Mumbai Court October 1924 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.
John over Vs. Muriel Alleen Isidore over
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom231; (1925)ILR49Bom368
Lallubhai Shah, Kt., Acting C.J.1. When this matter came before us on June 20 last, we directed the District Court to record further evidence as to the alleged adultery, and to examine the petitioner. The District Court has recorded further evidence. The petitioner has been examined on oath now, and his son also has given evidence. The respondent, the wife of the petitioner, has not appeared at any stage of the proceedings. The Setters written by the wife to the petitioner are on the record. On the strength of the letters and the evidence given by the petitioner and his son, the learned District Judge has expressed his opinion that the adultery of the respondent with another person not known is proved. He held the letters written by the respondent to be conclusive.2. The matter is now before us, and the learned pleader for the petitioner supports that view. The respondent has not appeared. In the evidence given by the petitioner, he stated that the respondent had committed adultery wit...
Gordhandas Kalyanji Bhat Vs. Gautamchand Rupchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom331; (1925)27BOMLR541; 87Ind.Cas.1051
Taraporewala, J.1. This is a rule taken out by one Gautamchand Rupchand, a partner in the defendant firm, calling upon the plaintiff to show cause why the decree passed in this suit on August 19, 1924, should not be set aside. The rule is taken out on the basis that the said decree was obtained ex parte.2. The defendant firm, according to the said Gautamchand Rupchand, consisted of two partners, Gautamchand Rupchand and Dwarkadas Premji. The plaintiff is the tenant of a shop in the Mulji Jetha Market. He sub-let a portion of the shop to the defendant firm and filed this suit to recover from the defendant firm the arrears of rent for the said portion of the shop. The summons was served upon the said Dwarkadas Premji. He appeared at the hearing and admitted the plaintiff's claim. A decree was thereupon passed in favour of the plaintiff.3. In his affidavit in support of the rule the said Gautamchand Rupchand alleges that the partnership was dissolved in November 1923, and further that the...
Ambubai Hanmantrao Vs. Shankarsa Nagosa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom272
Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiff filed Suit No. 143 of 1917 in the Subordinate Judge's Court of Hubli on a certain cause of action. He withdrew that suit with permission of the Court under Order 23, Rule 1, alleging that on account of the mis-reading of one of the issues framed by the Court he was not ready with his evidence on the day fixed for trial of the case. The Court made the following order:On condition that plaintiff pays defendants' costs and boars his own costs and pays defendants' costs before filing a fresh suit, he is under the circumstances mentioned in this application, permitted to withdraw with permission to file a fresh suit.2. Therefore the condition precedent to his being allowed to file a fresh suit was that he should pay defendants' costs. However, without paying the defendants' coats, he filed fresh Suit No. 92 of 1919. He paid the costs three days before the day fixed for the hearing of the evidence in the case. The Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the ...
In Re: Gafur Daud Saheb
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom151; (1924)26BOMLR1235; 85Ind.Cas.64
Marten, J.1. In this appeal the learned Sessions Judge appears to have made a slip in granting sanction to prosecute the appellants for perjury under the old procedure and in overlooking the circumstance that under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code a different procedure ought now to be followed. The amended Criminal Procedure Code came into force on September 1, 1923. The above sanction was given long afterwards, viz, on June 30, 1924. It would further appear that even the first application for sanction was not made until September 10, 1923. So the provisions of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, to which my learned brother has drawn the attention of counsel, could in no way apply.2. We have been referred by counsel to Baldeo Misser v. Deputy Inspector-General of Police, C.I.D., Bengal I.L.R. (1924) Cal. 652, where precisely the same point arose and where it was held that, having regard to the amending Act, the sanction purported to be there given was illegal and that no Co...
Emperor Vs. Maria Basappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom135; (1924)26BOMLR1240; 85Ind.Cas.149
Marten, J.1. This is a reference by the District Magistrate of Dharwar recommending that the proceedings now pending against the present accused in the Court of the First Class Magistrate of Gadag on a charge of murder under Section 302 should be quashed on the ground of the illegality of the proceedings.2. The accused was admittedly an approver in a murder case in which he was granded a full pardon under Section 337 of the criminal Procedure Code. That being so, that pardon was a bar to any criminal proceedings being taken against him in respect of his complicity in the murder subject to any other provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. Those other provisions will be found in Section 339 which provides that where such a pardon has been tendered, and the Public Prosecutor certifies that in, his opinion any person who has accepted such tender has not complied with the condition on which the tender was made, such person may be tried for the offence, in respect of which the pardon was ...
J. Burjorji and Co. Vs. International Banking Corporation
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom160; (1925)27BOMLR27
Pratt, J.1. This appeal practically depends upon the construction of one word in the letter written by the defendants on November 25, 3919. The defendants were a firm in Bombay importing goods from H. Yamamoto & Co. Ltd., a firm in Japan. H. Yamamoto & Co. drew billa on the defendants. These bills were discounted by the plaintiffs' bank in Japan and were presented in Bombay by the bank to the defendants for acceptance and payment. H. Yamamoto & Co. wished to be assured that these bills to be discounted by the bank in Japan would be honoured when presented in Bombay. The defendants accordingly, in order to secure H. Yamamoto & Co., and to finance their imports, wrote the letter of November 25, 1919, to the plaintiffs' bank. In the first part of that letter they inform the bank that they have instructed H. Yamamoto & Co. in Japan to draw certain bills upon them. In the second part of that letter they agree to accept on presentation all the bills drawn pursuant to that authority.2. The qu...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Haji Jamal Nur Mahomed and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-02-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom251; (1925)27BOMLR219
Lallubhai Shah, Kt., Acting C.J. 1. As the question upon which we are required to express our opinion is not categorically formulated, we may state the essential facts and the question before proceeding to express our opinion thereon.2. The assessees in this case are three brothers who are doing business in the name of Messrs. Haji Jamal Nurmahomed & Co. They attract capital for the purpose of their business by means of borrowings from persons who are described as 'Mudibhagidars' under an agreement with them. The arrangement is that instead of the Mudibhagidars being given any interest on the advances made by them to this firm, they receive certain specified shares in the profits of the business, and they are not responsible for the losses, if any. It is common ground that they are not partners in the business. In the year under consideration this firm made a profit of Us. 1,27,810-9-6. Out of that according to the agreement with the Mudibhagidars, they have to pay KB. 63,065-1-3 for t...
In Re: Purshottam Bhanji and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-02-1924
Reported in: (1925)27BOMLR223
Lallubhai Shah, Kt., Acting C.J.1. The question in this reference also has not been categorically formulated. We shall state the facts to make the point, which has been referred to us for our opinion, clear.2. It appears that the assessees in this case, namely, the firm of Messrs. Purshottam Bhanji & Co., were served with a notice on May 15, 1923, under Section 22 (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, to make a return in the prescribed form with reference to the total income during the previous year. According to the provisions of that sub-section the return was required to be made in thirty days from the date fixed in the notice, i. e., by June 15, 1923. No return was made in time. The assessing authority did not make the assessment on the income but called upon the firm to produce the account books. On December 3, the firm submitted the return to the authority. Under Sub-section 3 of Section 22 if a return is submitted at any time before the assessment is made, the return HO made shall be...
In Re: Purshotam Bhanji and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-02-1924
Reported in: 86Ind.Cas.851
1. The question in this reference also has not been categorically formulated. We shall state the facts to make the point, which has been referred to us for our opinion, clear.2. It appears that the assessees in this case, namely, the Firm of Messrs. Purshottam Bhanji & Co., were served with a notice on May 15, 1923, under Section 22(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, to make a return in the prescribed form with reference to the total income during the previous year. According to the provisions of that subsection the return was required to be made in thirty days from the date fixed in the notice, i.e. by June 15, 1923. No return was made in time. The assessing authority did not make the assessment on the income but called upon the firm to produce the account-books. On December 3, the firm submitted the return to the authority. Under sub s.(3) of Section 22 if a return is submitted at any time before the assessment is made, the return so made shall be deemed to be a return made in due time ...
Emperor Vs. Namdeo Lakman
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom138; (1924)26BOMLR1236
Marten, J.1. This is a reference by the acting Sessions Judge of Poona with respect to the conviction of accused Nos. 1 and 2 for voluntarily causing hurt under Section 323, Indian Penal Code. The ground on which the learned Judge recommends to us that the conviction and sentence should be quashed is that the Magistrates recorded evidence at some length, but omitted to record any statement of their reasons for such conviction as required by Section 263, Criminal Procedure Code. Then the letter of reference says that there was delay in lodging the complaint; that the excuse that the complainant could not make the complaint earlier was false; that she alleged that she was an in-door patient, whereas her injuries were slight and she was treated as an out-door patient only; and that certain discrepancies in the evidence rendered the above defect more than a formal defect.2. The dispute in this case was a family squabble. The complainant is the mother-in-law and accused No. 1 is her son-in-...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »