Mumbai Court December 1926 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.
Pestanji Ratanji Dabu and Co. Vs. the Collector of West Khandesh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-22-1926
Reported in: (1927)29BOMLR361; 101Ind.Cas.582
Patkar, J.1. In this case the petitioner Pestanji Ratanji Dabu and Company of Surat took an Ijara Patta from the original deceased defendant Ranjitsangji Sursangji, Chieftain of Sansthan Kathi in Mewas, West Khandesh District, for the cutting of a forest in 1919 for Rs. 85,000. The petitioner filed a suit in the Court of the Mewas Agent, who is the Collector of West Khandesh, against Ranjitsangji to recover Rs. 21,000 with costs and rupees one lac for damages. Certain preliminary issues were decided by the Mewas Agent on December 23, 1924, and Ranjitsangji filed civil revisional application No. 163 of 1925 in the High Court. In that application a Rule was issued by this Court on June 15, 1925, and was discharged with costs on February 10, 1926.2. Ranjitsangji died, and the Collector of West Khandesh as representing the Court of Wards was substituted in his place as his legal representative.3. On July 8, 1926, the petitioner applied to the Mewas Agent that he himself in his capacity as ...
In Re: the Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-1926
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR197; 108Ind.Cas.465
Crump, J.1. This is a petition by the Tata Iron Steel Company Limited under Section 153 of the Indian Companies Act. The members of the company are of four kinds :-(1) first preference shareholders; (2) second preference shareholders; (3) ordinary shareholders; and (4) deferred shareholders. The first preference shareholders are entitled to a fixed cumulative dividend at the rate of six per cent, per annum calculated on the profits of the company in any one year. The second preference shareholders are entitled to a similar dividend at the rate of seven and a half per cent, per annum. After these dividends have been paid, the ordinary shareholders are entitled to a non-cumulative dividend up to eight per cent,, and then the deferred shareholders come in, and are entitled to a non-cumulative dividend up to twenty-five per cent, per annum, That is to say, the profits, which it is determined to distribute every year are devoted to paying dividends first to first preference shareholders, th...
The Ahmedabad Cotton and C. Co. Vs. Bai Budhian Rajaram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-1926
Reported in: (1927)29BOMLR349; 101Ind.Cas.552
Patkar, J.1. In this case one Kalicharan Nanu was employed as a jobber in the Ahmedabad Cotton Spinning and Manufacturing Company Limited, and died on November 30, 1925, as the result of an accident while employed in the Weaving Department, Sometime before the date of the accident the Mill authorities had commenced the work of replacing the corrugated iron sheets on the roof of the Weaving Department by wooden planks, and in order to protect the cloth, that was being manufactured, from the dust that would fall from the roof, a temporary hessian cover was put over that portion of the weaving shed where the work of replacing was actually being done. Two theories were advanced before the lower Court as to how the accident happened. One was that while the jobber was putting the belt on the pully, the piece of the hessian cloth got entangled in the belt and in trying to remove that piece the deceased himself got entangled. And the other theory was that he went to cut a portion of the hessia...
Ahmedabad Cotton and Co. Vs. Bai Budhian Rajaram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Bom223
Patkar, J.1. In this case one Kalicharan Nanu was employed as a jobber in the Ahmedabad Cotton Spinning and Manufacturing Company Limited, and died on November 30, 1925, as the result of an accident while employed in 'the weaving department.2. Some time before the date of the accident the Mill authorities had commenced the work of replacing the corrugated iron sheets on the roof of the weaving department by wooden planks, and in order to protect the cloth, that was being manufactured from the dust that would fall from the roof a temporary hessian cover was put over that portion of the weaving shed where the work of replacing was actually being done. Two theories were advanced before the lower Courts as to how the accident happened. One was that while the jobber was putting the belt on the pully, the piece of the hessian cloth got entangled in the belt and in trying to remove that piece the deceased himself got entangled. And the other theory was that he went to cut a portion of the hes...
Seshgiri Narayan Kamat Vs. Venkatesh Laxman Kamat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Bom221; (1927)29BOMLR344; 101Ind.Cas.432
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. This is a partnership suit in which this Court gave judgment in second appeal on November 13, 1925, allowing the appeal and restoring the judgment of the trial Court with a certain variation.2. On March 30, 1926, the present applicant applied for a review. This was rejected on July 19. Then on July 27, the present application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council was presented which was followed on August 9 by an application for leave to excuse the delay.3. The argument presented to us on behalf of the petitioner was that the period during which he was prosecuting the application for review ought to be entirely deducted. But counsel for the respondents for the first time pointed out to us that even this would not by itself help the applicant, because even if that period was deducted, the applicant would still be out of time by some six or seven days. This is now conceded by counsel for the applicant. The office calculation is in effect accepted, namely, ...
Govind Narayan Prabhu Vs. Venkatesh Laxman Kamat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-15-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Bom259; (1927)29BOMLR342; 101Ind.Cas.430
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. In our judgment the application in writing in the present case to enforce an award under Section 20 of the Second Schedule to the Civil Procedure Code when numbered and registered as a suit became a suit for the purposes of Order XXXVIII dealing with attachment before judgment. Section 20 provides that the application is to be numbered and registered as a suit. Section 21 enables the Court after the requisite notice has been given to order an award to be filed and to pronounce judgment according to the award.2. It is argued that because there is a conflict of opinion between the Bombay and Calcutta High Courts as to whether Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code dealing with res judicata applies to an application to enforce an award under Section 20 of the Second Schedule, that therefore we ought to follow the decisions of the Bombay High Court, and hold that the provisions as to attachment before judgment do not apply to Section 20 any more than the provis...
Abdul Rahman Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-1926
Reported in: (1927)29BOMLR813
Phillimore, J.1. This appeal, which is presented by special leave, arises in the following circumstances. One, Mani Iyer, presented an insolvency petition in the High Court of Rangoon against the firm of D.K. Cassim & Sons, alleging that the firm had allowed the attachment of certain immoveable properties to remain undischarged for over three weeks and had thereby committed an act of insolvency.2. On hearing of the petition it appeared that the orders for the attachment had been made on November 19 and 21, 1923, but that the date of execution was the 27th, and that within three weeks of the 27th, though not within three weeks of the 19th, the attachment had been discharged, and, therefore, there was no act of insolvency.3. It appeared, however, that in order to support the petition, the dates of execution of the warrants had been altered from the 27th to the 20th and 21st, respectively.4. This being so, the Judge dismissed the petition and reported the case with a view to criminal proc...
Kalyanasundaram Pillai Vs. Karuppa Mooppanar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-1926
Reported in: (1927)29BOMLR833
Salvesen, J.1. These are two consolidated appeals from a judgment and two decrees dated November 13, 1922, of the High Court of Judicature at Madras. It is unnecessary to restate the prior procedure or judgments which dealt with a number of contentions in law, and questions of facts now either finally disposed of or no longer insisted upon. It is sufficient to say that when leave to appeal was granted by the order of the High Court of April 19, 1923, it was on the specific ground that it raised the substantial question of law, namely, 'whether an adoption of a son by a Hindu made after the execution and delivery of a deed of gift, but before registration thereof, renders a deed void as against the adopted son.' This is the only ground of appeal which is set forth in the appellant's case, and respondents in their case, paragraph 2, take up the same position. Although, therefore, other grounds were indicated in the argument addressed to the Board which might have been equally fatal to th...
Srikrishn Das Vs. Nathu Ram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-1926
Reported in: (1927)29BOMLR825
Salvesen, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and a decree dated March 30, 1921, of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad which on second appeal reversed a judgment and decree dated February 1, 1919, of the Additional District Judge of Aligarh who had set aside a judgment and decree dated August 30, 1918, of the Subordinate Judge of Aligarh.2. The petition of plaint was at the instance of Nathu Ram and his brothers, sons of one Dungar Mal, and was directed against Kanhaiya Mal who had purchased ancestral property from the plaintiffs' father in the year 1902, and the main relief sought was that the sale deed dated December 23 in that year should be declared invalid, and the plaintiffs awarded proprietary possession of the property thus alienated by their father. The property sold consisted of :-1. One moiety share in a 6 biswa, 5 biswani zamindari share of a property in mauza Daulatpur.2. A proportionate share in 51 bighas, 18 biswas, 13 biswansis 'pukhta' of a zamindari property...
Emperor Vs. Dorabji Pestonji Gora
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-09-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Bom161; (1927)29BOMLR204; 101Ind.Cas.178
Fawcett, J.1. An objection has been taken that the Court, as constituted by myself as Judge and a jury which had been sworn in the presence of Mr. Justice Taleyarkhan, has no jurisdiction to try the present case. This objection is based upon a contention that the Court which actually had seisin of the case was the Court as constituted when the jury was formed, and that until that jury has been discharged, there cannot be another different Court which can try the case.2. That contention no doubt has in its favour the authorities, to which my notice has been drawn, Empress v. Khagendra Nath Bannerji 2 C.W.N. 481 and Emperor v. Jotindra Nath Gui. 8 C.W.N. 58 The latter case is not directly in point, but it proceeds on a somewhat similar ground. The former case is more in point. The trial had commenced and the evidence had been partly gone into before one Judge, who retired from the case under Section 556 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which deals with a case in which a Judge is personall...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »