Mumbai Court March 1928 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.
The Mercantile Bank of India Limited Vs. F.M. Caeiro
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Bom434(1); (1928)30BOMLR1222
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. As regards Appeal No. 33, this closely resembles the facts in Appeal No. 82 of 1927. Accordingly our judgment in Appeal No. 32 must be treated as embodied in our judgment in this appeal.2. But the difference is this. We are dealing here with Port Trust debentures instead of the Improvement Trust debentures and they are issued under the Bombay Port Trust Act, 1879, Sections 39 and 42, but on similar terms. Further, looking at the list of debentures, Exhibit A to the plaint, we are not concerned with the last three, viz., new Debentures Nos. 11541, 11539 and 11538, because the Mercantile Bank did not hold them at the date of the suit. Then, as regards new debentures Nos. 13342 and 13341, the proceeds of those debentures were recovered by the Bank before the suit. Consequently the Bank are now being sued for the proceeds. That leaves us then with a suit for the return of nine new debentures and the proceeds of two others.3. Now here, like in Appeal No. 32, all...
The Mercantile Bank of India, Limited Vs. F.M. Caeiro
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-1928
Reported in: 114Ind.Cas.389
1. As regards Appeal No. 33, this closely resembles the facts in Appeal No. 32 of 1927. Accordingly our judgment in Appeal No. 32 must be treated as embodied in our judgment in this appeal.2. But the difference is this. We are dealing here with Port Trust debentures instead of the Improvement Trust debentures and they are issued under the Bombay Port Trust Act, 1879, Sections 39 and 42, but on similar terms. Further, looking at the list of debentures, Ex. A to the plaint, we are not concerned with the last three, viz, new Debentures Nos. 11541, 11539 and 11538, because the Mercantile Bank did not hold them at the date of the suit. Then, as regards new Debentures Nos. 13342 and 13341, the proceeds of those debentures ware recovered by the Bank before the suit. Consequently the Bank are now being sued for the proceeds. That leaves us then with a suit for the return of nine new debentures and the proceeds of two others.3. Now here, like in Appeal No. 32 See 114 Ind. Cas. 383.--[Ed.] all t...
Gulabbhai Ranchhodbhai Vs. Bhagvan Kesur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Bom377; (1928)30BOMLR980; 114Ind.Cas.266
Patkar, J.1. The question involved in these appeals is as to the construction of documents which are described as valatdan. The documents in all these cases have been held to be of the nature of leases and not mortgages. It is urged on behalf of the appellants that the documents were passed in consideration of previous debts, that they were described as valatdan and the word patta was not mentioned, that the relation of debtor and creditor continued, and that the documents ought to be considered as mortgages and not as leases, and reliance is placed on the decisions in Tukaram v. Ramchand I.L.R (1901) Bom. 252: 3 Bom. L.R. 718. and Mahmad v. Bagas I.L.R (1908) Bom. 569: 10 Bom. 742. On behalf of the respondents reliance is placed on the decision of the Privy Council in Nidha Sah v. Murli Dhar (1902) 5 Bom. L.R. 111: L.R. 30 IndAp 54.2. It is strongly urged on behalf of the appellants that valatdan is described as a kind of mortgage in Robertson's Glossary, and also in the Dictionary of...
Sombhai Adesing Vs. Jagjivan Dayaram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Bom330; (1928)30BOMLR987; 114Ind.Cas.377
Patkar, J.1. In this case, the plaintiff sued to redeem the mortgage in favour of the defendants as the purchaser from Bai Jivi who claimed to be the heir of Bat Kashi, the original mortgagor, by virtue of Bai Kashi's will, Exhibit 17, and also on the ground of her natural kinship to the said Bai Kashi. Jagannath, the husband of Bai Kashi, died about fifty years ago, leaving behind him his widow Kashi, his brother Kasandas, and Kasandas's wife Ratan. A few months after Jagannath, Kasandas died and Ratan the widow of Kasandas got all the property of the two brothers Kasandaa and Jagannath. Ratanbai, the widow of Kasandas, mortgaged three survey numbers, including 4 acres and 37 gunthas of survey No. 153 on June 9, 1873. On Eatanbai's death, Bai Kashi got all the lands entered in her name on March 7, 1885. She was in possession of 5 acres and 2 1/2 gunthas of survey No. 153 which she mortgaged by Exhibit 19 for Rs. 499 in favour of defendant No. 1 and the father of defendant No. 2. Bai K...
Maharaja Bahadur Kesho Prashad Singh Vs. Madho Prashad Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1928
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR1372
Shaw, J.1. These are consolidated appeals against decrees of the High Court of Judicature at Patna. They refer to the right of property in two villages, Majhwari and Bhatauli.2. With regard to the possession of those villages, it cannot be controverted, and it has been admited at the bar, that both villages have been possessed by the respondents for a long period of time (which may be said to have begun in 1887) until the present day. Any challenge of their title to hold these properties would be excluded by the Indian Limitation Act, it being perfectly clear that their possession far exceeded the period of limitation of twelve years which would affect this case.3. Their Lordships think it unnecessary to go into the details of the possession of either party. They are satisfied, however, that the grounds taken by the Subordinate Judge are the true grounds upon which this case should be decided. They do not feel, as at present advised, concerned with the question, somewhat anxiously disc...
Emperor Vs. Vinayak Lakshman Bhatkhande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1928
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR1530; 113Ind.Cas.612
Mirza, J.1. The appellant has been convicted by the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Bombay, under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code, of having, while a servant in the employment of Rai Bahadur Seth Tricumchand and his son, between April 30, 1927, and July 6, 1927, committed breach of trust in respect of an aggregate sum of Rs. 19,651-11-3, and is sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000, in default six months' further rigorous imprisonment. The appellant has appealed from his conviction and sentence.2. Mr. Kolaskar, on behalf of the appellant, has raised a preliminary point, that the trial before the learned Magistrate was vitiated by a certain procedure adopted by him. The procedure complained of is that while Mr. Kolaskar was finally addressing the learned Magistrate on behalf of the appellant, the Magistrate suggested to him that in lieu of his speech he might substitute a written address which the Magistrate would read and take into consideration. Mr. ...
Nawab Sadiq Ali Khan Vs. Jai Kishori
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-1928
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR1346
Salveson, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh, dated May 27, 1925, reversing a decree dated April 30, 1924, of the Subordinate Judge of Lucknow.2. The first respondent, who alone appeared in the appeal, is the mortgagee under a mortgage, dated April 18, 1908, and the appellants are the representatives by succession or purchase of two persons named Baqar Ali Khan and AH Ahmad Khan.3. The mortgage was executed by the two persons last mentioned in security of a sum of Rs. 7,000 loaned by the mortgagee for a term of five years in the first instance and bearing interest at the rate of fourteen annas per cent, per mensem. It is in the ordinary form, and provision is made for interest being accumulated at compound rates in the event of non-payment, and for the period of payment of the principal sum and interest being extended beyond the stipulated period in the option of the mortgagee.4. The mortgagors were two of the family of a certain Quas...
Kumar Kamakhya Narayan Singh Vs. Ram Raksha Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-1928
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR1361
Lancelot Sanderson, J.1. These are consolidated appeals by Kumar Kamakhya Narayan Singh, the plaintiff in three suits, against three decrees of the High Court of Patna, the first two dated August 6, 1924, and the third dated March 19, 1925, by which the decrees of the learned Subordinate Judge were reversed and the plaintiff's suits were dismissed.2. The first appeal, viz., No. 13 of 1926, related to Suit No. 58 of 1920, which was instituted on April 1, 1920.3. The plaintiff, being a minor and a ward of Court, sued through his next friend : the defendants were alleged to be the heirs or assigns of Syed Mazaffar Hossein and Syed Mahamad Hossein.4. The plaintiff, as the proprietor of the Ramgarh estate, claimed a declaration that the defendants had no permanent and heritable interest in the villages Jabda and Jobdi. There was a further claim for possession of the said villages and mesne profits.5. The High Court came to the conclusion that the defendants had made a definite assertion of ...
Narayan Hari Tarkhande Vs. Yeshwant Raoji Naik
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Bom352; (1928)30BOMLR1018
Fawcett, J.1. The applicant, in this ease, made a complaint before the First Class Magistrate of Malegaon against the opponent, who is a Sub-Inspector of Police, charging him with having, as a public servant, framed incorrect documents with intent to cause injury to the complainant and to save a person from punishment. The offence is punishable under Sections 167 and 218 of the Indian Penal Code. He alleged that the accused had deliberately taken down incorrect statements of witnesses in an investigation made by the accused in a theft case. The accused admits that he recorded the statements in question, in virtue of his office as Sub-Inspector; but he contended that the prosecution was time-barred under Sub-section (3) of Section 80 of the Bombay District Police Act, 1890. This sub-section says :-In any case of an alleged offence by a Magistrate, police-officer or other person... by any act done under colour or in excess of any such duty or authority as aforesaid, or wherein it shall a...
The Commissoner of Income-tax, Bombay Vs. the Remington Typewriter Com ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Bom465; (1928)30BOMLR1190; 113Ind.Cas.602
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. In this income-tax reference the Remington Typewriter Company (Bombay) Limited (whom I will call 'the Bombay Company '), have been assessed under Section 42(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, as agents of the Remington Typewriter Company of New York (whom I will call 'the American Company'), for the years 1925-26 and 1926-27 in respect of profits alleged to have accrued or arisen to the American Company through their business connection with the Bombay Company, including alleged profits in connection with the Remington Typewriter Company (Madras) Limited (whom I will call 'the Madras Company'), and the Remington Typewriter Company (India) Limited (whom I will call 'the Calcutta Company.').2. The case for the Crown before the Income-tax Officer and the Assistant Commissioner appears to have been based on the view that the Bombay Company and the American Company were separate entities in substance as well as in law, but that the former was an agent for th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »