Mumbai Court December 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.
Mahomed Abdulla Vs. Sakharam Habaji Mistry
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Bom290; (1930)32BOMLR436
Broomfield, J.1. This is an appeal from the order of the First Class Subordinate Judge, Thana, dismissing the appellant's application under Order XXI, Rule 90, to set aside an execution sale. There were disputes between the plaintiff and several defendants including the appellant about certain money dealings. These disputes were submitted to arbitration and an award was made which directed that the defendants should make certain payments on certain dates and that in default of those payments certain immovable property of, the defendants was to be put to sale. The award was filed in Court and a decree was passed in terms thereof. The date of the decree was October 30, 1918. There were various darkhasts with which we are not concerned, and finally on September 23, 1926, the plaintiff applied that the property should be sold-the defendants not having paid the money due in accordance with the decree. Notice was issued to the appellant but he failed to appear. Accordingly, some of the prope...
Gangadhar Dhanjishet Vs. Lakshman Mahadev Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Bom221; (1930)32BOMLR431
Baker, J.1. The contest in this case is between the first mortgagee who purchased in execution of a decree on his mortgage and the auction-purchaser in execution of a decree on the second mortgage. One Chindu and his brother mortgaged the property in dispute to one Gangadhar on March 6, 1913. On June 8, 1915, there was a partition between the two brothers and the property fell to the share of Chindu. Gangadhar obtained a decree on his mortgage in suit No. 864 of 1918 on November 25, 1918, and in execution purchased the property himself. Gangadhar obtained possession of the property on January 17, 1928, and March 21, 1928.2. The title of the opponent arises under the following circumstances. One Khambate was a mortgagee under a second mortgage dated June 24, 1922, and brought suit No. 4fi6 of 1925, on the mortgage and obtained a decree on November 9, 1925. In execution of the decree on the second mortgage, the opponent Lakshman Kulkarni purchased the property and applied on January 11, ...
Raoji Naranji Vs. Ratansi Kanji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1929
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR389
N. Kemp, J.1. The main point in this appeal is whether a suit will lie to set aside a reference and award made through the Court under the provisions of the second schedule of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows. Certain firms dealing in piece-goods in Bombay combined together for the purpose of importing large quantities of those goods for sale for their mutual benefit in Bombay. There were three such combinations which are the subject-matters of three suits, viz., suit No. 2203 of 1919 relating to a syndicate of two firms; suit No. 2204 of 1919 relating to a syndicate of six firms; and suit No. 2244 of 1919 relating to a syndicate of ten firms, The suits were for dissolution of the partnerships formed by the respective syndicates and the immediate cause of the suits was the slump in the piece-goods market in Bombay. All the firms in the syndicates of two and six were the members of the syndicate of ten. On April 4, 1921, a consoli...
Wali Mohammad Vs. Mohammad Baksh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-1929
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR380
Binod Mitter, J.1. The following genealogical tables will show the relationship of the parties to this litigation, and will be helpful in understanding the disputes between them :-A PIR BAKHSH.--------------------------------------------------------| |Muhammad Bakhsh (original mortgagor), Sultan (originalPlaintiff No. 1, mortgagor) now represented by his son Umaiv.-----------------------------------------------------| |Muhammad Hueain Shera Kala Nawab| | Plaintiff No. 3 (died childless).Rahmat Ali | Plaintiff No. 3 |--------------------------------------| |Hakim Ali Muhammad AliDefendant No. 8 Plaintiff No. 4BMIRAN BAKHSH (the original mortgagee)| --------------------------------| |Allah Bakhsh Nur ElahiDefendant No. 1 Defendant No. 2CDARE KHAN.-----------------------------------------------| |Wali (Purchaser Ali Muha- (Purchaser MuhammadMuhammad from mmad from BakhshDefendant No. 3 Miran Bakhsh | Miran Bakhsh) (Purchaser fromAppellant No. 1 | Miran Bakhsh)-----------------------------...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vallabhdas Murlidhar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Bom201
Marten, C.J.1. The short point in this reference which we have to decide is whether the assessee was entitled to deduct an alleged bad debt of Rs. 67,612 in his assessment to income-tax and euper-tax for the year 1927-28, for the purpose of which assessment he would be assessed under Section 3, Income-tax Act on his income for 'the previous year,' viz., the Hindu year beginning with 18th October 1925. It is common ground that the debt in question was due from one Abhechand Premchand, and that it arose at the end of Sam vat year 1969 (1912-13) on account of transactions in cotton, gold, silver and hundis. It is further common ground that Abhechand Premchand became insolvent in 1920 and that he was discharged in 1924. Further, nothing has been recovered from the insolvent, and in the proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner, no answer was given by the assessee to the question why this amount of Rs. 67,612 was not written off in or about the year when it was known to have become irre...
