Mumbai Court August 1925 Judgments
Jagjivandas Jamnadas Vs. the Nagar Central Bank, Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom262
Kajiji, J.1. The plaintiff carries on business as a sub-agent of the firm of Taraehand Ghanshamdas and sells kerosene oil of the Burma Oil Company, in the district of Ahmednagar. The defendants are bankers doing business at Ahmednagar. It appears that the plaintiff had dealings for the last twenty years with the firm of Taraehand Ghanshamdas and in the course of such business the plaintiff used to send from time to time either hundis or cheques by ordinary post to Taraehand Ghanshamdas. On October 24, 1923, the plaintiff 'took from the defendants a cheque for Rs. 3,000 payable to themselves-or order, on the Bombay Provincial Go-operative Bank, and the cheque was not crossed at the plaintiff's request. The plaintiff indorsed the cheque in favour of Taraehand Ghanshamdas or order, and it was sent, according to the evidence of the plaintiff, by ordinary post with a letter dated October 21, 1923, along with a hundi for Rs. 600 to Taraehand Ghanshamdas. The letter with the enclosures, namel...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Chand Mahaboob
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom46; (1925)27BOMLR1388
Fawcett, J.1. This is an appeal by the Government of Bombay against the acquittal of the accused Chand Mahoboobsab by the Fourth Presidency Magistrate. He was put before that Magistrate on a charge under Section 112, cl (d), of tin; Bombay City Police Act IV of 1902, namely that being a, reputed thief he was found loitering in the street and without being able to give a satisfactory account of himself. Evidence was given by a Police Constable that he was arrested at 1-15 A. M. on the Proctor Road and that nothing was found in his possession; also that the accused had two previous convictions. There was no cross-examination, and the Magistrate upon this acquitted the accused on the ground that he could not come in the category of a reputed thief, having only two previous convictions,2. It has been objected by Mr. Rele for the accused that in any case accused's two previous convictions have not been properly proved. Certainly, so far as the information sent by the Criminal Investigation ...
Tag this Judgment!Fulchand Mohanlal Vs. Harilal Nansa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom69; (1925)27BOMLR1503
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs sued for a declaration that they had a right to manage the suit Wadi, to let it to tenants and to realize the rent, that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 had not such a right, and to get a permanent injunction against them and to restrain them from making any such use.2. The plaintiffs alleged that they and defendants Nos. 1 and 2 belonged to the Modh Ganchi caste of Kalupur Panchpura, and that the caste owned the suit Wadi There was a caste meeting convened on December 12, 1920, to pass some resolutions in respect of the caste, as defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and one Vallabh had unauthorizedly got the management and did not submit accounts, and the property had been wasted. They further alleged that the caste entrusted the vahivat of the property to the defendants, and they were bound to hand it back to the plaintiffs in accordance with the caste resolutions,3. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 contended that two factions existed in the caste, that the plaintiffs' f...
Tag this Judgment!Haji Rehemtulla Haji Tarmahomed Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom50; (1925)27BOMLR1507
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The first plaintiff is the proprietor of the firm of Haji Tar Mahomed Hasan. The second plaintiff is the manager of the Broach shop of the firm, Plaintiff No. 1 resides in the town of Upleta in Gondal State in Kathiawar. He has various shops in the British territory, and three shops in the Baroda State. The income of each shop is received direct from the Shop by the plaintiff at Upleta. The Income Tax Collector of the Broach City assessed the income of the plaintiffs on the income which was earned accrued within the British territory, He also sought to levy income-tax on the income earned by the shops in the Baroda State, Eventually the plaintiff had to file those three suits for a declaration that the Income Tax Officer could not levy a tax on the income of the shops of the line of plaintiff No 1 situate at Miyagam, Karwan and Badharpur in the Native State of Baroda.2. The first question is whether the plaintiff was not barred from bringing these suits by t...
Tag this Judgment!Fulchand Mohanlal and ors. Vs. Harilal Nansa and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.549
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiffs sued for a declaration that they had a right to; manage the suit Wadi, to let it to tenants and to realize the rent, that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 had not such a right, and to get a permanent injunction against them and to restrain them from making any such use.2. The plaintiffs alleged that they and defendants Nos. 1 and 2 belonged to the Modh Ganchi caste of Kalupur Panchpura, and that the caste owned the suit Wadi, There was a caste meeting convened on December 12th, 1920, to pass some resolutions in respect of the caste, as defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and one Vallabh had unauthorizedly got the management and did not submit accounts, and the property had been wasted. They further alleged that the caste entrusted the vahivat of the property to the defendants, and they were bound to hand it back to the plaintiffs in accordance with the caste resolutions.3. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 contended that; two factions existed in the caste, that the plaintiffs' f...
