Mumbai Court June 1917 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Bai Laxmi Daughter of Pransukhram Dinanath and ors. Vs. Maganlal Jamie ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-1917
Reported in: AIR1917Bom231; (1917)ILR41Bom677
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. According to the findings of the two lower Courts land in certain villages became the Vatan property of the original Vatandar named Gopinath. Gopinath had no descendants, and so far as we can tell, at the time of his death his nearest relations were Girdharlal, the son of his father's elder brother Bhulabhai, and Mahasukhram, the son of his father's younger brother Maharaiji. In 1868, fresh Sanads were issued by Government apparently to meet the situation created by the death without issue of the original Vatandar. There was a Sanad of September 1868, Exhibit 130, which related to the village of Mullera. There was a Sanad of December 1868, Exhibit 109, which related to the villages of Amod and Rahod, and there was in the same year a Sanad, Exhibit 110, relating to cash allowances. At the time of the issue of Sanad, Exhibit 130, Dinanath, son of Girdharlal, was apparently alive, and he is stated to be the holder of the land in the village of Mullera, his Vahivat...
Bai Laxmi and ors. Vs. Maganlal Jamietram and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-1917
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.450
Basil Scott, C. J.1. According to, the findings of the two lower Courts land in certain villages became the vatan property of the original vatandar named Gopinath. Gopinath had no descendants, and so far as we can tell, at the time of his death his nearest relations were Girdharlal, the son of his father's elder brother Bhalabhai, and Mahasukhram, the son of his father's younger brother Maharaiji. In 1838, fresh sanads were issued by Government apparently to meet the situation created by the death without issue of the original vatandar. There was a sanad of September 1868, Exhibit 130, which related to the village of Mullera. There was a sanad of December 1868, Exhibit 109, which related to the villages of Amod and Rahod, and there was in the same year a sanad, Exhibit 110, relating to cash allowances. At the time of the issue of sanad Exhibit 130, Dinanath, son of Girdbarlal, was apparently alive, and he is stated to be the holder of the land in the village of Mulleraj his vahivatdars...
Purshotamdas Harkisondas Vs. the Central India Spinning, Weaving and M ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-1917
Reported in: AIR1917Bom113; (1917)19BOMLR665; 41Ind.Cas.968
Marten, J.1. This case raises an interesting point on which there is apparently no authority in India, namely, whether, as between fixed preference and ordinary shareholders, the former are entitled to have their preference dividends paid free of income-tax in a case where there are no express words to that effect in the contract regulating the rights of the parties. The Crown is not affected. The full tax on the net profits of the defendant company has admittedly been paid and the sole question is whether the preference shareholders can escape liability for their proportion of the tax. Now, if this case arose in England, the matter would be quite clear. The preference shareholders would undoubtedly have to bear the income tax on their respective shares. If authority is needed for that proposition, I may refer to Attorney-General v. Ashton Gas Company (1904) 2 Ch. 621 : (1906) A.C. 10. That was a ease where the special Act under which the company was incorporated provided that the prof...
Emperor Vs. Kallianji Vardhaman
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-1917
Reported in: (1917)19BOMLR681
Batchelor, J.1. The applicant before us has been convicted of infringing the provisions of Section 349B of the City of Bombay Municipal Act, 1888 and the only question is whether those provisions have or have not been infringed by him.2. The facts, which are undisputed, are that the applicant has added small bath rooms to the third and fourth floors of an old residential house in the City. It appears to me that in these-circumstances Section 349B is of no application. That section regulates the height to which a building may be erected or raised. The word ' building' is explained by an inclusive definition in. Clause (s) of Section 3 of the Act where it is said to include 'a house, out house, stable, shed, hut and every other such structure, whether of masonry, bricks, wood, mud, metal or any other material whatever.' In my opinion where, as here, you have a substantial residential house, the house as a whole must be-regarded as the building referred to in Section 349B and it is not po...
Noorbhai GulamhusseIn Makali Vs. M. Allabux and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-19-1917
Reported in: AIR1917Bom246; (1917)19BOMLR845; 42Ind.Cas.820
Kajiji, J.1. The plaintiff's claim from the defendants Rs. 1453-2-6 under the following circumstances :-It appears that by an Indent dated 27th March 1916 the plaintiff's ordered through the defendants 100 bundles of gold-thread in two lots of 50 bundles each. The goods arrived in Bombay sometime in August 1916. It seems that all the 100 bundles were sent in one lot and the invoice and the draft in respect thereof were for 100 bundles instead of 50. The plaintiffs thereupon refused to pay the full amount of the draft and offered to pay half the amount on delivery of 50 bundles. It is alleged that defendants agreed to this and on 7th September 1916 the plaintiffs paid to the defendants Rs. 1453-2-6 and on the same date the defendants' salesman signed an entry in the plaintiffs' cash book in respect of this payment. The plaintiffs thereafter called upon the defendants to deliver 50 bundles but the defendants refused to do so alleging that 56 bundles out of the one hundred were missing an...
Madhav Ganpatprasad Vs. Majidkhan Alifkhan Pathan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-15-1917
Reported in: AIR1917Bom219; (1917)19BOMLR677; 42Ind.Cas.146
Batchelor, J.1. This is a reference by the learned District Magistrate of Nasik and it arises in the following circumstances.2. The complainant filed a complaint against the Sub-Inspector of Police charging him with vexatiously and unnecessarily seizing the complainant's property, this charge falling under Section 63, Sub-section (b), of the Bombay District Police Act of 1890; The First Class Magistrate, Nasik City, admitted the complaint and ordered process to issue for the trial of the Sub-Inspector. The learned District Magistrate has made this reference being of opinion that the admission of the complaint was erroneous, inasmuch as the complaint could not be entertained by virtue of the provisions of Sub-section 3 of Section 80 of the Police Act. This objection raises the question of limitation upon which the material dates are these. According to the complainant, his property was seized by the Sub-Inspector on the 2nd March 1916, but the complaint made in respect of that seizing w...
Shantappa Jinnappa Parmaj Vs. Ramchandra Gopal Sukhtankar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-1917
Reported in: AIR1917Bom228; (1917)19BOMLR852; 42Ind.Cas.825
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The first point taken in this appeal ia that the lower appellate Court was presided over by an Assistant Judge who ordinarily sat in the same Court as the Assistant Judge who tried the suit in the first instance and that although there was a change of persons, it was an appeal from one Court to the same Court again and that such procedure was contrary to principle and contrary also to the provisions of the Bombay Civil Courts Act. The appellate Judge who tried the case in appeal was empowered to hear appeals referred to him by the District Judge by a notification of Government under Section 17 of the Bombay Civil Courts Act. Such notification has the effect of conferring appellate powers not upon the Court, that is any occupant of the Court of the Assistant Judge, but upon the person and such powers continue even after that person is transferred to another District to discharge the functions of an Assistant Judge (see Section 18). It is, however, contended that...
Kallianji Vardhaman Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-02-1917
Reported in: AIR1917Bom249; 42Ind.Cas.134
Batchelor, J.1. The applicant before us baa been convicted of infringing the provisions of Section 349B of the City of Bombay Municipal Act, 1888, and the only question is whether those provisions have or have not been infringed by him.2. The facts, which are undisputed, are that the applicant has added small bath rooms to the third and fourth floors of an old residential house in the City. It appears to me that in these circumstances Section 349 B is of no application. That section regulates the height to which a building may be erected or raised. The word 'building' is explained by an inclusive definition in Clause (s) of Section 3 of the Act, where it is said to include a house, out-house, stable, shed, hut and every other such structure, whether of masonry, bricks, wood, mud, metal or any other material whatever.' In my opinion where, as here, you have a substantial residential house, the house as a whole must be regarded as the building referred to in Section 349 B, and it is not ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›