Mumbai Court October 1921 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.
Nowroji Hormasji Pathak Vs. Shrinivas V. Prabhu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-1921
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR95; 66Ind.Cas.929
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff filed this suit in the Small Causes Court to eject his tenants (the defendants) from certain shops in Lamington Road belonging to him which he wished to use for his own purposes. The plaintiff had previously rented certain premises in Hornby Road the floor space of which was 2000 square feat. He had to vacate these premises and consequently he wanted to occupy his own premises in order to store his goods and expose them for sale. It is not suggested that he is asking the Court to eject the defendants from a greater space than the space he occupied in the premises he rented in the Hornby Road. But the learned Judge considered that it was for him to decide how the plaintiff's business should be carried on and what amount of space in the plaintiff's premises would be adequate for that purpose. He thought that it would not be profitable to the plaintiff if he occupied the whole of the premises, and so he ordered that the plaintiff should only get p...
Ramchandra Venkatesh Sholapur Vs. Shriniwas Krishna Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-1921
Reported in: (1922)ILR46Bom467
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The petitioner obtained a decree in Suit No. 91 of 1913 in the Court of the Second Class Subordinate Judge at Bagalkot against the opponent on the 2nd August 1913 and filed an application for execution on the 3rd July 1915. The application was struck off as notices were not served on the opponent. A second application for execution No. 166 of 1919 was made on 25th June 1919 but was rejected as time barred. The decree-holder again applied for execution on the 19th June 1920 relying on an acknowledgment made on the 19th June 1917 and signed by the opponent in a compromise application in a partition suit between himself and his brother. The learned Subordinate Judge said:Darkhast was held to be time-barred in a previous application. The point is thus res judicata. The present application must, therefore, be rejected.2. He decided, therefore, that once a Darkhast had been rejected as time-barred no further Darkhast could be filed. That is not in agreement with t...
Dattatraya Govindseth Lubri Vs. Purshottam Narayanseth Dali
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-1921
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR1
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application to this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The applicant obtained a decree against his debtor, presented a Darkhast for execution, and applied therein for rateable distribution of the proceeds of a sale in execution of another decree obtained by the opponent against the same judgment-debtor.2. The opponent raised a plea that the applicant's decree had been obtained by fraud. The lower Court considered this question and being bound by the decision in Chhaganlal v. Fazarali I.L.R (1888) Bom. 154 decided that the Court could decide the question of fraud in execution proceedings, where the rival decree-holder raised the point, notwithstanding that a concurrent remedy by a regular suit was left open to him. It is necessary, therefore, to consider the ruling in Chhaganlal v. Fuzarali. Sir Charles Sargent C.J. said:-The question referred to us is not without difficulty, but we are disposed to adopt the ruling of the Calcu...
In Re: the Tata Industrial Bank Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-1921
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR118; 66Ind.Cas.979
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference by the Chief Revenue Authority, Bombay, under Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act, with regard to the interpretation of Section 9 of the Act.2. The Tata Industrial Bank was assessed by the Collector of Income Tax for the year 1920-21 on profits amounting to nearly thirteen lacs. I omit all mention of super-tax as unnecessary. On appeal to the Commissioner a slight reduction was made, but before both authorities an important question was raised by the Bank since they claimed to deduct from the taxable profits a sum of Rs. 2,98,000 said to be the amount of depreciation on war bonds and securities belonging to the Bank, arrived at by comparing the market rates with the valuations in the Books of the Bank. This deduction was not allowed on the ground that the only allowances and deductions to be made from the gross income in order to arrive at real assessable profits were those mentioned in Sub-section 2 of Section 9.3. The following ques...
Hanif Maulabaksh Vs. Kulsum
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR1253
Maoleod, C.J.1. The parties to this suit are Suni Mahomedans of Fatehpur Sikur outside Birtish India. The plaintiff married the first defendant in 1911 and alleges that after she attained puberty in 1918 she lived with him as his wife and thereafter the second defendant enticed away the first, defendant and brought her to Bombay. The plaintiff on his arrival in Bombay in January 1921 filed a complaint against the second defendant in the Court of the Presidency Magistrate. The proceedings wont on for some months in the Presidency Magistrate's Court until the Magistrate expressed the opinion that the plaintiff ought to file a suit in a civil Court to obtain a declaration as regards his marriage with the first defendant, as the accused before him produced a decree which set aside the plaintiffs marriage). Accordingly the plaintiff filed this suit on the 26th July 1921; and the defendants have taken out this summons calling up) n him to she cause way he should not give security for the def...
L. and I. Rapaport Vs. Kallianji Hirachand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1921
Reported in: AIR1923Bom73; (1921)23BOMLR1255; 66Ind.Cas.8
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs have filed this suit to recover from the defendants the price of certain goods ordered by the defendants under various indents. Under the form of indent employed the defendants agreed to purchase from the plaintiffs the goods mentioned in the indents, or any portion of them at the prices and on the terms noted therein and to pay for the goods at the current rate of exchange for demand Bank Bills on London on delivery of the shipping documents. The goods arrived but the defendants refused to take delivery or to pay for the goods. In the plaint the plaintiffs referred to the invoices received from England for the goods which the plaintiffs had ordered to fulfil their contracts with the defendants, It appears that the defendants wore willing to take delivery of the goods provided the plaintiffs were willing to fix the rate of exchange at 2 s. On the 9th of February 1921 the defendants wrote:-Received your letter and in reply 1 bog to write that i...
Narsinha Gopal Vs. Balvant Madhav Vadgaonkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR1238
Macleod C. J1. This is an appeal against the decision of the District Judge of Sholapur upholding the order of the Subordinate Judge directing that the Darkha8fc taken out by the plaintiff should proceed.2. The parties were partners in a banking shop wich was not successful and so the partnership account had been made up and a balance was found due against the defendants. The plantiff filed a suit No. 51 of 1915 on his partnership claim and a decree was passed in his favour on an award. The decree was passed on the 22nd February 1917 directing that the decretal amount should be paid in eight equal instalments of Rs. 371-9-4 and interest according to the balance due at the time when any one instalment was paid. The decree also directed that in default of payment of any two instalments, the plaintiff should recover he whole amount then due by the sale of the property mentioned through Court. It appears that in the plaint, the plaintiff asked for a charge in respect of the amount due on c...
Jafferji Ibrahimji Vs. MiyadIn Mangal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR1251
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application by the plaintiff for an order that certain persons should vacate the premises, the subject metter of Suit No, 1427 of 1920 filed against the lessee in which a decree was passed by consent that the defendant should vacate the premises and deliver up peaceful possession to the plaintiff on or before the 31st December 1920. When the plaintiff sought to execute his decree, he was obstructed by the present opponents and accordingly he had to make an application under Order XXI, Rull 97. Under Rule 99 where the Court is satisfied that resistance or obstruction was occasioned by any person (other than the judgment-debtor) claiming in good faith to be in possession of the property on his own account or on account of some person other than the judgment-debtor, the Court will make an order dismissing the application.2. In this case the opponents do not say that they are in possession of the suit property on their own account or on account of som...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›