Mumbai Court October 1930 Judgments
Aminabi Mahmulal Patil Vs. Abasaheb Mirasaheb Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-1930
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR469
Patkar, J.1. The question involved in this second appeal is as to the quantum of the share which a widow takes when a daughter is postponed to the paternal uncle by Section 2 of Bombay Act V of 1886.2. One Mahmulal died leaving his widow, defendant No. 1, the plaintiff, his paternal uncle, and a daughter Duranbi. Both the Courts held that the widow, defendant No. 1, was entitled to one-eighth share and the paternal uncle was entitled to the seven-eighths as a residuary, the daughter Duranbi being postponed in the order of succession by Section 2 of Act V of 1886.3. It is contended in second appeal that as the daughter is incapable of taking, she must be considered to be non-existent for the purposes of inheritance, and defendant No. 1 should be held entitled to one-fourth of the share of the inheritance and the plaintiff to three-fourths share. The learned Assistant Judge in appeal held that the widow was entitled to one-eighth share on the ground that she had a daughter in existence, ...
Tag this Judgment!Bajirao Narhar Peshwa Vs. Sakharam Balvant Peshwe
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-1930
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR463
Madgavkar, J.1. The question in this appeal is, whether the plaintiff decree-holder is entitled to execute by way of a darkhast the compromise decree in suit No. 289 of 1912 against the present respondent's deceased uncle Abaji Khanderao Peshwe, the defendant in that suit.2. The plaintiff-appellant and the deceased Abaji Khanderao had both a share in the inam of Mouje Kole Vihure. The plaintiff filed suit No. 289 of 1912 against Abaji claiming that Abaji was wrongly officiating and had granted remissions which he had no authority to make and claimed damages and injunction. The parties compromised, and the compromise was embodied in the decree. Abaji died and the plaintiff seeks to execute the present decree against his nephew the present defendant Sakharam. on the ground, according to the darkhast, that he was the heir and the survivor of Abaji. Sakharam put in his written statement claiming that he was not bound by the decree against Abaji and that it. was only good during the life ti...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Nathuram Gopal Mantri
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-1930
Reported in: (1932)34BOMLR1166
Mirza, J.1. This is a notice of motion taken out by the Official Assignee of Bombay to set aside a deed of second mortgage dated July 31, 1930, executed by the insolvent a month prior to his being adjudged insolvent, The deed is in favour of the respondents and is in respect of a property which belonged to the insolvent. The property has been since sold off at the instance of the first mortgagees and there is a balance of Rs. 3,500 in the hands of the first mortgagees out of the sale proceeds. The application is made under the provisions of Section 7 of the Presidency-towns Insolvency Act, 1909, read with Rule 4 (e) of the Bombay High Court Rules made under Section 112 of the Presidency-towns Insolvency Act.2. An objection is taken on behalf of the respondents that the procedure adopted by way of notice of motion should not be permitted and that the Official Assignee should be relegated to a civil suit to establish his alleged claim.3. The facts which have given rise to this notice of ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Ganesh Vasudeo Mavlankar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Bom135
Beaumont, C.J. 1. These are two references sent to this Court by the Sessions Judge of Ahmedabad. The learned Sessions Judge has held an inquiry Under Section 485, Criminal P.C., and has formed an opinion that the convictions in question were illegal and has referred the matter to this Court for necessary action.2. In the first reference eight persons were convicted and in the second reference five persons. The facts shortly are that on 22nd August all dates being in the present year a committee of five parsons was appointed in Ahmedabad with a view to enquire into the conduct of the police at Ranpur. Mr. Thakor tells us that the committee consisted of very eminent citizens, but whether that was so or not, the committee was entirely a private affair, and the members of it had rights neither greater nor less then any other members of the public; any members of the public, generally speaking, may form themselves into a committee and enquire into any subject which interests them whether i...
Tag this Judgment!Pandurang Vishvanath Vs. Mahadev Vishweshwar Karve
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-1930
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR459
Madgavkar, J.1. The question in this appeal is whether the darkhast is barred by limitation. The decree is dated January 26, 1912, and the relevant Clauses are 3, 4 and 5. Under Clause (3) the principal amount together with interest is repayable within twelve years from the date of the filing of the award, i.e., January 26, 1912, and in default the immovable property is liable to be sold after twelve years. Clause 4 provides for simple interest, and in default, compound. Then follows Clause 5:--If there remains any balance in respect of interest to the extent of the amount of any two years due by the defendant, the plaintiff, if he so chooses, should get the mortgaged property of the defendant which is liable for payment of the amount, sold through Court without waiting till the period of twelve years expires, as mentioned in Clause 3 (above) and should recover the amount due to the plaintiff by the defendant. If there be any deficit, he should recover the same from the defendant (pers...
