Mumbai Court April 1926 Judgments
Bai Nagubai Vs. Bai Monghibai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-29-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR1143
Darling, J.1. This is an appeal in forma pauperia by special leave from a decree of the High Court, dated August 11, 1922, which reversed a decree of that Court in its Original Jurisdiction, dated November 25, 1921.2. The question in the appeal is whether the appellant is entitled to maintenance from the estate of one Vasanji Madhavji Thakar, deceased.3. The appellant is a member of the Gurav caste of Hindus, and at the age of twelve years was given into the keeping of a Shethia, or rich Hindu, named Gopal Mulji, and lived with him for twelve years and bore him two children, and during that time made the acquaintance of the deceased, who was a friend of his and used to accompany him occasionally when he visited her.4. The deceased was a very wealthy Hindu of the Lohana caste, who was married but on bad terms with his wife (with whom he did not cohabit) and her two sons, whom by his will he afterwards practically disinherited. He was from Gujerath and liyed in Bombay, and was therefore ...
Tag this Judgment!Navnitlal Chabildas Vs. the ScIndia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Bom609; (1927)29BOMLR1362
Taraporewala, J.1. In this suit the plaintiff, a shareholder in the first defendant company, sues, on behalf of himself and all the other shareholders in the company except those who are the defendants, the company and the directors of the company, praying for a declaration that a resolution of the company to the effect that the qualification of a director shall be the holding of the shares in the company of the nominal value of Rs. 75,000 instead of Rs. 30,000 moved before the sixth ordinary general meeting of the company hold on December 12, 1925, and the whole proceeding in respect thereof is ultra vires and illegal, and for other consequential reliefs.2. The facts are shortly as follows :-By a notice dated November 24, 1925, the agents of the first defendant company, by order of the board of directors, called the sixth ordinary general meeting of the company, which was to be held on December 12, 1925, and the business to be transacted was notified in the said notice.3. After the sa...
Tag this Judgment!Shripad Vishnu Pandit Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR1175
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff filed this suit against the Secretary of State for India in Council, praying for a declaration that the Government Order No. 582, dated November 30, 1922, was illegal and not binding upon him, and for the refund of Rs. 73-2-3, together with future interest at twelve per cent,, which had been taken away from him in consequence of the order. The order is as follows:-Whereas Mr. Shripad Vishnu Pandit of Wai who holds 5/36th share in the inam village of Ruighar Taluka Javali, has taken an active part in the non-co-operation movement by presiding over a meeting hold on November 16, 1921, at Wai for boycotting the visit to India of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and speaking in favour of it and thus failed to observe the conditions of faithfulneas and loyalty be Government laid down in the original Sunad of the inam village, Government have ordered that his 5/36th share in the aforesaid village shall be forfeited.2. The facts of the case are ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: the Western India Turf Club
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR1236
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference by the Commissioner of Income Tax under a, 66 (2) of Act XI of 1922. The Commissioner says that the Western India Turf Club was, in the past, being assessed to super-tax on its total income at the scale rates of one to six annsin in the rupee as an unregistered firm2. From April 1,1925, the Turf Club converted itself into a limited company by being registered under the Indian Companies Act VII of 1913, as a company limited by guarantee. The object of the company thus formed was inter alia to take over the assets, effects and liabilities of the unincorporated Club previously known as the Western India Turf Club and to continue its activities, Thus, from the above date, viz , April 1 last, the Club became a limited company. For the current financial year 1925-26, it was called upon, under Section 22 (1) read with Section 26 of the Act, to put in a return of income for the previous year, namely, 1924-25. It, accordingly, put in a return of i...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: the Indian Income Tax Act 1922 ; in Re: the Western Indian Turf ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Bom539
Macleod, C.J.1. This is a reference by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 66(2) of Act XI of 1922. The Commissioner says that the Western India Turf Club was, in the past, being assessed to super-tax on its total income at the scale rates of 1 to 6 annas in the rupee as an unregistered firm.2. From April 1, 1925, the Turf Club converted itself into a limited Company by being registered under the Indian Companies Act, VII of 1913, as a company limited by guarantee. The object of the Company thus formed was inter alia to take over the assets, effects and. liabilities of the unincorporated Club previously known as the Western India Turf Club and to continue its activities. Thus from the above date, viz., April 1, last, the Club became a limited company. For the current financial year 1925-26, it was called upon under Section 22(1) read with Section 26 of the Act to put in a return of income for the previous year, namely, 1924-25. It accordingly put in its return of income showin...
Tag this Judgment!Sripad Vishnu Pandit Vs. Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Bom581
Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiff filed this suit against the Secretary of State for India in Council, praying for declaration that the Government Order No. 532 dated November 30th, 1922, was illegal and not binding upon him, and for the refund of Rs. 73-2-3, together with future interest at twelve per cent, which had been taken away from him in eon-sequence of the order. The order is as follows:Whereas Mr. Shripad Vishnu Pandit of Wai who holds 5/36th share in the inam village of Ruighar, Taluka Javali, has taken an active part in the non-co-operation movement by presiding over a meeting held on November 16, 1921, at Wai for boycotting the visit to India of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and thus failed to observe the conditions of faithfulness and loyalty to Government laid down in the original Sanad of the inam village, Government have ordered that his 5/36th share in the aforesaid village shall be forfeited.2. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The Mamlatdar of Wai made ...
Tag this Judgment!Raphael Pereira Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR674; 97Ind.Cas.665
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J. 1. The appellant was convicted by the Second Presidency Magistrate, Bombay, on three charges, firstly, under Section 9(e) of Act I 1878, taken with Section 114, Indian Penal Code; secondly, under Section 19(f) of Act XI of 1878, taken with Section 114, Indian Penal Code; and, thirdly, under Section 43(1) (a) of Act V of 1878, taken with Section 114, Indian Penal code. The Magistrate relied upon the statement, Exhibit H, made by the appellant to Mr. Hudson, the Excise Officer, which, he was satisfied, was made without inducement, threat, or promise.2. It has been contended in appeal that Mr. Hudson occupied the position of a Police Officer within the meaning of that term in Section 162, Criminal Procedure Code, and Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. Admittedly, Mr. Hudson was not a Police Officer, but it is argued that by virtue of Section 20 of Act I of 1878, as amended by Bombay Act II of 1923, statements made to him should be treated as if they had been ...
Tag this Judgment!Ratanchand Khimchand Motishaw Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-06-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR1096
Macleod, C.J.1. An order was made by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax in this case on May 13, 1924, in the matter of the appeals against income tax and super-tax assessments, levied against R.K. Motishaw and Co., by the Senior Income Tax Officer for the year 1923-24. Under Section 66 (2) of the Indian Income Tax Act (XI of 1922) the assessee, within one month of the passing of an order under Section 31 against him, may require the Commissioner to refer to the High Court any question of law arising out of such order, and the Commissioner shall, within one month of the receipt of such application, draw up a statement of the case and refer it with his own opinion thereon to the High Court, The assessee, therefore, had time till June 13, 1924, to require the Commissioner to state a case. No such requisition was made on the Commissioner, but it appears that an application was made to the Commissioner to revise the order of the Assistant Commissioner.2. On July 3, 3 924, the Commissi...
Tag this Judgment!Bhau Laxman Dhor Vs. Budha Manku Dhor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-06-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR765
Fawcett, J.1. The following principles seem to me to have been laid down, so far as this Presidency is concerned :-(1). A stranger-purchaser of the undivided share of a coparcener in a joint Hindu family, if out of possession, should not be given joint possession with the other co-parceners but should be left to his remedy of a suit for partition: Balaji Anant Rajadiksha v. Ganesh Janurdan Kamati I.L.R. (1881) 5 Bom. 499; Pandu Vithoji v. Goma Ramji I.L.R. (1918) 43 Bom. 472, 21 Bom. L.R. 213; and Ishrappa v. Krishna : (1922)24BOMLR428 .(2). On the other hand, a coparcener, who has been excluded, may obtain joint possession with such a purchaser, who has obtained possession of the joint family property: Bhiku v. Puttu (1905) 8 Bom. L.R. 99 and the prior rulings there cited.(3). The purchaser in possession need not be ejected in a suit for recovery of possession brought by an excluded coparcener, but can be declared to be entitled to hold (pending a partition) as a tenant-in-common with...
Tag this Judgment!Bhau Laxman Dhor Vs. Budha Manku Dhor and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-06-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Bom399
Fawcett, J.1. The following principles seem to me to have been laid down, so far as this presidency is concerned:(1) A stranger-purchaser of the undivided share of a coparcener in a joint Hindu family, if out of pofsession, should not be given joint possession with the other co-parceners but should be left to his remedy of a suit for partition : Balaji Anant v. Ganesh Janardan [1881] 5 Bom. 499; Pandu Vithoji v. Goma Ramji [1918] 43 Bom. 472 and Ishrappa v. Krishna A.I.R. 1922 Bom. 413.(2) On the other hand, a coparcener, who has been excluded, may obtain joint possession with such a purchaser, who has obtained possession of the joint family property : Bhiku v. Puttu [1905] 8 Bom. L.R. 99 and the prior rulings there cited.(3) The purchaser in possession need not be ejected in a suit for recovery of possession brought by an excluded coparcener, but can be declared to be entitled to hold (pending a partition) as a tenant-in-common with the other coparceners : Babaji Lakshman v. Vasudev V...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »