Mumbai Court June 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.
Albert Bonnan Vs. the Imperial Tobacco Company of India, Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-1929
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR1388
George Lowndes, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises is the offshoot of a case which came before this Board and was decided adversely to the present respondents (the then appellants) in May, 1924. The facts leading up to the litigation are fully set out in the report, Imperial Tobacco Company of India, Ld. v. Bonnan (1924) A.C. 755 for the purposes of the present appeal they may be summarised as follows:-2. The respondents, a limited company incorporated in India, but to a certain extent apparently subordinate to the British-American Tobacco Company, Ltd., in this country, who hold some 80 per cent, of the Indian Company's shares, had been importing and selling Wills' Gold Flake cigarettes upon monopoly terms in India since 1910, and had no doubt built up an exceedingly valuable trade. In 1921 the appellant (Bonnan) purchased some millions of genuine Wills' Gold Flake cigarettes from the British Army canteen authorities at a price which would enable him to undersell the1 respo...
Maharaj Bahadur Singh Vs. A.H. Forbes
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-11-1929
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR1383
Binod Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court of Patna, dated March 29, 1926, affirming the decision of the District Judge of Purneah, whereby it was held that a decree obtained by Dhanpat Sing, dated July 10, 1896, cannot be executed against the respondent.2. Dhanpat Sing was the zamindar of lot Saifaganj in Pargana Haveli, in the district of Purneah, and Chatterpat Singh was the bolder of the patni of the said lot. He settled the same in 1929 several parcels with various dar-patnidars amongst others with the father of the present respondent. Dhanpat sold his zamindari to Bhagwanbati on June 27, 1893.3. Dhanpat instituted a suit against the patnidar Chatterpat Sing on September 21, 1893, for arrears of rent due to him up to June 27, 1893, and obtained a decree which became final on July 10, 1896.4. On July 19, 1896, Dhanpat executed a deed of trust in favour of several trustees for the benefit of his son Maharaj Bahadur Singh (and they are hereinafter ref...
Jaydurga Dasi Vs. Saroj Ranjan Sinha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-11-1929
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR12
Blanesburgh, J.1. Two questions were discussed at the hearing of this appeal. The first was whether the appellant is not entitled under the will of her father to an absolute interest in a moiety of his estate. The second was whether, if under the will the interest taken by her must be limited to that of a Hindu daughter only-as is the contention of the respondents-she is not in the events which have happened, and notwithstanding an ekrarnama entered into on April 17,1909, between herself and her sister, since deceased, entitled for the rest of her life to the remaining moiety of their father's estate, bequeathed in the first instance to her sister and now in the enjoyment of the respondents, the sons of that sister.2. In the Courts in India further questions were raised by the appellant. These were decided against her and were not again ventilated at their Lordships' Board. There, the only questions discussed were those just stated-the second of them, in the form presented to the Board...
Gopaldas Sambhudas Vs. Vithal Mohanji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-10-1929
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR915; 118Ind.Cas.689
Baker, J.1. The point in this case is one of some importance on which there are conflicting rulings of this Court. The question is whether in a suit in which accounts have been taken under the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act, more can be awarded than could be awarded under the bond itself if no accounts have been taken. In the case of Dadabhai v. Dadabhai 10 Bom. L.R. 745 it was held that Section 13 of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act is imperative, and the amount found due in a suit upon taking accounts must be awarded. On the other hand, in Vithaldas Bhagwandas v. Murtaja Huahein 24 Bom. L.R. 267 it was held by Macleod C.J. that it would be a very curious result if a debtor owing to his seeking the relief afforded by the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act should have to pay more than he is obliged to pay according to the terms of his bond, and 'I cannot imagine that it was ever intended that the law should produce such an extraordinary result as that.' In tie same volume the...
Gangadhar Nathu Vs. Vishnu Vithal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-10-1929
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR935
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. This is an important case in the nature of a test case as to whether, when the cash allowance of a representative watandar under the Watan Act has been commuted under the provisions of that Act, the commuted allowance thenceforth becomes in effect joint Hindu family property, and consequently can no longer be claimed by the representative watandar to be his exclusive property, as would be the case with the cash allowance itself prior to the date of the commutation.2. We have listened to an interesting argument from Mr. Kelkar, counsel for the defendant, who supports the view that, in the present case, the representative watandars are entitled exclusively to the commuted allowance just as they were to the original allowance. That argument has not been concluded, nor have we heard Mr. Shingne, counsel for the successful plaintiffs in the lower appellate Court. We have taken this course for two reasons, (1) because we consider that there are certain facts whic...
Gangadhar Nathu and ors. Vs. Vishnu Vithal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-10-1929
Reported in: 122Ind.Cas.70
ORDERMarten, C.J.1. This is an important case in the nature of a test case as to whether, when the cash allowance of a representative watandar under the Watan Act has been commuted under the provisions of that Act, the commuted allowance thenceforth becomes in effect joint Hindu family property, and consequently can no longer be claimed by the representative watandar to be his exclusive property, as would be the case with the cash allowance itself prior to the date of the commutation.2. We have listened to an interesting argument from Mr. Kelkar, Counsel for the defendant, who supports the view that, in the present case, the representative watandars are entitled exclusively to the commuted allowance just as they were to the original allowance. That argument has not been concluded, nor have we heard Mr. Shingne, Counsel for the successful plaintiffs in the lower Appellate Court. We have taken this course for two reasons, (1) because we consider that there are certain facts which should ...
Satish Chandra Joardar Vs. Kumar Birendra Nath Roy Bahdur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-07-1929
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR1376
John Wallis, J.1. The present suit relates to a triangular piece of land forming the southern portion of the mauza Bhairabpara, a small permanently settled estate consisting of a long narrow strip of land, liable to diluvion by the river Padma on the north and by the river Gorai on the south. At times the whole mauza, has been completely submerged, and when above water would appear to have been the subject of incessant litigation.2. About the year 1882 it was totally submerged, and when it reformed and became fit for cultivation, the Tagores, who are the owners of an adjoining estate, entered upon it. Thereupon the present defendants, the Natores, who own another adjoining estate, instituted a suit, No. 127 of 1897, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Nadia against the Tagores, claiming that the lands on which the Tagores had entered belonged to their own mauza of Keshapore or Bhairabpara. For the purposes of that suit a map was prepared by a Commissioner, Mr. J.N. Roy, which show...
The Raipur Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. the Ahmedabad Municipality
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-05-1929
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR1224; 122Ind.Cas.430
Madgavakar, J.1. The dispute between the plaintiff-appellant, the Raipoor ., at Ahmedabad, and - the defendant respondent, the Municipality, is in respect of water-tax for 1923-24 which the latter sought to levy on the former. The appellant's objections to the tax have ultimately been reduced to three. Firstly, the bill presented to him is defective in law, and admittedly inaccurate as regards amount, and therefore until a proper bill is presented, the appellant is not liable. Secondly, under the Rules, particularly Rule 8 made under Section 46, Clause (1), this tax is payable only in advance in one instalment, and accrues due on April 1; he is not liable for any period before April 1, following the date when the tax first became due. Thirdly, the building on which the tax is leviable can only be buildings within a radius of 75 feet of a water pipe or 500 feet of a fire plug under Rule 22. Therefore, all the buildings outside these radii as shown in the plan are not liable merely becau...
Mafatlal Gagalbhai Vs. Jivanlal Girdhardas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-04-1929
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR1369
Tomlin, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated February 23, 1926.2. By this decree the High Court affirmed, with a variation as to costs, a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Ahmedabad dated July 31, 1924, whereby a suit of the appellant against the respondents was dismissed.3. The appellant's claims in the suit were :-(a) For a declaration of his right to a four annas share of the profits which the respondents and others had made by working the properties of the Ahmedabad New Spinning and Manufacturing Company (which will be referred to hereafter as the old company) under a lease from the holders of debentures in that company, and for payment by the respondents of that share of those profits when ascertained;(b) For a declaration of his right to a one and a half annas share of the commission earned by the respondents and others as agents of the Ahmedabad New Textile Mills Company, Limited (which will be referred to hereafter as the new com...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›