Nana Mansaram Shet Vs. Shridhar Keshav Naik
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Bom503; (1930)32BOMLR427
Broomfield, J.1. This is an appeal from an order in execution in a suit for partition between two step-brothers. A decree was passed on March 19, 1915, which provided that the plaintiff should recover his half-share in certain properties which had been alienated by defendent No. 1 on payment of Rs. 9,475 to defendant No. 4, who was one of the alienees. At the end of the decree there was a post-script providing that it should be within the choice of the alienees to demand the whole amount that was due to them and give the whole property into the plaintiff's possession when it was so paid, or to give the plaintiff his half-share in the properties on taking half of what was due to them, There was an appeal against this decree to the High Court, but it was confirmed on August 28, 1917. On August 26, 1920, the plaintiff put in a darkhast, in which he sought to get possession of the properties in the possession of defendant No. 4 first, and said that he would pay the amount due to that defen...
Asharfi Lal Vs. the Judges of the High Court of Judicature
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-1929
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR556
Tomlin, J.1. This is an appeal from an order dated January 23, 1928, of the High Court of Judicature, Allahabad, whereby the appellant, a pleader practising at Agra, was suspended from practice for four years from the date of the order on the ground that he was guilty of professional misconduct in respect of three out of six matters charged against him.2. The order was made after enquiry and report by the District Judge of Agra under Section 14 of the Legal Practitioners Act (XVIII of 1879). The jurisdiction of the High Court to suspend or otherwise punish a pleader practising in any subordinate Court arises after report by the presiding officer of such subordinate Court that the pleader has been guilty of any of the offences mentioned in Section 13 of the Act. These offences include fraudulent or grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duty.3. Of the six charges made against the appellant, the three upon which the High Court found him guilty were as follows :-(1)...
Sir Hukumchand Kasliwal, Kt. Vs. Radha Kishen Moti Lal Chamaria
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-1929
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR533
Lancelot Sanderson, J.1. This is an appeal by Sir Hukumchand Kasliwal, who was one of the plaintiffs in the suit, and Deokissen Bbattar, who was brought on the record on the death of his father, Harkissondas Bhattar, the other plaintiff in the suit, against a decree of the Chief Court of Oudh, dated November 29, 1926, which varied a decree, dated April 30, 1925, of the Subordinate Judge of Unao. 2. The suit was brought against four defendants, viz.: (1) The Pioneer Mills Ltd.; (2) The Tata Industrial Bank Ltd.; (3) Bilas Roy Hurdut Roy, a firm which is now represented by the respondents Lala Ram Narain, Lala Radha Kisssn, Lala Ganga Prasad and Lala Hari Prasad and (4) the firm of Radha Kissen Moti Lal Chamaria.3. The suit was brought on February 10, 1923, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Unao.4. By an order of June 4, 1923, the High Court of Calcutta directed the Pioneer Mills Ltd. (hereinafter called the company) to be wound up, and by a subsequent order the High Court granted...
Lala Ram NaraIn Vs. Radha Kishen Moti Lal Chamaria
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-1929
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR544
Lancelot Sanderson, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against a judgment and decree of the Chief Court of Oudh, dated November 29, 1926, which partly affirmed and partly reversed a judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Unao.2. The plaintiffs are the representatives of Bilas Rai Hardat Rai, a mercantile firm of Nayaganj, Cawnpore. The defendants were the Pioneer Mills, Ltd., and the respondent firm Eadha Kishen Moti Lal Ohamaria.3. The Pioneer Mills, Ltd., (hereinafter called the company), was registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, and carried on the business of sugar manufacturers ; the factory was at Unao and the head office was in Calcutta.4. Radha Kishen Moti Lal Chamaria (hereinafter called the defendant firm) carried on their business in Calcutta.5. The main question in this appeal is whether a mortgage dated August 31, 1922, executed by the company in favour of the defendant firm, ever took effect as a valid security, the plaintiff's alleging that there...
Hunsraj Vs. Bejoy Lal Seal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-1929
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR550
John Wallis, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Calcutta, reversing the decree of Page J. in a suit tried before him under the ordinary original jurisdiction of the Court.2. The suit was brought to enforce a forfeiture for an alleged breach of a covenant against assignment contained in a lease for a term of sixty-one years of premises in Halliday Street, Calcutta, made on August 23, 1910. On May 7, 1923, the first and second defendants, who are the owners of the leasehold interest, executed a mortgage by way of sub-lease of the leasehold premises, sub-letting them for the unexpired residue of the term, and on January 25, 1924, the plaintiffs, who are the representatives of the original lessor, instituted the present suit to enforce a forfeiture.3. Both the Courts below held, following the English decisions, that an absolute demise by sub-lease for the unexpired residue of the term would operate as an assignment of the term and be a breach of a covenant against as...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »