Mumbai Court September 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.
Nagava Gurlingaya Nandi Vs. the Collector of Belgaum
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-1923
Reported in: (1923)25BOMLR1232
Lallubhai Shah, Kt., Ag. C.J.1. The facts which have given rise to this appeal are these. It appears that one Nagava Gurlingaya Nandi made an application under Act VIII of 1890 to be appointed a guardian of the person of her three minor children, one son Shivlingaya, and two daughters Gangava and Shivlingaya. Notices of this application were issued, but apparently no notice of it was given to the Collector at the time. On January 5, 1922, the learned District Judge made an order appointing her guardian of the person of the minor.2. Thereafter, on February 11, 1922, the Collector wrote to the District Judge a letter bringing to his notice certain facts and praying for a cancellation of the order of January 5. It appears from that letter that Dundaya had applied under Section 9 of the Court of Wards Act I of 1905 that the estate should be taken charge of by the Court of Wards. The Notification in the Government Gazette of 1920, Part I, p. 690, shows that Dundaya, the grand-father of thes...
Saremal Punamchand Vs. Kapurchand Punamchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom260; (1923)25BOMLR1093
Mulla, J.1. This is a suit to recover Rs. 6,000 lent and advanced by the plaintiff' to the defendants.2. The plaint states that on May 23, 1920, the plaintiff advanced to the defendants, who then carried on business in partnership, Rs. 6,000 at interest at the rate of six per cent, per annum, but that the loan has not been repaid. The first defendant appeared in person and denied the loan. The second defendant filed his written statement. He admits the partnership, but denies all knowledge of the loan, and contends that if it be proved that the loan was made, he is not liable for it as no loan was necessary or usual in the business of the kind carried on by the firm.3. At the trial of the suit the following issues were raised:(1) Whether the plaintiff advanced Rs. 6,000 to the firm of Kapurchand Sheshmal on May 23, 1920, as alleged in para 3 of the plaint?(2) Whether the second defendant is liable for the loan or any part thereof.4. The plaintiff carries on business at Belgaum as shrof...
Karsandas Purshottamdas Vs. Gopaldas Trikamji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom282; (1923)25BOMLR1144
Lallubhai Shah, Kt., Ag. C.J.1. The plaintiff filed this suit on January 7, 1921, claiming Rs. 25,000 with interest.2. The defendant filed his written statement on February 19, 1921, in which ho pleaded that the plaintiff had no right to make time of the essence of the contract; that the time given under the notice was unreasonably short; that really the plaintiff had no right to specific performance until the Improvement Trust gave a completion certificate and executed a lease; that the plaintiff was aware of the disputes between him and the sub-lessees; that he was responsible for the delay which was due entirely to the conduct of the sub-lessees and to official routine of the Improvement Trust and that the plaintiff was not entitled to a return of the deposit money and to the costs, charges and expenses in connection with the agreement. Be also counter-claimed that the plaintiff should be required to specifically perform the agreement, and to pay the balance of the purchase money wi...
Motilal Ratanchand Marwadi Vs. Nandram Dalpatram Marwadi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom139; (1923)25BOMLR1222
Lallubhai Shah, Kt., Ag. C.J.1. The facts which have given rise to this application are these. In Suit No. 468 of 1921 filed by the plaintiff, the defendant was represented by a pleader, a written statement was filed, and the case was adjourned from time to time when the defendant was absent. The case was ultimately fixed for hearing on September 7, 1921, when the pleader was present in the Court, The defendant was absent. At that time the pleader did not ask the Court to adjourn the case, nor did he state to the Court whether he had any instructions to go on with the case; but in face he took no part in the conduct of the suit. The result was that when the plaintiff's evidence was recorded, the Court proceeded to give judgment and passed a decree on that day, It is stated in the judgment that the defendant does not appear to contest the suit.2. Thereafter the defendant made an application to the trial Court on the basis that it was an ex parte decree and prayed that it should be set a...
Lakshman Mhasu Bhagat Vs. Narhari Dadasa Gujar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom294; (1923)25BOMLR1211
Lallubhai Shah, Kt., Ag. C.J.1. The question on this second appeal is whether certain articles, which are described as Charak, an iron pot, used for the purpose of manufacturing gul from the sugar-cane juice, and certain wooden planks required for the purpose, are 'implements of husbandry' within the meaning of Section 60, Clause (b), of the Civil Procedure Code. The trial Court held that they were implements of husbandry, and it was prepared to hold, if necessary, that they were tools of tin artisan within the meaning of Section 60, Clause (b).2. In appeal, however, the learned First Class Subordinate Judge, with appellate powers, came to the conclusion that they were not implements of husbandry within the meaning of the section, and that they could not be treated as took of an artisan, and accordingly he set aside the order made by the trial Court on this point After hearing the arguments we have come to the conclusion that these articles are within the scope of the expression 'imple...
In Re: Ambalal Sarabhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom182; (1923)25BOMLR1225
Lallubhai Shah, Kt., Ag. 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 question has arisen with reference to the income of the opponent for the year ending March 31, 1921. The question referred for our decision is in these terms:Whether the agreement dated Jane 29, 1016, between Ambalal Sarabhai and his wife Saraladevi made the business of Karamchand Premchand & Co., a partnership firm, and whether it constituted the said Saraladevi a partner of her husband Mr. Ambalal so as to render the business liable to be assessed separately to super-tax as an unregistered firm as required by Sections 3 and 4 of the Super-tax Act, 1920, as read with Section 12(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1918.2. The answer to this question depends upon the view which we take of the said agreement of June 29, 1916. It is clear on reading Section 12(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act VII of 1918 with Section 3 of the Super-tax Act XIX of 1920...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›