Mumbai Court July 1927 Judgments
Bhukhandas Lallubhai Vs. Thakoreram Kapilram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Bom640; (1927)29BOMLR1465
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. The points involved here really lie in a small compass. The plaintiff was liable to the Committee of Management of the Surat Municipality for various rates including certain water charges. Under Rule 245 of the Surat Municipal Rules the Municipality was entitled to send one consolidated bill for the aggregate dues. The plaintiff refused to pay the consolidated bill. He tendered merely that part of the bill which related to water charges and to one other item. The Municipality declined to allow him to pick and choose in this way, and they next proceeded to cut off his water supply.2. Now there is an express power given to the Municipality as regards the water supply. That is by-law 6 of Oh. XI which provides that 'the Municipal Commissioner may, at any time, stop or cut off a private connection in any of the following events, viz., (1) in default of payment of water charges in respect of the private connection, within one month of the date of the presentatio...
Tag this Judgment!Mariyam Hakim MomIn Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-1927
Reported in: (1927)29BOMLR1427
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. This suit was one against inter alia the Secretary of State praying for declaration and for cancellation of a certain sale deed passed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendants Nos. 2 and 3, and for an injunction restraining delivery of the property to defendants Nos. 2 and 3. It is common ground that two months' notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code was not given before the suit was brought. The learned trial Judge, in reliance on Bhagchand v. Secretary of State (1923) 26 Bom. L.R. 1 and other decisions of the Bombay High Court, held that the case being one for an injunction, the suit was not barred under Section 80. Those decisions however have been clearly overruled by their Lordships of Privy Council in the very same case on appeal, viz., Bhagchand v. Secretary of State : (1927)29BOMLR1227 . That also was a case for a declaration and injunction, in which their Lordships closely examined the grounds for the different views taken by the Hig...
Tag this Judgment!Gauri Shankar Vs. Jiwan Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-1927
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR64
Shaw, J.1. This appeal concerns property which is undoubtedly family property. It was sold for family necessity, so alleged, at the price of Rs. 4,000. There is no allegation made upon the record, or suggested in any respect, that the property was sold for the payment of any debts for immoral purposes. 7 The only question is as to family necessity.2. A certain practice appears to have crept up in the Allahabad High Court of investigating and settling these cases upon the principles of accounting. If, upon a strict accounting, it is found that, although it be completely established that by far the most substantial part of the consideration was for family necessity, yet if a certain balance of the price remains unaccounted for, or insufficiently proved, then by that result the parties' interests are to be judged, and the sale is set aside, conditionally upon the repayment by the vendor or his representatives of the substantial part referred to.3. It is manifest that this practice imperil...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary of State for India Vs. Girjabai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-1927
Reported in: (1927)29BOMLR1503
Sinha, J.1. This is an appeal against a decree of the High Court of Bombay, dated August 15, 1924, which varied the decree of the District Court of Nasik, dated February 28, 1920, and made in Civil Suit No. 5 of 1914.2. The suit arose under the following circumstances :-3. Manmad village, now grown to an important railway junction, was held by the Vinchurkar-one of the lesser Mahratta chiefstogether with many other villages in 'Saranjam' grant from the Peishwa, the then ruler of the country. The last holder of the entire saranjam was the late Sardar Raghunathrao Vinehurkar, commonly known as Annasaheb, who held it from 1836 till 1889, when he died. On his deathbed he adopted as a son the plaintiff Shivdeorao, but the Government refused to recognise the adoption, and in 1892 re-granted half of the saranjam to the late Sardar's brothers and their sons and resumed the other half, which included Manmad village. The adopted son, though thus excluded from any share in the saranjam, would sti...
Tag this Judgment!Sorabshah Pestonji Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Bom17; (1927)29BOMLR1535
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. [His Lordship after setting out the facts of the case, proceeded ] This brings me back then to what are the strict legal rights of the plaintiff Mr. Thakor very frankly in.his opening said that he did not think he could properly put his case as one of fraud. We have looked at the definition of fraud in some of the authorities, and it seems to us that that submission of Mr. Thakor was only a right and proper one to make. It is but fair to say that there is not before us the slightest evidence that any officer of Government deliberately put forward this statement about the shops with the intention to deceive the plaintiff's, or in any other but the honest belief that the statement was correct. At most it amounts to this that there was an omission to state a material fact.2. The consequences of that omission I will now consider. Here I wish to repeat that we have not thought it necessary to call on the pleader for the respondent, and therefore anything that I ...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Cotton and General Mills Co. Vs. the Income Tax Commissioner
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-1927
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR60
Blanesburgh, J.1. These petitions are each of them for special leave to appeal from orders made by the High Court of Judicature at Lahore on references to that Court under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, In each case the sum in dispute exceeds Rs. 10,000. In each the order in question was made before April 1, 1926-that in the first of the two cases being of date January 12, 2 926, and that in the second having been made on January 6, 192(3, In each case, also, the High Court refused to certify that the case was a fit one for appeal to His Majesty in Council. With these facts for its foundation, an interesting argument was addressed to the Board upon the nature of the statutory appeal in such cases as these, and upon the question whether in the present instances there is any such appeal at all.2. The learned Judges of the High Court were of opinion that the petitioners had a right of appeal to His Majesty in Council provided they could in effect, bring their cases with...
Tag this Judgment!The Ontario Jocky Club Limited Vs. Samuel Mcbride
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-1927
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR1329
Wrenbury, J.1. On June 23, 1922, one Chas. Millar executed in favour of the respondent, McBride, a transfer of one share in the appellant company, the Ontario Jockey Club, Limited. The transfer was presented to the company for registration, but registration was refused on the ground that the provisions of the agreement and by-law presently mentioned had not been observed. Thereupon the respondent, on November 24, 1923, brought this action to enforce registration. The litigation ran its course, and resulted in an order dated November 20, 1925, and affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada on December 15, 1926, by which the company was ordered to enter the name of McBride on the register. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment of the Supreme Court.2. The transferor Millar is not a party to the action. The order under appeal to put McBride's name on the register is necessarily an order to take Millar's name off. Apart from the merits of case their Lordships had they been in fa...
Tag this Judgment!Kunversi Ratansi Patel Vs. Pitamberdas Ramdas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Bom599; (1927)29BOMLR1355
Crump, J.1. This is an appeal against an order by the First Class Subordinate Judge at Ahmedabad granting a review of a judgment. The facts shortly are that on July 23, 1926, the Court upon the evidence came to the conclusion that the defendants in the suit were not agriculturists. There was then an application to review that decision, and the Court granted that application on the ground that there was a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. Though other grounds were suggested in the application, it is plain that it was on that ground alone that a review was allowed. From that order an appeal is made to us, and a point arises whether any such appeal lies or not.2. The appellant's counsel bases his right of appeal on Order XLIII, Rule 1, Clause (w), but it has unfortunately escaped the attention of the bar that that clause of Order XLIII, Rule 1, has been deleted by a rule made by this High Court in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 122 of the Code of Civil Proc...
Tag this Judgment!Vadilal Purshottam Vs. Kanaialal Inderlal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-1927
Reported in: (1927)29BOMLR1441
Madgavkar, J.1. The question in this suit relates to the right, title, and interest, if any, of defendant No. 1, Kanaialal, minor, and his mother and guardian defendant No. 2, Laxmibai, in respect of certain property mortgaged by defendant No. Ps grand father Nandlal to the plaintiff, on which the latter obtained a decree, and which was sold and purchased in execution by the plaintiff. mortgagee decree-holder,2. [His Lordship, after narrating the facts, proceeded :] It is admitted by both sides that the real question in this suit is whether, the right, title and interest of defendant No. 1 has or has not passed to the plaintiff by his purchase. It is argued for the plaintiff, firstly, that the mortgage in his favour was executed for an antecedent debt due to Maganlal and to Uderam and that Nandlal was therefore competent to mortgage defendant No. 1's interest along with his own to the plaintiff, and, secondly, that he had actually done so and the interest of defendant No. 1 has passed ...
Tag this Judgment!Sakharam Bala Nikam Vs. Thama Bala Nikam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Bom26; (1927)29BOMLR1571
Amberson Marten, C.J.1. In this case a Hindu widow Thama defendant No. 1 passed two deeds of gift, viz., (1) on September 23, 1918, Exhibit 23, in favour of Rama, and (2) on August 20, 1921, Exhibit 20, in favour of her own daughter and roversioner Sau, defendant No. 2. Then on January 22, 1922, she Adopted the plaintiff. The present contest is between the daughter Sau claiming under the deed of gift of August 1921, Exhibit 20, and the plaintiff, the adopted son. The trial Court decided in favour of the adopted son. The lower appellate Court decided in favour of the daughter. The adopted son appeals.2. The daughter bases her claim on this that there was a valid surrender by the deed of August 1921 of the mother's life interest in favour of the daughter and reversioner, whereby the reversion became accelerated and the life interest of the widow extinguished. On the other hand it is contended by the adopted son that the widow could not in August 1921 pass her whole interest in the proper...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »