Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-20-1928
Reported in : AIR1928Bom465; (1928)30BOMLR1190; 113Ind.Cas.602
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. In this income-tax reference the Remington Typewriter Company (Bombay) Limited (whom I will call 'the Bombay Company '), have been assessed under Section 42(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, as agents of the Remington Typewriter Company of New York (whom I will call 'the American Company'), for the years 1925-26 and 1926-27 in respect of profits alleged to have accrued or arisen to the American Company through their business connection with the Bombay Company, including alleged profits in connection with the Remington Typewriter Company (Madras) Limited (whom I will call 'the Madras Company'), and the Remington Typewriter Company (India) Limited (whom I will call 'the Calcutta Company.').2. The case for the Crown before the Income-tax Officer and the Assistant Commissioner appears to have been based on the view that the Bombay Company and the American Company were separate entities in substance as well as in law, but that the former was an agent for th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-30-1928
Reported in : AIR1928Bom522; (1928)30BOMLR1455
Fawcett Ag. C.J.1. In this case the plaintiffs sued the defendants to recover Rs. 5,368-13-6 as due on a mortgage passed by the defendants. The mortgage is not disputed; nor is the claim, except in regard to the compound interest fixed by the bond being excessive and the bond therefore unconscionable, and in regard to the liability of the defendants to pay the interest claimed for the period prior to February 1, 1923. The Subordinate Judge held that the agreement to pay compound interest at twelve annas per cent, per month was not unconscionable. It is to be noted that the parties are both traders and money lenders, and there was nothing which showed that there was anything in the nature of undue influence or pressure put upon the defendants when they agreed to pay such compound interest. In my opinion nothing has been shown that would justify our differing from the lower Court's view on this point.2. Therefore, there remains only the question about interest prior to February 1, 1923. ...
Tag this Judgment!