Mumbai Court January 1930 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.
Ramchandra Vithal Varadkar Vs. the Trustees of the Port of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-1930
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR1333
Blackwell, J.1. This is a summons for an order that the plaintiff's attorneys do forthwith deliver to the defendants' attorney Mr. J. D. Sherston Baker a complete copy of the plaint and proceedings in this suit and that the plaintiff do pay to the defendants their coats. It appears from the affidavit of Mr. Sherston Baker, filed on October 11, 1929, that he is the solicitor of the Trustees of the Port of Bombay who are the defendants in the suit. During his temporary absence from India, Mr. G. Louis Walker- was appointed acting solicitor of the Trustees, and the correspondence took place between the plaintiff's attorneys Messrs. Dabholkar and Jestaram and Mr. Louis Walker. Mr. Sherston Baker returned to India on August 16 last, and resumed his office of solicitor of the Trustees, On October 4, 1929, the plaintiff's attorneys addressed a letter to Mr. Walker, as the solicitor of the Trustees, informing him that their client, the plaintiff in this suit, had filed this suit against the tr...
Ramacharya Govindacharya Kundgol Vs. Ramrao Appaji Huddar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-1930
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR900
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. Now, in the first place, I am far from satisfied that the present suit comes within Section 50 A at all. That section applies to a case where any property is claimed by the Municipality, or by any person as against the Municipality, and then there may be an order by the Collector. But as regards the Municipal notice in question, I do not think that there was any such claim by the Municipality, nor was there any claim by the defendants against the Municipality. It was an ordinary case of a city survey and an enquiry in respect of that.2. But even if it could be said that the rights of the Municipality would necessarily have to be considered in such an enquiry, for instance, whether any part of a Court-yard had public right over it and so on, yet Sub-section (2), in my opinion, does not relate to a suit as between the rival owners, but to a suit to be brought either by the Municipality' against the owner, or by the owner against the Municipality. The present ...
Nagappa Pandyappa Kadar Vs. Badridas Shrikishan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Bom409; (1930)32BOMLR894
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. There are two points argued before us in this appeal, namely, first, whether judgment was rightly entered for plaintiff No. 2 as well as for plaintiff No. 1, and, secondly, whether interest prior to the suit was rightly awarded.2. With regard to the first point, plaintiff No. 2 claims to be the assignee of plaintiff No. 1, and it is argued that the subject of the assignment was not a 'debt' and therefore an 'actionable claim' within the meaning of Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, but was a mere right to sue within the meaning of Section 6(e), and so could not be transferred. The defendants' interest in getting the judgment limited to plaintiff No. 1 is that they allege that they have a cross-decree and so we understand a cross-claim against plaintiff No. 1 which possibly they would be unable to enforce if the judgment were in favour of plaintiff No. 2 as well. As regards the decree, that we understand is the decree in suit No. 1791 of 1923 referre...
Usafali Ibrahim Vs. Falzullabhai Sheikh Mahomedbhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-1930
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR439
Murphy, J.1. The point for decision is whether a decree passed in the terms of an award, resulting on a reference of the differences between the parties, without the intervention of the Court, can be executed personally against the mortgagor, where the award and therefore the decree, only provides specifically for satisfaction of the mortgage amount out of the mortgaged property.2. The facts are implied in the above statement of the point for decision, but will bear stating more precisely. The advance secured by the mortgage, which was executed on January 7, 1920 was Rs. 14,999 and the two original mortgagees assigned their rights under the mortgage to the plaintiff on August 31, 1923. The disputes arose between these assignees and the original mortgagor, and were referred for the decision of Mr. Bhagubhai Chhabildas on November 23, 1924. The award was made on December 2, 1924. An application to fib the award was made on January 9, 1925, and a decree was passed in its terms on January ...
