Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.31 seconds)
Documents citing Emperor vs Braz H. De Souza on 12 April, 1911

Brahma Saroop Sharma vs Municipal Committee, Delhi on 25 July, 1950

In -- 'Emperor v. H. B. DeSouza', 35 Bom 412 (B), one of the side walls of the house of the accused fell down. He rebuilt it on its old foundation without previously obtaining the permission of the Municipality, and he was charged under S. 96, Bombay District Municipal Act, for erecting a building without permission. It was held that the accused committed no offence under this section, for it could not be said as a matter of law that the material reconstruction of a small wall must constitute the "erection of a building".
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax vs A.K. Menon on 19 April, 1995

2. Mr. Bobde however requested the Court to reconsider certain aspects. He submitted that the decision of the Court that the Custodian is not a Representative Assessee is not correct. He submitted that under section 160(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act any person who manages property on behalf of another and receives income on behalf of another is a Representative Assessee. He submitted that under section 3 and 4 of the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, the Custodian was authorised to deal with the properties which were attached. He submitted that after notification the Notified Parties were under a disability as all their properties were now under the control of the Custodian. He submitted that the Custodian was receiving income on behalf of the Notified Parties and therefore the Custodian was a manager as contemplated by section 160(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act. Mr. Bobde relied on the case of Emperor v. B.H. Desouza, reported in I.L.R. Vol. 35 Bom. 412, wherein on page 417 it has been held that it is a recognised rule with regard to interpretation of clauses of comprehensive nature that they are not to be taken as strictly defining what the meaning of a word must be under all circumstances, but merely as declaring what things may be comprehended within the term where the circumstances require that they should.
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - S N Variava - Full Document

Emperor vs Chhotalal Mansukhram on 23 August, 1927

The contrary view was taken in the case of Emperor v. De Souza . Under the interpretation clause, Section 3, Clause (7), of Bombay Act III of 1901, a wall came within the inclusive definition of a building. In the Explanation to Section 1 3 of the City Municipalities Act (Bombay Act XVIII of 1925), it is mentioned that the expression "to construct a building" throughout the chapter includes any material alteration, enlargement or re-conatruction of any building, or of any wall, verandah, fixed platform, plinth, door-step or the like, whether constituting part of a building or not. It is clear, therefore, under the explanation to Section 123 of Bombay Act XVIII of 1925, that any material alteration or re-construction of any wall would amount to a construction of a building within the meaning of Section 123. We think, therefore, that the view taken by the Second Class Magistrate that the construction of walls on old foundations did not amount to re-construction of a building is not correct. It further appears that the walls have been built within the alignment line. If the as walls were built within the road line, the construction of th9 walls would b. 3 contrary to Sections 118 and 119, and would fall within Sub-section (1) of Section 123 and the construction of the said walls without notice would be punishable under Sub-section (7) of Section 123 of the Act. We think, therefore, that the acquittal of the accused is erroneous.
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1