Mumbai Court March 1923 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.
Nilawa Iraya Mathapati and anr. Vs. Revanshidaya Shidlingya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1923
Reported in: 79Ind.Cas.208
1. The District Judge was wrong in not remanding the ease to the Trial Court to ascertain what maintenance should be payable to defendant Nos. 1 and 11. We have repeatedly laid down the general principle that, in all cases of this class, where a right to maintenance has been allowed the quantum of maintenance should be decided in the suit itself, even though the parties may not have, in the first instance, provided the Court with the materials. Once that right is decided, it is eminently desirable that the quantum should be ascertained in the suit itself, and that the parties entitled to maintenance who are generally females should not be left to separate proceedings. The appeal will be allowed to that extent.2. There will be no order as to costs....
Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, Referring Officer Vs. Dorais ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR46Bom673
Coutts Trotter, J.1. This is a case stated by the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax to the High Court under Section 51 of the Income-tax Act (VII of 1918) read with Section 6 of the Super-tax Act, 1920. The question for decision is* whether the assessees who are the registered firm of M. Doraiswami Ayyangar and Brothers are assessable to super-tax as an undivided Hindu family and the specific questions put to us are as follows:(1) Does the registration of the brothers as a firm as defined under Section 2 (12) of Act VII of 1918 preclude the assessment of the family as an undivided family to super-tax on the income derived from the business of this firm?(2) If not, does the mere constitution of a partnership between some members of the family by a formal document preclude the assessment of the income of the partnership to super-tax as part of the income of the undivided family?2. When this case first came before us we thought it necessary to have more information than was afforded to us ...
D.B. Manke Vs. B. Walwekar, Secretary, Sew Sports Club
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Bom386; 80Ind.Cas.182
1. The plaintiff filed a suit No. 283 of 1922 in the Small Causes Court, Bombay, to recover wages from the Opponent. The suit was decreed ex parte because although the Opponent engaged a pleader he did not attempt to contest the suit at the hearing. The Opponent then filed an application for setting aside of the ex parte decree and notice was issued to the plaintiff and the day fixed for hearing was 10th April 1922. That notice was issued under Order IX, Rule 9. The notice was struck off for want of prosecution. Again the Opponent presented an application for setting aside the ex-parte decree. That was clearly time-barred, the Court considered that it was an application to restore the application previously made under Order IX, Rule 9. Considering the application as restored, it passed an order against the plaintiff for a now trial. The application is made to us to revise that order as being without jurisdiction. It cannot be said that there is any rule in the Code of Civil Procedure t...
Narayan Bapulal and ors. Vs. Sonusingh Ghanashamsingh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Bom383; 76Ind.Cas.659
1. The only question in appeal is whether the defendants have satisfied the Court that they were agriculturists. The onus lay upon them to prove that particular status, hut on the evidence the learned Judge in the Court below applied, in our opinion, the right test and came to the conclusion that the defendants were not agriculturists. If the family is joint then the only way to ascertain, whether the members of the joint family are agriculturists or not, is to ascertain what is the joint income of the family provided they are living together. It cannot be suggested now on the evidence that any of the members themselves engaged in agricultural labour and they can only derive their agricultural status by earning their livelihood from it. The second and the third defendants appear to have been in service, and the joint income from the earnings of the father and his sons was derived from their father's pension, a certain amount of rent from the theatre which had not been very successful a...
Vithu Daulata Patil Vs. Ganesh Ramchandra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-1923
Reported in: (1923)25BOMLR453
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is an attempt by the judgment-debtors to evade execution of the decree passed by the Satara Court in Suit No. 162 of 1901, which was transferred by the Satara Court to the Islampur Court for execution. It is contended that the jurisdiction of the Islampur Court under the certificate which had been issued by the Satara Court had exhausted itself. Section 41, Civil Procedure Code, is relied upon. It was urged that because the certificate was not sent by the Islampur Court, as ought to have been done, therefore its jurisdiction is gone. Bat the jurisdiction of the Islampur Court would continue until it had sent a certificate under Section 41, Civil Procedure Code. In Abda Begam v. Muzaffar Husen Khan I.L.R. (1897) ALL. 129, which was a case under the corresponding Section 223 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1882, it was held that the Court to which a decree was sent for execution retained its jurisdiction to execute the decree until the execution had bee...
Raghunath Vithal Bhat Vs. Madhav Raval Kamat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Bom415; (1923)25BOMLR455; 76Ind.Cas.217
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This appeal is confined to one piece of land 25 gunthas of Survey No. 71, Pot No. 1, the plaintiffs having succeeded with regard to the other lands in the suit. The plaintiff's have lost in both the lower Courts and they now appeal on the grounds mentioned in the memorandum of appeal. The respondents do not appear. The land originally belonged to one Biranna and his three sons, Hanmana, Timmanna and Narayan, as joint family property. In 1898 the family separated, and in the partition deed various lands were allotted to the three sons. Survey No. 71, Pot No. 1, was allotted to Biranna without power of alienation, it being provided that on the death of Biranna and his wife, the land was to be divided between the three eons in certain proportions. Both the Courts seem to have held that the three sons took a contingent interest but they took under that deed a vested remainder in the land, which they could have disposed of oven before they were entitled to posses...
Sayad Mira Saheb, Sayed Sahaji Mia Rafi and ors. Vs. Bai Chhoti Begam ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom281; 73Ind.Cas.427
1. The plaintiffs sued to recover possession of the plaint property on the allegation that defendant No. 1 to whom it was given for residence, delivered it to defendant No. 2 after executing a gift-deed. The plaintiff's suit was decreed in the Trial Court, but after a remand this decree was reversed by the District Judge. The house was admittedly wakf property. By the document, Exhibit 40, which has been relied upon by both sides, undoubtedly the descendants of the person who executed that document were entitled to reside in the suit house. It was argued the term 'auladdar aulad' only meant male descendants, but there is no authority for that argument. On the contrary, the decision in Abdul Ganne Kasam v. Hussen Miya Rahimtulla 10 B.H.C.R. 7 clearly shows that 'auladdar aulad' include descendants whether male or female except descendants through females. The plaintiffs had to admit that female descendants had a right of residence until their marriage, and also if a female of the family...
Bachoo Bhaidas Vs. Velji Bhimsey and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-1923
Reported in: (1923)25BOMLR595
Mulla, J.1. After setting out the facts as above his Lordship proceeded : It was not suggested at the hearing of the suit before me that the defendants were actuated by malice or that there was absence of reasonable or probable cause in suing out the writ. Counsel for the plaintiff took his stand on the fact that the decree being against the estate of the plaintiff's father in the hands of his sons, the Court had no jurisdiction to direct a writ to issue against the person of the plaintiff, in support of his contention he relied on Brooks v. Hodgkinson (1859) 4 H. & N. 712 and Barker v. Braham (1773) 3 Wilson 368. On behalf of the defendants it was contended that the writ was justified by the order of the Court and reliance was placed on Raj Chunder Roy v. Shama Soondari Debi I.L.R. (1879) Cal. 583 and Thakdi Hajji v. Budrudin Saib I.L.R. (1906) Mad. 208. I do not think that either of the two Indian cases has any direct bearing on the present case.2. Section 52 of the Code of Civil Pro...
Champsey Bhara and Company Vs. the Jivraj Balloo Spinning and C. Co. L ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-1923
Reported in: (1923)25BOMLR588
Dunedin, J.1. In these consolidated appeals it will be convenient to consider the first case by itself. The appellants as sellers entered into two contracts with the respondents as buyers of certain bales of cotton. The contracts were made subject to the rules and regulations of the Bombay Cotton Trade Association, Limited. Rule 12 of the said Association provides:All questions or disputes as to quality between buyer and seller shall be referred to the arbitration of two disinterested persona, one to be chosen by each disputant, such arbitrators having the power to call in a third arbitrator. The award made by such arbitrators or any two of them shall be final and binding subject only to the right of appeal to the Appeal Committee All arbitrations held under this Rule must be held in accordance with Rule 5, and only shareholders and/or Directors shall be eligible to act on arbitrations held in the rooms of the Association. Associate members, however, shall be eligible to act as arbitra...
Mirza Abid HusaIn Khan Vs. Ahmad Husain
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-1923
Reported in: (1924)26BOMLR731
Atkinson, J.1. In this case the annuity which is sought to be enforced is only Rs. 125 per annum. By no reasonable method of valuation can an annuity of Rs. 125 per annum be worth Rs. 10,000. The 110th section of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, applies to the value of the annuity which is sought to be recovered, not to the value of the property upon which that annuity of Rs. 125 is charged Their Lordships think it right to call attention to the fact that the decision in the case which has been referred to, Radhakrishna Ayyar v. Sundaraswamier ., apparently proceeded upon supposed admission, which admission it now appears was really not made. In that case, too, the rent was Rs. 1,500 odd per annum, and there was nothing inconsistent or irrational in holding that the value of that rent was over Rs. 10,000. It was not seven years' purchase, whereas it is impossible that the annuity about which the controversy in this case has arisen can be worth Rs. 10,000. Their Lordships are therefor...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »