Mumbai Court February 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.
Kundanmal Dowlatram Vs. Lakhmichand Chhogmal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Bom73; (1921)23BOMLR559
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff filed an ejectment suit in the Small Causes Court against the defendant in April 1920. Before the decree was passed a compromise was arrived at that the defendant was to place a big room out of the premises in his occupation at the disposal of the plaintiff in order to accomodate the plaintiff's mother. The terms of the compromise were not carried out with the result that the plaintiff had to file a fresh suit. The Judge found that the plaintiff reasonably required for his own use at least two rooms. The premises occupied by the defendant contained live rooms. Aw the learned Judge thought it was not open to him to sever the tenancy, lie gave the plaintiff a decree for possession of the whole of the premises. This is rather an important question, therefore we granted a rule so that it could be decided whether the Judge was right in the view he took. We think there was no valid objection, and no authority has been cited in favour of it, to the te...
Muhammad Habidullah Vs. Bird and Co
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-1921
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR687
Dunedin, J.1. The present appeal arises out of a contract made between the appellant and the respondents by which the appellant was to supply 4000 sleepers of a special pattern at any station on the Bengal-Nagpur Railway by May 31, 1913. As a condition of the contract, the appellant had to deposit and did deposit Rs. 5000 with the respondents as security for liquidated damages at a certain rate per foot for all sleepers not delivered on the said May 31. The sleepers had to pass inspection. Only 1746 sleepers were delivered and passed inspection. The time for delivery was extended, but no more deliveries were made, and the parties in December, 1913, broke off negotiations. The appellant then raised action asking for (1) the return of the deposit; and (2) damages in respect of his profit on the balance of sleepers not supplied. The respondents counterclaimed for damages in respect of sleepers not delivered.2. The Subordinate Judge held that time was of the essence of the contract as orig...
Bhaidas Shivdas Vs. Bai Gulab
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR623
Buckmaster, J.1. The real question involved in the dispute giving rise to this appeal was a question as to the construction of the will of one Nathoo Moolji, who died on the 8th December, 1894, affecting the respective estates and interests that were taken by the testator's widow and his two daughters, One of the daughters died in the life-time of the widow, and her heir who is the present appellant, instituted, on the widow's death in the High Court of Judicature in Bombay, Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction, the proceedings out of which this appeal has arisen, claiming that, according to the true construction of the will, he was entitled to a vested one-half share in the testator's property.2. The learned Judge before whom the suit was first heard dismissed the application and held that there was an intestacy after the widow's death.3. An appeal was taken from that judgment and heard before Chief Justice Scott and Mr. Justice Heaton. They differed their opinion. Chief Justice Scott...
G.H. Hook Vs. the Administrator of Bengal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR648
Buckmaster, J.1. On the merits of this controversy their Lordships are not called upon to decide, for in their opinion the respondents are estopped from raising the contention they desire to advance by reason of the judgment that has already been given between themselves and the appellant upon the point.2. The dispute arises under a will and four codicils made by one Dr. Henry Wilkin Jones, who died on the 8th July, 1909.3. By his will the testator appointed the Administrator-General of Bengal as executor and trustee and bequeathed to him his real and personal estate upon trust for sale and investment, and directed, after payment of debts, funeral expenses, and legacies, that the residue should be held to apply the income as' therein provided, during the life of his wife. On the death of his wife, he directed payment of certain legacies and then created trusts of the income of the fund to endure during the life-time of-certain named persons. By paragraph 17, he directed that on the dea...
In Re: the Aurangabad Mills Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR570
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference made by the Chief Revenue Authority under Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act (VII of 1918). The facts are that the Aurangabad Mills Limited is a Company registered in Bombay, having its Board of Directors in Bombay, where all the business of the Company is transacted other than the manufacturing part of its business. That is carried on in the territory Mills Ltd. of His Exalted Highness the Nizam.2. The question which has arisen between the Company and the Income Tax Authorities is whether the profits of the Company which were made from the manufacture carried on at Aurangabad can be said to accrue or arise in British India on account of the Head Office being in Bombay and because the Directors control the business in Bombay. The important section is Section 3, Sub-section 1, of the Act (VII of 1918): 'Save as hereinafter provided, this Act shall apply to all income from whatever source it is derived, if it accrues or arises or is re...
In Re: the Income Tax Act (Vii of 1918)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-1921
Reported in: (1921)ILR45Bom1286
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference made by the Chief Revenue Authority under the Income Tax Act, Bombay, under Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act (VII of 1918). The facts are that the Aurangabad Mills, Limited, is a Company registered in Bombay, having its Board of Directors in Bombay, where all the business of the Company is transacted other than the manufacturing part of its business. That is carried on in the territory of His Exalted Highness the Nizam.2. The question which has arisen between the Company and the Income Tax Authorities is whether the profits of the Company which they made from the manufacture carried on at Aurangabad can be said to accrue or arise in British India on account of the Head Office being in Bombay and because the Directors control the business in Bombay. The important section is Section 3, Sub-section (1) of the Act (VII of 1918) 'Save as hereinafter provided, this Act shall apply to all income from whatever source it is derived, if it a...
Baijnath Prasad Singh Vs. Tej Bali Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR654
Dunedin, J.1. The question arises as to the succession to the zamindary of Agori Barhar. The estate is of great value, and the question raised is one of wide importance.2. The estate fell vacant by the death of Rani Kunwari, the widow of the last male holder, Baja Kesho Saran Shah. She died in 1913, having possessed the estate since the death of her husband in 1871, but it was conceded that her possession was not due to any title arising out of separation or self-aquisition.3. This couple left no children, and to trace the succession you have to go up for five generations to find an ancestor common to Baja Kesho Saran Shah, the last mile holder, and the two claimants who are adversaries in the appeal. This common ancestor, Raja Sudisht Narayan Shah, had three sons, from the eldest of whom Raja Kesho Saran was descended. There is no one left in this line. The descendants of the second son are also extinct.4. The plaintiff is the great-great-great grandson of the third son. The defendant...
Nowroji Pudumjee Sirdar Vs. the Deccan Bank, Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Bom69; (1921)23BOMLR550
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order made on an application to the Joint First Class Subordinate Judge of Poona for attachment before judgment under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5, of the Civil Procedure Code, in Suit No. 25 of 1919. The plaintiff's who were the voluntary liquidators of the Deccan Bank filed this suit against defendant No. 1 and other persons to recover from the defendants the losses incurred by the Bank owing to the alleged misconduct and negligence of the defendants. The Bank went into voluntary liquidation in 1916 and the suit was filed in January 1919. Before an order of attachment before judgment can be made, the Court must be satisfied by an affidavit or otherwise, that the defendant, with intent to obstruct or delay the execution of any decree that may be passed against him is about to dispose of the whole or any part of his property. It is not disputed that defendant No. 1 had agreed to sell two items of his immoveable property in the Poona Distri...
Pranjivan Hargovan Vs. Bai Bhikhi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Bom57; (1921)23BOMLR553
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff in this case is the father's sister of one Jamnadas who died in 1915. Jamnadas and his uncle Khusal had been the members of a joint Hindu family. Khushal predeceased Jamnadas leaving a widow Ganga. On the death of Jamnadas, the plaintiff claimed to succeed to his estate. Her claim being disputed, she had to file this suit against defendants Nos. 1 to 5 as the trustees under the will left by Khusal, and various other defendants as heirs of a deceased trustee.2. The only question now in dispute is whether Ganga lost her right by her remarriage to take the place of her husband under the decision in Lallubhai Bapubhai v. Mankuvarbai I.L.R (1876) Bom. 388 and consequently her right to succeed to the estate of Jamnadas in priority to the plaintiff. The plaintiff's suit has been decreed in the lower Courts and an appeal to this Court was dismissed by Heaton J. This is a Letters Patent appeal against that decision.3. In the trial Court the only contest...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›