresentation but that claim was abandoned at the outset of the case, and thereupon the defendant company abandoned their contention that the suit is not maintainab...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1940]8ITR337(Bom)
BEAUMONT, C.J. - This suit is brought by the plaintiff on behalf of herself and all other holders of the second preference shares in the Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., against the company claiming in effect to establish that the company were not entitled to deduct from dividends on the second preference shares income-tax for the years 1922-23 to 1934-35 inclusive on the ground that in those years the companys income was assessed at nil and the company was exempted from payment of income-tax. The suit was heard by a Bench of three Judges because it was represented to me that large sums were at stake and that an appeal would almost certainly be preferred to the Privy Council, and that the questions at issue depended on documentary evidence, and raised only matters of law. The plaint in para 21 raises a case of fraudulent misrepresentation but that claim was abandoned at the outset of the case, and thereupon the defendant company abandoned their contention that the suit is not maintainable...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1943Bom132; [1943]11ITR44(Bom)
JUDGEMENT OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNALUnder Section 33 of the Indian Income-tax Act (XI of 1922) the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, (Bombay Branch) (consisting of N. R. GUNDIL, Judicial Member, and P. C. MALHOTRA, Accountant Member) delivered the following judgment on May 10, 1941.'This appeal calls into question a supplementary assessment made by the Income-tax Officer, under Section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act and confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, A Range, Bombay, on December 9, 1940.2. The contest is in regard to the assessment made in the assessment year 1936-37. The original assessment for the year in question was made by the Income-tax Officer on July 9, 1937 computing the appellants assessable income at Rs. 1,47,160. Some time later, on definite information received, the same Income-tax Officer issued a notice under Section 34 to the appellant to make a fresh return of his income, stating that his income from 'all sources' had partially escaped as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1938]6ITR124(Bom)
BEAUMONT, C.J. - This is a Reference made but he Income-tax Commissioner under Sec. 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act raising the question, whether in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Officer has correctly computed the depreciation allowance under Sec. 10(2) (vi) of the Act on the original cost to the assessee Company itself, notwithstanding the fact that it was being assessed under Sec. 26(2) of the Act as the successor to the partnership firm known as the Mazagaon Dock.The facts giving rise to the Reference admit of no doubt. The year of assessment is the year 1935-36, so that the previous year expired not he 31st March, 1935. On the 1st April 1835, the assessee, the Mazagaon Dock Ltd., acquired from a firm known as the Mazagaon Dock the assets of that firm. The assessee made a return of their income for the year ending 31st March 1935, based not the profit and loss account for that year of the vendor firm, the assessee themselves having no income for the year ending 31...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1929)31BOMLR484
Patkar, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the Joint First Class Subordinate Judge of Dhulia ragcting an Application to restore the suit to the file. The plaintiffs filed suit No. 197 of 1918 to recover possession of the properties in suit. It is alleged that their pleader, Mr. Dev, compromised the suit without their consent and a decree was passed in terms of the compromise. The plaintiffs filed suit No. 25 of 1922 to set aside the compromise decree on the ground the authority to compromise the suit, and, the therefore, the decree was not binding on thim. This suit was not binding on them. This suit was dismissed on January 15, 1923, as their pleader Mr. Shidore was absent, and on the advice of their pleader they filed an appeal agai missal. The appeal was dismissed on June 3C that the order was not appealable. The made an application on June 15, 1925, to vt file, under Order IX, Rule 9, of the Civil P: learned Subordinate Judge held that the a time under Article 164 of the I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1923)ILR46Bom605
Walter Salis Schwabe, Kt., K.C., C.J.1. The question referred to the Full Bench is whether hi re Ramaswami Ayyar (1) was correctly decided.2. This is not a desirable form of reference to a Full Bench, because the facts of one case are seldom precisely the same as those of another and it is much better that the point on which the opinion of the Full Bench is desired should be formulated. In In re Ramaswami Ayyar I.L.R. (1921) Mad 913 a Village Magistrate arrested a drunken man whose conduct was at the time a grave danger to the public. In this case two police constables arrested a man who was drunk and creating disturbance, but to what extent he was a danger to others does not appear in the order of reference. The decision in In re, Ramaswami Ayyar I.L.R (1921) Mad 913 went on the ground that the English Common Law which is 'that for the sake of the preservation of the peace any individual who sees it broken may restrain the liberty of him whom he sees breaking it so long as his conduct...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 122Ind.Cas.76
ORDERFawcett, J.1. We do not think that in view of the case of Mahadeo Govind v. Lakshminarayan Ramnath 90 Ind. Cas. 610 A.I.R. 1925 Bom. 52 the grounds urged by Mr. Thakor suffice for our interference with the order summarily dismissing the appeal, but undoubtedly a hardship can arise from Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act not being applicable to an application made under Order IX, Rule 9, of the Civil Procedure Code, and we think that the question should be considered administratively by this Court whether action should not be taken to make Section 5 applicable in such a case by a rule under the Civil Procedure Code or otherwise, as may be necessary. In view of this proposal we admit the appeal, so that should any such alteration be made, the appellant may have the benefit of it.2. The Registrar should submit papers accordingly.3. On December 21, 1927, the Bombay High Court, in virtue of powers under Section 122 of the Code of Civil Procedure, added the following Sub-rule (3) to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1949CriLJ131
ORDERWanchoo, J.1. These are three applications by Hakim Noor Mohammad alias Noorani, Noor-ul Hasan and Ahmad Salim Ullah of Kanpur under Section 491, Criminal P. C, against orders passed against them by the Provincial Government under Section 3 (l) (a) of U. P, Act IV [4] of 1947. I propose to take them up together as the points raised on behalf of the applicants are common.2. It appears that the applicants were arrested on 6th June 1948 and detained by the order of the District Magistrate of Kanpur under Section 3 (2) of V. p. Act iv [4] of 1947 for fifteen days. The matter was then apparently referred to the Provincial Government and the applicants were thereafter ordered to be detained for a period of six months by an order of the Provincial Government, dated 17th June 1948. The grounds for detention were also supplied to the applicants by the Provincial Government immediately afterwards on 13th June. I propose to set out these grounds in detail. In the case of Ahmad Salim Ullah th...
Tag this Judgment!