Tag this Judgment!Sahebgouda Rayangouda Patil Vs. Basangouda Sahebgouda Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1930
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR580
Patkar, J.1. This was a suit brought by the plaintiff under Section 36 of the Watan Act for a declaration that ha is the heir to the patilki watan of Mul-Savalgi on the death of the last incumbent Sahebgouda in 1921.2. One Shivgouda, the original owner of the watan, died leaving his son Sahebgouda. Sahebgouda died leaving seven sons, three by his first wife Tarava including Rayangouda, the father of the plaintiff, and four sons by his second wife Umava including Shivagouda in whose name the patilki watan was entered, and defendant No. 1 Basangouda. After the death of Shivgouda the watan was registered in the name of Sahebgouda who died in the year 1921.3. The defendants contended that the plaintiff was not the heir and that his father Rayangouda was not the second son of Sahebgouda by seniority, that there was a partition in the year 1882 by which the sons of Tarava became separate, and the sons of Umava lived joint, and that on the death of Sahebgouda, defendant No. 1, who was the eld...
Tag this Judgment!Purshottam Gokul Gujar Vs. Sundar Rayaji Gujar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1930
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR455
Madgavkar, J.1. The question in this application is whether the holder of a money decree who has attached immovable property before it was sold by the mortgagee decree-bolder is a person 'holding an interest therein by virtue of a title acquired before such sale' within the meaning of Order XXI, Rule 89, Civil Procedure Code.2. The mortgagee obtained his mortgage decree and the opponent subsequently his money decree. The opponent filed his darkhast and subsequently the mortgagee filed his darkhast. On August 26, 1928, the opponent attached the property put up for sale. On October 15, 1928, the mortgagee decree-holder brought the property to sale in execution of the mortgage decree, and it was purchased by the petitioner. The opponent applied under Order XXI, Rule 89, with the necessary deposit, to have the sale set aside, on the ground that as an attaching creditor he 'held an interest therein by virtue of a title acquired before such sale? The lower Courts upheld the contention of the...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sarupchand Hukamchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-1930
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR382
J.W.F. Beaumont, C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 66(B) of the Indian Income-tax Act, and the question raised by the Commissioner is, whether the remuneration or a part thereof (and if a part thereof which part) earned by the assesses as the secretaries, treasurers and agents of the company under the terms of the agreement Exhibit A is liable to be assessed for payment of income-tax and super-tax in British India.2. The facts shortly are that the assesses are a firm carrying on business in Bombay, Calcutta, Indore and other places in India. They act as general agents for a company known as the Hukamchand Mills, Ltd. which is a company registered at Indore, and the terms of their service are regulated by the agreement made in Indore, which is Exhibit A. Under this agreement the assesses are appointed secretaries, treasurers and agents. By Clause 4, it is provided--The said firm shall be further entitled to charge and be paid commission at the rate of one per cent. on the gross s...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Elis C. Reid
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-1930
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR388
J.W.F. Beaumont, C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, in which the Commissioner asks two questions: first, the assessee having failed to make a return of income under Section 22(2) of the Act, was it legal for the senior Income-tax officer to make an assessment under Section 23(4) of the Act after the assessee's death, and, secondly, in case the above assessment was legal, could the demand notice under Section 29 of the Act in respect of the assessment made be served on the administrator of the estate of the deceased and the tax recovered from the estate by coercive process under Section 46 of the Act2. The facts are not in dispute, and can be stated quite shortly. On April 18, 1928, a notice was issued under Section 22(2) of the Act requiring Sir Henry Proctor to make a return for income-tax. Sir Henry was in England and the notice reached him on May 25, 1928, and he had thirty days from that date in which to comply with the notice. On July 11, ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ellis C. Reid
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Bom333
Beaumont, C.J. 1. This is a reference Under Section 66(1), Income-tax Act, in which the Commissioner asks two questions, first, the assessee having failed to make a return of income Under Section 22(2) of the Act, was it legal for the senior. Income-tax Officer to make an assessment Under Section 23(4) of the Act after the assessee's death, and, secondly, in case the above assessment was legal, could the demand notice Under Section 29 of the Act in, respect of the assessment made be served on the administrator of the estate of the deceased and the tax recovered from the estate by coercive process Under Section 46 of the Act? 2. The facts are not in dispute, and can be stated quite shortly. On 13th April 1928, a notice was issued Under Section 22(2) of the Act requiring Sir Henry Proctor to make a return for Income-tax. Sir Henry was in England and the notice reached him on 25th May 1928, and he had 30 days from that date in which to comply with the notice. On 11th July, i.e., after the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›