Tag this Judgment!Vishvanath Shamba Naik Vs. Ramkrishna Martoba Kasbekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom86; (1925)27BOMLR1478
Coyajee, J.1. The plaintiff, (respondent in Second Appeal No. 163 of 1924), who holds the suit land on Mullen, tenure under the defendants at a fixed and invariable rent, sues for an abatement of his rent on the ground, inter alia, that the land has now become exposed to inundation from the sea. The trial Judge dismissed bis suit. But on appeal his claim was allowed by the learned District Judge, who says :-Appellant reliea on I. L B. 43 Mad. 132. Respondents reply that the lease then in question was one for twenty years and that the same principle cannot apply in the case of a perpetual tenancy; the proper remedy is a surrender of the tenancy which respondents are willing to accept. Appellant, however, has a right), which practically amounts to ownership. He is not willing to surrender it and defendants' readiness to accept the surrender nhowa that the land is not without value. The Madras case quoted recognises the principle of abatement in such cases and the question of the length o...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M.H. Sanjana and Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom129; (1925)27BOMLR1471
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is a case stated by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 66 (2) of the Income-Tax Act XI of 1922 and referred to the High Court with the opinion thereon of the Commissioner, at the instance of the assessees, the liquidators of Messrs. M. H, Sanjana & Company, Limited (in voluntary liquidation), hereinafter called the Company. The Company was started in 1919 to carry on the business of merchants, commission agents, contractors, suppliers of stores, shipchandlers etc., and did so until the end of the year 1922, when it was resolved to take it into voluntary liquidation.2. On February 21, 1923, the liquidators entered into an agreement with Ahmedbhoy Currimbhoy and Albert Raymond on behalf of a new Company to sell to the new Company when incorporated the business including all the stock-in-trade, furniture, fittings, machinery, and plant, motor cars, buildings and lands, the lease of the office premises at Elphinstone Circle, the goodwill of the bu...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Govind Deshpande Vs. Dhondo Krishna Tathe
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR305; 94Ind.Cas.76
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. In this Darkhast the defendant pleaded that he was entitled to the status of an agriculturist. The Subordinate Judge said : ' The contention conies too late and it cannot be recognized in execution now.' It has been held by this Court in Rudrappa v. Ohanbasappa (1923) 26 Bom. L.R. 153 that where a decree is passed ex parte, the defendant can, in execution proceedings, show that he was an agriculturist at the date of the decree and claim instalments under Section 15 B of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act. The defendant is, therefore, entitled to prove that he was an agriculturist at the date of thedecree. Seeing that he is able to rely on that authority the only question we have to decide at present is whether the defendant should be allowed to prove that he was an agriculturist at the date of the decree. It is argued that there is a bar to his doing that owing to the fact that there were previous Darkhasts in which the defendant had not claimed that he ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajubhai Mohanbhai Vs. Lalbhai Mulchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR1000; 97Ind.Cas.691
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff filed this suit to obtain an injunction restraining the defendants from raising any construction over the chora or open space to the south of his Wall thus necessitating the closing of any jalis or windows or stopping the mori mentioned in the plaint, The plaintiff failed to prove that the wall to the south of his house was of his exclusive ownership. The first Court has found that it was a joint wall and both parties are entitled to its equal user. The trial Court dismissed the suit, The appellate Court considered that the , plaintiff had proved that all his windows and openings, except a jali in the wall on the ground floor, were of over twenty years' standing, and, therefore, the appellant was entitled to a legal easement entitling him to an injunction against the respondents from obstructing or interfering with the light and air to these openings and the discharge from the mori.2. There can be no question of easement as regards light and ai...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Govind Deshpande Vs. Dhondo Krishna Thathe
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom246
Macleod, C.J.1. In this darkhast the defendant pleaded that he was entitled to the status of an agriculturist. The Subordinate Judge said : 'The contention comes too late and it cannot be recognized in execution now.' It has been held by this Court in Rudrappa v. Chanbasappa A.I.R. 1924 Bom. 305 that where a decree is passed ex parte, the defendant can, in execution proceedings, show that he was an agriculturist at the date of the decree and claim instalments under Section 15-B of the Dekkhan Agriculturists Relief Act. The defendant is therefore, entitled to prove that he was an agriculturist at the date of the decree. Seeing that he is able to rely on that authority the only question we have to decide at present is whether the defendant should be allowed to prove that he was an agriculturist at the date of the decree. It is argued that there is a bar to his doing' that owing to the fact that there were previous darkhasts in which the defendant had not claimed that he was an agricultur...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »