Mumbai Court November 1929 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.
Sankalchand Hakamchand Vs. Ambalal Nagindas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-06-1929
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR171; 129Ind.Cas.586
Madgavkar, J.1. The question in this appeal is whether the Ahmedabad Court has jurisdiction.2. The plaintiff respondent sued the defendant appellant on the ground that on the death of the respondent's father the appellant, who was a relation, was entrusted with the duty and undertook it of collecting outstandings due to his deceased father. The parties have always resided outside British India. The father's main business as Ghee merchant was also outside British India. The alleged agency, which was admittedly closed before his death, and the place of contract were outside British India The books were outside British India, and the accounts wore to be rendered and the moneys returned outside British India. Prima facie, therefore, the British Court would have no jurisdiction.2. The respondent, however, in para. 14 of the plaint alleged that the appellant collected certain outstandings at Ahmedabad and therefore the Ahmedabad Court had jurisdiction. The appellant in his written statement ...
Kazi Abdul Rahim Vs. Pandu Sadhu Nikam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-06-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Bom190; (1930)32BOMLR175
Madgavkar, J.1. The question in this appeal is whether the plaintiff appellant Khot is entitled to levy from the defendants respondents tenants the amount of rent as fixed in the last Survey Settlement, or whether he is entitled to recover ardhel (half the gross produce) in respect of rice lands and tirdhel (one-third produce) in respect of varkas lands, according to the mamuli vahivat or custom prior to the Survey Settlement. The trial Court held in favour of the Khot, the lower appellate Court in favour of the tenants. The plaintiff Khot appeals.2. The parties belong to the village of Salshet in the Maugaon Taluka, Kolaba District. The original survey settlement was from 1864 to 1892. In 1869, the appellant's predecessor took a lease under Section 37 of the Khoti Leases Settlement Act (Bombay Act I of 1865). In 1902, the revised settlement came into fores but the demands of the Khot were not fixed under Section 38. Accordingly, the plaintiff appellant filed the present suit for rent ...
The Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Presidency Vs. the Ahmedabad Ne ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-04-1929
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR358
Lord Buckmaster, J. 1. The question submitted for the opinion of the High Court is in the following terms: ' When the opening and closing stocks' their Lordships think that there ought to be introduced ' of a business'-' are both undervalued, whether the real profits of the company of a particular year can be ascertained by merely raising the valuation of the closing stock, not taking into consideration the similar undervaluation of the opening stock ':; and the answer is that, in the opinion of the Board, they cannot.2. The method of introducing stock into each side of a profit and loss account for the purpose of determining the annual profits is a method well understood in commercial circles and does not necessarily depend upon exact trade valuations being given to each article of stock that is so introduced. The one thing that is essential is that there should be a definite method of valuation adopted which should be carried through from year to year, so that in case of any deviatio...
Balkisan Devchnd Vs. Kunjalal Hiralal Agarwalla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-01-1929
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR365
Buckmaster, J.1. The dispute in this case arises as to the ownership of certain lands in the East Khandosh District, within the Presidency of Bombay, and it depends upon determining whether or no a deed that was executed on August 11, 1911, by a widow and her adopted son was not valid. The suit to ' determine the dispute was brought by the reversioners, who would have been entitled had the deed been void, and it was brought against the purchasers, who are the present appellants.2. The validity of the deed is challenged upon two distinct grounds. It is first of all alleged that the adopted son, who, with the Hindu widow, formed the vendors, had never been properly adopted, and, secondly, that there was no necessity that would have justified the sale by the widow alone.3. The first point arises in this way. The property was, as stated, within the Presidency of Bombay, and within that Presidency it would be possible to establish adoption without proving that the widow had express authorit...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›