Mumbai Court January 1924 Judgments
Haji Abdulla Haji Cassum Vs. George Reginald Stamp
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Bom381; (1924)26BOMLR224
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiffs tiled this suit against the defendant, the Senior Member of Lloyd's Underwriters, London, on a policy of March 24, 1920. The Policy contained the following clause:--It is mutually agreed that in accordance with the aforesaid regulations the benefit of this Policy and the right to receive or endorse over claims thereon may be passed, whether before or after claim by endorsement, and that such endorsees or the bearer of the Policy, if endorsed in blank, on production of this Policy shall have power to receive and give receipts for or to endorse or assign over, as provided by the said Regulations, any claim thereon All disputes must be referred to England for settlement, and no legal proceedings shall be taken to enforce any claim except in England, whore the underwriters are alone domiciled and carry on business. 2. The defendant took out a summons on December 8, 1922, for an order under the Indian Arbitration Act IX of 1899 that all proceedings shou...
Tag this Judgment!Lajwanti Vs. Safa Chand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-1924
Reported in: (1924)26BOMLR1117
Dunedin, J.1. Jawahara Mal, a Datt Brahmin, living in the Punjab, died in 1852. He was survived by three wives, but at the time of his death had no children. Shortly after his death, as alleged, his eldest wife had a posthumous son named Hira Nand, who died after a few months. He undoubtedly had a posthumous daughter by his second wife, who is plaintiff in this action. He had three brothers, the eldest Bhim Sen, who in turn had two sons Hem Raj and Jamiat Raj. The other two brothers were Ram Bhuj and Gowhur Sen, who both had sons and grandsons who are some of the respondents in this case. He and his brothers were possessed of considerable property, ancestral and otherwise. After his death his widows were entered in the settlement records as proprietors of a fourth share of certain Mouzahs. In 1865 a new settlement was being made, and in furtherance of the entries to be made therein an action was raised by Hem Raj in 1867 asking that the entries of all parties except himself should be d...
Tag this Judgment!Rustamji Heerjibhai Vs. Cowasji Dadabhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Bom317; (1924)26BOMLR209
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. This was an originating summons filed by one trustee against his co-trustees for the determination of the following question:--Whether the defendants should not be ordered to execute a deed of appointment appointing Dinshaw D. Romer as a trustee of the premises mentioned in the deed of declaration dated June 6, 1919, referred to in the plaint in place and stead of Cowasjee Maneckjee Rustomjee deceased.2. At the hearing of the summons the second defendant was absent, while counsel appeared for the plaintiff', the first and third defendants respectively. The answer to the question was that the defendants were bound to execute a deed of appointment. The costs of plaintiff and third defendant as between attorney and client were to come out of trust funds, and the first defendant was directed to bear his own costs.3. From that judgment the first defendant appealed. He made the plaintiff and the second and third defendants respondents. At the hearing of the appeal the ...
Tag this Judgment!Rustomjee Heerjeebhoy Vs. Cowasjee Dadabhoy and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR48Bom348
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This was an originating summons filed by one trustee against his co-trustees for the determination of the following question:Whether the defendants should not be ordered to execute a deed of appointment appointing Dinshaw, D. Romer as a trustee of the premises mentioned in the deed of declaration, dated the 6th June 1919, referred to in the' plaint in place and stead of Cowasjee Maneckjee Rustomjee deceased.2. At the hearing of the summons the 2nd defendant was absent, while counsel appeared for the plaintiff the 1st and 3rd defendants respectively.3. The answer to the question was that the defendants were bound to execute a deed of appointment. The costs of plaintiff and third defendant as between attorney and client were to come out of trust funds, and the 1st defendant was directed to bear his own costs.4. From that judgment the 1st defendant appealed. He made the plaintiff and the 2nd and 3rd defendants respondents. At the hearing of the appeal the 2nd d...
Tag this Judgment!Rustomjee Heerjibhai Vs. Cowasjee Dadabhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-1924
Reported in: 79Ind.Cas.704
1. This was an originating summons filed by one trustee against his co-trustees for the determination of the following question:Whether the defendants should not be ordered to execute a deed of appointment appointing Dinshaw D. Romer as a trustee of the premises mentioned in the deed of declaration, dated June 6, 1919, referred to in the plaint in place and stead of Cowasjee Maneckjee Rustomjee, deceased,2. At the hearing of the summons the second defendant was absent, while Counsel appeared for the plaintiff, the first and third defendants respectively. The answer to the question was that the defendants were bound to execute a deed of appointment. The costs of plaintiff and third defendant as between Attorney and client were to come out of trust funds, and the first defendant was directed to bear his own costs.3. From that judgment the first, defendant appealed. He made the plaintiff and the second and third defendants respondents. At the hearing of the appeal the second defendant was...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Raja Gokaldas Mills Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Bom346; (1924)26BOMLR312
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act XI of 1922 at the instance of the Secretaries, Treasurers and Agents of the Raja Gokaldas Mills, Limited. For the purposes of the income-tax and supertax assessments for the years 1921-22 and 1922-23 the Company submitted a printed copy of its audited balance sheet and profit and loss account for the year ending Juno 30, 1921, and that would form the basis of its final assessment for the year 1921-22 under the Indian Income-Tax Act VII of 1918 and the Super-tax Act XIX of 1920, and of its assessment for 1922-23 under the Indian Income-tax Act XI of 1922. We are not concerned in this reference with the assessment for the year 1921-22. We are only concerned to see on what basis the assessment for 1922-23 has to bo levied under the Indian Income-tax Act XI of 1922.2. Under Section 3 of the Act:--Where any Act of the Indian Legislature enacts that income-tax shall he charged for any year at any rate...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Tyaballi Mulla Lukmanji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-1924
Reported in: (1924)26BOMLR216
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. We think this rule must be made absolute. The accused was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50 for contravening the bye-law No. 132 of the Kurla Municipality, read with Section 96 or the Bombay District Municipal Act. It was for the prosecution to prove that the building contravened the bye-law. The accused had given notice of what he intended to build, and the Municipality did not answer the request within a month, so the accused was entitled to build, provided he did not contravene the provisions of the Act or any bye-law then in force. The complainant contended that bye-law 132 had not been complied with, and if the open space between block A on the plan and the block opposite it is a street, then it must be admitted that the bye-law had been contravened. But it was for the prosecution to show that that space was a street. The Magistrate says 'the defence has not shown that the occupier of the building has a right at all hours to prevent all other persona from us...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Bholasing Amersing
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Bom303; (1924)26BOMLR211
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The accused was charged with one Cassidy before Mr. Thacker, the additional Presidency Magistrate, under Section 420, read with Sectiom 114, Indian Penal Code, with having cheated the complainant on August 9, 1923, in respect of 139 tins of saccharine valued at Rs. 1,251, and having aided and abetted each other in the commission of the said offence. According to the complainant's story Cassidy came to him on August 9, at 11-30 A.M. with a Mahomedan Pandit, bringing with him a tin of saccharine, saying that he wanted to sell that stuff and asked for orders. He again came at 1-30, when the complainant's father was present, with a sample tin which, the complainant said, was genuine, and accordingly he fixed the rate at Rs. 9 a tin, and at 3-30 he brought 139 tins of saccharine which looked similar to the sample. The complainant paid Rs 1251 and Cassidy passed a receipt, Ex. A, signed in the name of J. Smith for P. Singh. Cassidy refused to receive a cheque for payme...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Bholasingh Amersingh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-1924
Reported in: 81Ind.Cas.926
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The accused was charged with one Cassidy before Mr. Thacker, the Additional Presidency Magistrate, under Section 420, read with Section 114, Indian Penal Code, with having cheated the complainant on August 9, 1923, in respect of 139 tins of saccharine valued at Rs. 1,251, and having aided and abetted each other in the commission of the said offence. According to the complainant's story-Cassidy came to him on August 9, at 11-30 a.m. with a Mohamedan Pandit, bringing with him a tin of saccharine, saying that he wanted to sell that stuff and asked for orders. He again came at 3-30, when the complainant's father was present, with a sample tin which, the complainant said, was genuine, and accordingly he fixed the rate at Rs. 9 a tin, and at 3-30 he brought 139 tins of saccharine which looked similar to the sample. The complainant paid Rs. 1,251 and Cassidy passed a receipt, Exhibit A, signed in the name of J. Smith for P. Singh. Cassidy refused to receive a cheque for...
Tag this Judgment!Bhiku Krishna Badhade Vs. Keshav Ramji Badhade
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Bom360; (1924)26BOMLR235
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. We think the learned District Judge was right in following the Full Bench decision in Basappa v. Rayava I.L.R. (1904) 29 Bom. 91, 6 Bom. L.R. 779. In that case it was held that a widow remarrying could succeed to the estate of her son by her former husband who died after her remarriage. We do not think that case can be distinguished from the present case merely because the widow succeeded to the estate of her daughter, and not to the estate of her son. It was suggested that there might be some difference if the son had taken by survivorship, which could not be the case with the daughter, as the daughter must necessarily take by inheritance. The fact remains, whether the estate has vested in a son or a daughter, that the mother succeeds to both of them as heir, and consequently, if she could succeed to the estate of her son. after she had remarried she could equally succeed to the estate of her daughter. Considering that in Basappa v.Rayava I.L.R. (1904) 29 Bom. 9...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »