Mumbai Court February 1925 Judgments
Nilkant Vasudeo Samant and ors. Vs. Balwant Pandurang Samant
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom431
Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiff filed this suit in the Court of the joint Subordinate Judge at Malvan who held that the Court had no jurisdiction and directed the plaint to be returned for presentation to the proper Court. The plaintiff appealed to the District Judge, who held that the Malvan Court had jurisdiction in the case, and accordingly sent it down for trial according to law. The defendants filed a second appeal to this Court, and the preliminary objection has been taken by the respondent's pleader that no second appeal lies. The order made by the Subordinate Judge was under Order 7, Rule 10. Under Order 43, Rule 1 (a), an appeal lies under the provisions of Section 104 from an order under Order 7, Rule 10. Section 104 says: 'An appeal shall lie from the following orders, and save as otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any law for the time being in force from no other orders... (i) any order made under rules from which an appeal is expressly allowed by rul...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagvanlal Chunilal Vs. Bai Divali
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-1925
Reported in: 88Ind.Cas.750
1. The original plaintiff to this suit was one Parshottam Hargovan Das, who sued to recover from the defendants possession of the property in suit, alleging that his wife Bai Adat died on January 9, 1921, leaving behind her that property to which the plaintiff was the heir at law; that the defendants were withholding possession of the same from him on the strength of an alleged Will by Bai Adat; and that as the plaintiff had not consented to it, it was not operative.2. The defendants went to trial on the issues, whether the Will by Bai Adat was valid, and whether the suit properties, or any of them, were other than Saudayika stridhan of the deceased Bai Adat. The Trial Judge found that the Will was valid, and that the property in suit was not Saudayika stridhan of Bai Adat. He considered in the circumstances of the case that Bai Adat was entitled to dispose of such property by. Will, although her husband was alive, because the Will was not made during covertures, which was still unders...
Tag this Judgment!Nilkanth Vasudeo Samant and ors. Vs. Balvant Pandurang Samant
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-1925
Reported in: 88Ind.Cas.753
1. The plaintiff filed this suit in the Court of the Joint Subordinate Judge at Malvan who held that the Court had no jurisdiction and directed the plaint to be returned for presentation to the proper Court. The plaintiff appealed to the District Judge, who held that the Malvan Court had jurisdiction in the case, and accordingly sent it down for trial according to law. The defendants filed a second appeal to this Court, and the preliminary objection has been taken by the respondent's Pleader that no second appeal lies. The order made by the Subordinate Judge was under Order VII, Rule 10 Under Order XLIII, Rule 1(a), an appeal lies under the provisions of Section 104 from an order under Order VII, Rule 10. Section 104 says: 'An appeal shall lie from the following orders, and save as otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any law for the time being in force from no other orders...(i) any order made under rules from which an appeal is expressly allowed by rules.' Sub-...
Tag this Judgment!The Jubilee Mills Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom257; (1925)27BOMLR400
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from the order of Mr. Justice Mulla discharging a rule nisi taken out by the petitioners calling upon the Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay, to appear and show cause why he should not be ordered to refer the questions set out in Ex. F, and in para 8 of the petition, together with his opinion thereon to this Court for its decision. The petitioners are a joint stock company incorporated and registered in Bombay on June 16, 1920. They were required by the Collector of Income Tax to make a return of their income for assessment for the year 1921 -22. On October 27, 1921, the petitioners lodged accounts for the year ending June 30, 1921. Upon that the Collector issued notices of assessment for income tax and super tax for the year 1921-22, which were subsequently amended, and the amended notices were issued on January 3, 1922. The petitioners paid the income tax and the super-tax demanded in the notices on February 6, 1922. In October 1922 the p...
Tag this Judgment!Govind Vasudeo Kulkarni Vs. Narayan Balwant Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom439; (1925)27BOMLR627
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. We think this case comes within the decision in Damodar Gopat Dikshit v. Chintaman Balkrishna Karve I.L.R(1892). 27 Bom. 42 cited with approval in Bhikaji Hari v. Radhabai I.L.R.(1913) 37 Bom. : 700 15 Bom. L.R. 803. In the latter case the plaintiff' sued the defendants alleging that they were both sharers in the Kulkarni Watan, and that the defendants had received profits of the office and had not paid to the plaintiff her share for a certain number of years. The defendant admitted that he had received the profits, and admitted that the plaintiff was a sparer, but only disputed the quantum of her share. The suit was held to be a suit for money had and received by the defendant for the use of the plaintiff, and was a suit of a Small Cause Court nature in respect of which no second appeal lay.2. In this case we are asked to hold that the suit came within Article 13 of the second schedule of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, as it was a suit to enforce p...
Tag this Judgment!Gafur Imam Vs. Amir Isab Saudagar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom484; (1925)27BOMLR629
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs sued to obtain possession by partition of their one-third share in the suit property, and for recovering contribution from the defendants for money paid by the plaintiffs for redeeming the other two-thirds in the same.2. The trial Judge held that the plaintiffs could claim one-third share in the suit property; that they had redeemed the mortgages on the property and obtained possession; and that the plaintiffs were entitled to a sum of Rs. 65-10-8 from the defendants as their contribution towards the expenses incurred in redeeming the property. He did not allow the plaintiffs any interest on that amount.3. The third defendant alleged that he had repaired the house at a cost of Rs. 350 after he had purchased the interest of the first defendant, are of the original mortgagors The Judge found that he had spent Rs. 850, and hold that the plaintiffs were liable to pay one-third of that amount,4. In appeal the appellate Judge held that plaintiffs we...
Tag this Judgment!John Robert Ball Vs. Charles William Ball
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom337; (1925)27BOMLR564
Taraporewala, J.1. In this case the estate of the deceased testator is not sufficient to pay all the legacies directed to be given by the will and the questions raised in this Originating Summons are as to whether the legacy of Rs. 15,000 under clause 2 (a) in favour of Mrs. Mary Josephine Ball should have priority over the legacies in favour of the grand-children and great-grand-children under clause 2 (6), and further whether the legacies under clause 2 (c) should rank pari passu with the legacies under clause 2 (a), or should also be paid, after the legacy under clause 2 (a) has been fully satisfied.2. It has been argued on behalf of the plaintiff that because in clause 2 (6) the words used are 'subject to the aforesaid,' the legacy under clause 2 (b) can take effect only after the legacy under clause 2 (a) has been fully satisfied and that there being no such words in clause 2 (c), the legacy under clause 2 (c) should rank with the legacy under clause 2 (a) and that unless and unti...
Tag this Judgment!Dhanraj Joharmal Vs. Soni Bai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-1925
Reported in: (1925)27BOMLR837
Ameer Ali, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff, Soni Bai, in the Court of the Additional District Judge of Amroati, in East Berar, for a declaration that she was entitled by inheritance to the estate of her father, Ram-dhan Marwari, who died at Amroati on June 24, 1914. She was a minor at the time and brought the suit by her guardian, her father-in-law, Narain Das, as next friend.2. The facts of the litigation may be stated shortly for the purposes of this judgment. Ramdhan, the plaintiff's father, resided at a place called Khanapur, Taluk Morsi, in the district of Amroati and carried on business there; whilst his brother, one Joharmal, lived in the township of Chandur Bazar, in Taluk Elichpur, where he had a shop. Both were Agarwallas by caste.3. Joharmal died in September, 1912, and the defendant Dhanraj claims to have been adopted by him some year before his death. On the death of Ramdhan in 1914, Dhanraj took possession of his estate, claiming to be entit...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›