Emperor Vs. Ganpat Dattu Raskar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-1930
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR329
Broomfield J.1. This is a revision application against an order of the First Class Magistrate, Kopergaon, convicting the applicant under Section 41 (f) of the Indian Factories Act XII of 1911, as amended up to date, and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 20. The applicant is the manager of a concern called Gurhal-Ghar in which jaggery is manufactured from sugar-cane. There is an engine in a separate walled room and outside it are machines called crushers for extraction of juice from sugar-cane and the juice is then pumped through pipes to a shed in which it is stored in pans for boiling. All these buildings are in the same compound surrounded by a fence. Three men were employed on the engine, fourteen on the crushers and thirty-seven worked in the shed where the pans are. The building has been registered under the Indian Factories Act and the prosecution arose owing to a complaint from the Assistant Factory Inspector, who on visiting the premises found that the engine was not properly...
Rambaksh Lachhandas Vs. the Bombay Cotton Company
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-1930
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR1451
Blackwell, J.1. This is a petition to sot aside an award made originally by arbitrators appointed by the East India Cotton Association, subsequently confirmed by the board of appeal of that body, and duly filed in Court.2. The prayers of the petition pray (a) that the award may be set aside, (6) in the alternative (1) that it may be set aside so far as it relates to the ready transactions, and (2) that it may be remitted back so far as it relates to the forward transactions.3. At the outset of the case, Mr. Daphtary, who appeared for the petitioners, informed me that he did not propose to challenge the award so far as it related to the forward transactions, and that inasmuch as the award made dealt separately with the ready and forward transactions and was clearly separable in regard to each, he should only ask the Court to set the award aside so far as it related to the ready transactions, if I should be of opinion that he succeeded in proving that the arbitrators had no jurisdiction ...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Raja Bahadur Bansilal Motilal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Bom381; (1930)32BOMLR671
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. The two questions submitted to us, under Section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, are as follows:-1. Whether the interest received by the Assesses at Hyderabad (Deccan) on Government of India Promissory Loan Notes enfaced for payment at Hyderabad (Deccan) Treasury can be said or deemed to accrue or arise or to be received in British India within the meaning of Section 4(1) of the Act ? 2. Whether the said interest is liable to be assessed to super-tax?2. Admittedly, the second question depends on the answer to the first having regard to Section 56 of the Act.3. The amended Exhibit F is a specimen copy of one of the Promissory Notes of the four and a half per cent, loan 1955-60 in question. This Note was originally issued by the Government of India to the Imperial Bank of India in British India, and is dated September 15, 1928. The principal and interest were both payable at Calcutta, the former between 1955 and 1960, and the latter half-yearly at four...
Trustees of the Port of Bombay Vs. Municipal Corporation of the City o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Bom232; (1930)32BOMLR416
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. This is a special case stated under Section 90 and Order XXXVI of the Civil Procedure Code, and laid by my orders under Rule 64 of the Original . Side Rules before a Bench of two Judges so as to expedite its final disposal by this High Court. It arises between the Bombay Port Trust as plaintiffs and the Bombay Municipal Corporation as defendants. The question submitted for the opinion of the Court is :-Whether upon the facts above stated the said Corporation is under statutory liability (a) to lay water mains and (5) to provide fire hydrants on the said Wadala Estate at the expense of the said Corporation.2. The dispute is not as to the general statutory obligations of the Municipal Corporation to make adequate provision for the supply of water and for protection against fire within its statutory area, but as to what are its particular obligations in this respect as regards the Wadala 'Estate which is owned by the Port Trust. The Corporation contend that th...
Sourendra Nath Mitra Vs. Srimati Tarubala Dasi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-02-1930
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR645
Atkin, J.1. This is an appeal from the High Court of Judicature in Calcutta, who, differing from the Subordinate Judge of Hoogly, refused to record an alleged memorandum of compromise and to make a decree in accordance therewith. The disputed compromise was made in a partition suit in which the present appellants were plaintiffs and the present respondent was defendant. The question at issue is whether an agreement of compromise made between the plaintiffs and counsel for the defendant bound the defendant. It involves important considerations as to the authority of an advocate in India to bind his client. The parties are members of a Hindu family governed by the Bengal school of Hindu law. The suit related to the joint property inherited from the paternal grandfather of the plaintiffs, one Ishan Chandra Mitra, who had died in 1900. The plaintiffs were the children of the two elder sons of Ishan Chandra Mitra. The defendant was the widow of the third son, Charu Chandra Mitra, who had su...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›