Mumbai Court January 1925 Judgments
In Re: Mahomed Esmail Fazla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom329; (1925)27BOMLR551
Crump, J.1. Mahomed Ismail Fazla was adjudicated insolvent on February 1, 1924. On September 27, 1924, the Official Assignee applied to the Court for an order for the examination of five persons under Section 36 of the Presidency Towna Insolvency Act. On December 16, 1924, the three petitioners, being three of these persons, obtained a rule nisi calling upon the Official Assignee to show cause why the order for their examination should not be vacated. The rule was argued before me on January 20, 1925, and I reserved my judgment.2. The nature of the controversy between the parties can be gathered from the affidavits. The insolvent in his affidavit of September 27, 1924, in support of the application for an order under Section 36, sets out a number of very serious charges against the petitioners, The substance of those charges is that they by coercion, fraud, undue influence, and forgery obtained mortgages of the insolvent's property for which no adequate consideration was paid, 'he prop...
Tag this Judgment!Ardeshar Cowasji Patel Vs. K.D. and Bros.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom330; (1925)27BOMLR553
Pratt, J.1. Plaintiff is a lessee of a plot of land at Kirkee measuring 13,639 square yards, under a lease from the Secretary of State for the term of thirty-three years from April 1, 1918.2.The plaintiff' sub-leased to the first defendant a plot out of the said land measuring 8,704 square yards. The sub-lease was dated April 8, 1922, but the term began from September 1, 192], and was for seven years. The rent reserved by the sub-lease is Rs. 600 per mensem, and the sub-lessee covenanted to pay a proportion of the ground-rent and taxes of the property so demised. The ground-rent was a proportionate part of the rent reserved by the head-lease to the Secretary of State.3. On June 1,1922, defendant No. 1 with the consent of the plaintiff' assigned by way of mortgage his interest as sub-lessee to the third defendant.4. Plaintiff has been paid rent up to January 31, 1923, but no ground-rent or taxes have been paid ever since the commencement of the terms a from September 1, 1921.5. Plaintif...
Tag this Judgment!Motilal Itchhalal Gandhi Vs. Haji Moosa Haji Mahomed
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-1925
Reported in: (1925)27BOMLR814
Shaw, J.1. The Board is at a considerable disadvantage in this case on account of the absence of the respondent. The case, however, has been explained with complete candour and fullness by Sir George Lowndes, on behalf of the appellant.2. In the contract for the sale of this immoveable property, made in the month of February, 1919. there was a clause making the settlement and the payment of the price subject to the condition that time was of the essence of the contract. The negotiations, however, proceeded, and the parties entered into communication with regard to the furnishing of a title, requisitions were made and answered, and arrangements with the municipality, usual in Bombay, had to be come to so that the battaki announcements should be made in the district.3. It is quite clear to their lordships that the time allowed for completion was far exceeded and the condition as to time being of the essence of this contract was, by the conduct of the parties, obliterated therefrom.4. The...
Tag this Judgment!Mahadev Narayan Joshi Vs. Shridharbhat Gopalbhat Joshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom311; (1925)27BOMLR488; 87Ind.Cas.716
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs sued to recover on a mortgage bond for Rs. 200 dated August 28, 1912, passed by the defendant to one Krishnaji Govind Joshi, the grandfather of the plaintiffs. The defendant contended that the plaintiffs had no right to file the suit; that the debt had not come to plaintiffs' share; that the land in suit had been mortgaged with possession in 1882 to the great-grandfather of the plaintiffs; that it had been decided in suit No. 325 of 1917 that this mortgage had been paid off; that the suit debt having not been claimed in that suit the present suit was barred by res judicata; and that the suit debt had been paid off by the income of the land from the date of the suit mortgage.2. The trial Judge held that the claim was barred as res judicata on account of the decree in Suit No. 325 of 1917.3. The facts are that the land in suit, Survey No. 44, and another survey number were mortgaged, by the defendant's father to the plaintiffs' grandfather in 18...
Tag this Judgment!Achyut Narayan Khare Vs. Ramchandra Keshav Ukidve
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom362; (1925)27BOMLR492; 87Ind.Cas.719
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover Rs. 9,782-8-0 as the balance still due on a mortgage bond, dated June 17, 1914, with costs and future interest. The lower Court found that the principal was Rs. 4,999, that the amount of interest due up to the date of suit was Rs. 4,783-8-0 but only allowed further interest after the date of suit so as to make the total of interest awarded equal to the amount of the principal. A preliminary decree was passed directing that the defendants should pay Rs. 9,998 with costs on or before July 15,1923. Interest after July 15, 1923, was to run on the whole of the above amount at six per cent, until realisation.2. The plaintiff has appealed on the following grounds :-(1) The lower Court wits wrong in holding that the rule of damdupat applied in calculating interest in a mortgage suit from the date of the suit to the date fixed for redemption. (2) The lower Court should have at least allowed interest on Rs. 9,782-8-0 at the agreed rate fr...
Tag this Judgment!Hirabhai Dahyabhai Vs. Maneklal Ranchhod
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom313; (1925)27BOMLR485; 87Ind.Cas.713
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J. 1. The facts are correctly stated in the judgment of the lower Court. The plaintiff having got a decree against the 1st and the 2nd defendants in the suit for the return of the earnest money and damages for breach of contract proceeded to appeal on the ground that he was entitled to specific performance of the contract against the defendant No 3 Pending the appeal the 1st defendant paid into Court, as he was entitled to do, the amount which had been awarded against defendants Nos. 1 and 2. The plaintiff continued the appeal and was successful Consequently these defendants were entitled to get their money back.2. So defendants Nos 1 and 2 filed Darkhast No. 283 of 1922 for restitution, claiming interest on the money which remained in Court until the plaintiff's Darkhast No. 172 of 1923 The plaintiff says that he acquired no benefit from the money which had been paid into Court, rind therefore he was not liable to pay interest demanded by the defendant No. 1. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Ved and Sopher Vs. R.P. Wagle and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom351; (1925)27BOMLR556
Taraporewala, J.1. In this matter the plaintiffs, Messrs. Ved and Sopher, ask for payment to them of the amount of a decree obtained by the defendants R. P. Wagle & Co. against one Narotamdaa Haridas attached in execution of the decree in favour of Ved and Sopher in the suit and realised by the Sheriff.2. The application is opposed by Messrs. Hiralal & Co., who acted as solicitors for R. P. Wagle & Co,, and who have got a charging order in their favour on the decrees in favour of R. P. Wagle & Co,, one of which is the decree attached in the present execution proceedings, The said decree was passed on July 8, 1924, and was attached by Ved and Sopher on July 10, 1924. The solicitors, Messrs. Hiralal & Co., got the charging orders on July 15 and 16, 1924. Thereafter Narotamdas Haridas, the judgment-debtor in the said decree, paid the monies in the Sheriff's office on August 5, 1924. The Prothonotary has certified that the only claim in execution against the amount of the decree is that of...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sir Purshottamdas Thakordas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom318; (1925)27BOMLR478; 87Ind.Cas.706
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is reference under Section 66 (2) of the Indian Income Tax, Act, XI of 1922 by the Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay Presidency, in the matter of the assessment of the income of Sir Purshottamdas Thakordaa, hereafter called the assessee In his return of income for the purposes of assessment for the year 1923-24, the assessee, while declaring his income from all sources, had made a note as under :-Besides this, I received during samvat Year 1978 Rs. 1,88,750 as remuneration for winding up the estate of Omar Sobhani which being an extraordinary source of income is not liable to taxation.2. The Income-Tax Officer, however, did not exempt this item from assessment. Thereupon an appeal was lodged before the Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax who held that this item was rightly taxed. Thereupon the assessee applied for a reference, and the Commissioner of Income-Tax has made this reference on the question raised with his opinion thereon.3. It seems strange...
Tag this Judgment!Narsingacharya Gopalacharya Shurpali Vs. Tulsabai Rambhat Dandavati
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom320; (1925)27BOMLR483; 87Ind.Cas.712
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The property in dispute in this suit was a shop at Dharwar belonging to one Narsappa, who died leaving a daughter, the present defendant No. 1, then a minor. A guardian was appointed of her person and property by the District Court in 1904. On April 9, 1913, the guardian sold the shop in suit to the second defendant for Rs.200, without obtaining permission from the District Court for the sale In 1915 one Sharadabai, who had obtained a decree for maintenance against Narsappa, got the shop attached and sold in execution and one Dyavappa purchased it at the auction sale Defendant No. 3 later purchased it from Dyavappa. Plaintiff purchased the property from the second defendant in 1919 and brought the suit to recover possession. The trial Court decreed the claim.2. The lower appellate Court has dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The learned Judge: has misconstrued Section 30 of the Guardians and Wards Act VIII of 1890. The sale by Raghunath in 1913 to the second de...
Tag this Judgment!Basayya Ayappa Sarghnachayar Vs. Allayya Maharudrayya Ganachari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom328; 87Ind.Cas.710
Macleod C.J.1. This suit was originally fixed before the trial Court for hearing on November 2, 1922. On that date the plaintiffs pleader asked for an adjournment undertaking to produce his witnesses without summonses. The Court granted an adjournment till November 30, 1922. On November 30, the case was called on but the plaintiff was absent. The Court instead of making an order under Order XVII, Rule 2, proceeded under Rule 3 to decide the suit and rejected the plaintiff's claim with costs.2. On appeal the District Judge was of opinion that that order was wrong, but he considered the appeal before him on its merits holding that the plaintiff had not shown sufficient cause for his non-attendance on November 30. But if the proper order had been made by the trial Judge under Order XVII, Rule 2, it would be the trial Judge who would have to decide on the application to restore the suit to the board, whether the plaintiff had sufficient cause for his non-attendance; so we do not think that...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »