Mumbai Court November 1926 Judgments
Sejmal Punamchand and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Bom177; 100Ind.Cas.981
Lallubhai Shah, J.1. (October 8, 1926.)--This is an application by two accused persons, who were charged with having given false evidence in the course of their statements in a suit filed on the Original Side of this High Court. The charges against accused No. 1 were two, first, that he made a false statement 'Not true that I then deducted Rs. 750 for first ten months' interest'; and secondly, that he made the following false statement, 'No letter was brought to me along with that cheque. I got no letter from defendant in which he alleged we had deducted Rs. 750.' The charge against accused No. 2 was that he made the following statement which he knew or believed to be false, 'Not true that Rs. 750 deducted for interest.' There was separate charges against each of the accused.2. In the suit in which the two accused gave evidence, one of the questions raised at the instance of the defendant in that case was whether the sum of Rs. 750 was paid back by him as interest at the time of the lo...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Dinshaw Maneckjee Petit Bart
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Bom371; (1927)29BOMLR447
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. For the financial year 1925-26, the assessee Sir Dinshaw Petit has been assessed for super-tax on an aggregate income of Rs. 11,35,302 arising in the previous year. Of this sum he objects to Rs. 3,90,804 made up of two sums of Rs. 2,76,800 and Rs. 1,14,004, the former of which arises from Government and other fixed interest bearing funds, and the latter from dividends in companies. Nothing appears to turn on this distinction, and 1 shall accordingly ignore it. Admittedly the assessee is the legal owner of moat of these funds in the sense that they stand in his name and the interest and dividends are paid to him direct. Admittedly as regards the rest, the apparent legal owners are his nominees, and he receives the interest and dividends. Admittedly he has retained all the above interest and dividends, and applied the same to his own use. But he contends that he is only a trustee for certain family companies which he has formed: that the interest and dividend...
Tag this Judgment!Radha Kishun Vs. Hira Lal Sah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-1926
Reported in: (1927)29BOMLR791
Phillimore, J.1. The plaintiffs and defendants are respectively firms of Indian bankers who are close neighbours. They had business relations for a considerable period, the business beginning on the 5th Chait in the Fasli year 1309 and the relations ending on the 27th Katik in the Fasli year 1324.2. The account is sometimes described as a mutual current account but as far as their Lordships have been permitted to see the papers, it was a one-sided account of loans made from time to time by the plaintiffs' firm and payments from time to time in whole or partial discharge of the advances. But the question of mutuality is not a material one.3. Plaintiffs sued for the balance of the account with compound interest at the rate of eight annas per cent, per mensem. The defendants claimed to reduce the rate of interest by one pie and dispute the claim of compound interest, and further pleaded that all the earlier items were barred by the Indian Limitation Act. The way in which they put their ca...
Tag this Judgment!Ramsaran Mandar Vs. Mahabir Sahu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-1926
Reported in: (1927)29BOMLR796
Sinha, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree dated February 22, 1924, of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, which reversed a judgment and decree, dated March 9, 1921, of the District Judge of Durbhanga and made in Suit No. 835 of 1919.2. That suit was instituted by the plaintiff, Mahabir Sahu, against six defendants. all members of a joint Hindu family, constituted as shown in the pedigree below :-Ramsaran Mandar Ranglal MandarDefendant 1 a deceased brother| of Defendant 1Narain |Defendant 2 -----------------------------| | |--------------------- Thakur Persad Lachminarain| | Defendant 3 Defendant 4Raj Kumar Ram KumarDefendant 5 Defendant 83. Defendants Nos. 4, 5 and 6 were all minors at the time the suit was filed, but defendant No. 4 attained majority before judgment. Defendant No. 3 died before filing any written statement.4. The plaint alleged that Ramsaran (defendant No. 1), as head and karta of the above joint family, entered into an agreement with the plaintiff t...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Sir Dinshaw Maneckjee Patit Bart
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-1926
Reported in: 102Ind.Cas.49
Amberson Marten, C.J.1. For the financial year 1925-26, the assessee Sir Dinshaw Petit has been assessed for super tax on an aggregate income of Rs. 11,35,302 arising in the previous years. Of this sum he objects to Rs. 3,90,804 made up, of two sums of Rs. 2,76,800 and Rs. 1,14,004, the former of which arises from Government and other fixed interest bearing funds, and the latter from dividends in companies. Nothing appears to turn on this distinction, and I shall accordingly ignore it. Admittedly the assessee is the legal owner of most of these funds in the sense that they stand in his name and the interest and dividends are paid to him direct. Admittedly as regards the rest, the apparent legal owners are his nominees, and he receives the interest and dividends. Admittedly he has retained all the above interest and dividends, and applied the same to his own use. But he contends that he is only a trustee for certain family companies which he has formed: that the interest and dividends a...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Kalia Amra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1926
Reported in: (1927)29BOMLR168
Patkar, J.1. In this case sixteen accused wore tried before the Sessions Judge of Broach on charges under Sections 224, 147, 332 and 333, Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case was that accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 imported liquor from Navagama in the Rajpipla State into British limits, and having been lawfully arrested accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 escaped from lawful custody, after the rest of the accused committed not and assaulted the Abkari officers and secured the release of accused Nos. 1 to 3 by use of force. All the accused except accused Nos. 8, 9, 13 and 16 were convicted. Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 224, Indian Penal Code ; and accused Nos. 5 and 15 each to six months rigorous imprisonment under Sections 147 and 225, and to three years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 333, Indian Penal Code; and accused Nos. 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12 and 14 each to six months rigorous imprisonment under Sections 147, 225 and 332, I...
Tag this Judgment!Panaganti Ramarayanimgar Vs. Maharaja of Venkatagiri
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1926
Reported in: (1927)29BOMLR805
Sinha, J.1. This is an appeal against a decree of the High Court of Madras, dated April 19, 1920, varying a decree of the Subordinate Judge of North Arcot, dated March 31, 1917, made in a suit filed in that Court on December 21, 1915.2. That suit arose out of a transaction between the Raja of Kalahasti and the Raja of Tuni, which was embodied in Exhibit A and Exhibit I in the case.3. Exhibit A purports to be a deed of 'mortgage with possession' of immovable properties described in Schedules A, B, C and D (hereafter called the A, B, C and D properties) for a sum of eleven lakhs of rupees, with interest at ten annas per cent. per month, to be recovered from the rents and profits. The mortgagor was to have liberty to pay off the mortgage money at the end of four years, with option to defer payment for a further period of two years. If the money was not paid on March 13, 1915, the entire amount then due was to carry interest at one per cent. per mensem-ten annas from the rents and profits ...
Tag this Judgment!Kachireddi Nagireddi Vs. Sakireddi Chinna Narayanareddi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1926
Reported in: (1927)29BOMLR786
Phillimore, J.1. The appellant in this case, claiming to be the nearest agnate, brought a suit to recover the estate of one Kachireddi Balireddi against Sakireddi Peddasubbareddi, now deceased, of whom the present respondents are representatives.2. The deceased defendant denied that the plaintiff was an agnate of Balireddi and further relied upon a will which the said Balireddi had made in his favour. The plaintiff said that Balireddi had made no such will and further that he was a minor and incapable of making a will.3. The Subordinate Judge decided that the plaintiff had made out his title as agnate, and that the alleged will was not proved. With regard to the question of the majority or minority of Balireddi he held that the burden of proof was upon the defendant who set up the will, and that that burden had not been discharged.4. On appeal, the High Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had not proved that he was an agnate and was therefore not entitled to maintain the su...
Tag this Judgment!Devshi Harpal Vs. Bhikamchand Ramchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Bom125; (1927)29BOMLR147
Amberson Marten, C.J.1. The main point in this case is whether the plaintiff's firm of Khemchand Keshavlal were entitled, in the events which happened, to call for margin from their constituents the first defendants and to close the contract in default of that margin being provided. The learned Judge found that the plaintiff's firm acted as pacca adatias in this transaction, and we see no reason to disturb his finding on that point. That being so, it is admitted that, in accordance with the ordinary practice in Bombay, the pacca adatias would be entitled to call for margin, if the rise or fall in the market justified a demand for margin,. The defendants have set up a special agreement not to charge margin, but, in my opinion, that agreement is not made out. In this connection it is material to observe that this special agreement is nowhere alleged in the correspondence before suit, nor is it expressly pleaded. And the defendant's evidence that the moneys were to be paid 'at the end of ...
Tag this Judgment!Ma Mi Vs. Kallander Ammal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-1926
Reported in: (1927)29BOMLR800
John Wallis, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the High Court at Rangoon reversing the decree of the District Court of Pegu. The suit was brought by the respondent Kallander Ammal, to recover the whole, or in the alternative, a part of the estate of her deceased husband, Sheik Moideen, who died intestate on February 29, 1920.2. In her plaint she claims to be the sole heir of her deceased husband, and alleges that the first defendant, Ma Mi, falsely claims to have been his lawful wife, and that the second defendant, Mohamed Eusoof, falsely claims to be the legitimate son of the deceased Sheik Moideen by one Ma Kin; and that neither of them have any claim to any portion of or interest in the estate of the deceased. Notwithstanding which, as she alleges, the defendants have been withholding the property of the deceased from her. The defendants filed a joint written statement in which they denied that the plaintiff was heir to the estate, and pleaded that prior to his death the dec...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »