Mumbai Court November 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.
Pratapsingh Vs. Kishanprashad and Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-1930
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR1357
Wadia, J.1. [His Lordship, after narrating the facts, proceeded :] The grounds on which the petition is based are set out in paragraph 11 of the petition. The principal grounds as stated by the petitioner's own counsel are: (1) that the petitioner was not given proper and sufficient notice and/or reasonable opportunity of appearing before the arbitrators and urging his contentions, his main contention being that he was not personally liable to the respondents, (2) that the arbitrators had no jurisdiction to decide who were the partners in the firm of S.B. Kartar singh & Sons, and that the award was improperly procured against the petitioner on misrepresentations made by the respondents that he was a partner in the said firm, and (3) that the arbitrators had no jurisdiction to decide the claims and/or disputes in regard to the consignment business. Before I deal with these grounds there is just one minor point to which I should like to refer in passing. It has not been pressed by the re...
In Re: Kakubhai Bhimji Purshottam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-1930
Reported in: (1932)34BOMLR1172
Mirza, J.1. This is a notice of motion taken out by a creditor of the insolvent for an order that his claim for Rs. 9,305 under a decree of this Court against the insolvent, and set out in a composition deed of which the respondent is the trustee, be admitted by the respondent, and that the decision of the respondent as such trustee in rejecting the claim be set aside.2. An objection is taken on behalf of the respondent that the procedure here adopted by way of notice of motion and not an appeal is wrong. Mr. Taleyarkhan has contended that the respondent is an officer of the Court and holds a position similar to that of the Official Assignee, and provisions regarding appeals from the Official Assignee's orders should apply to him. Reliance is placed for this contention upon Rule 115 of the Insolvency Rules wherein it is provided that every person claiming to be a creditor under any composition or scheme, who has not proved the debt before the approval of such composition or scheme, sha...
Emperor Vs. Ganesh Vaman Joshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Bom140
Beaumont, C.J. 1. This is an application in revision which is made by Mr. Kane, pleader, on behalf of the Bar Association, Pandharpur. It appears that the accused, who is pleader of Pandharpur, was convicted by the Additional District Magistrate, Sholapur Under Section 47, Bombay Salt Act, 1890, with Section 117, I.P.C., and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 300 and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months Under Section 47, Bombay Salt Act, 1890. The accused has not seen fit to appeal and Section 439(5), Criminal P.C., provides that where an appeal lies and no appeal is brought, no proceedings by way of revision shall be entertained at the instance of the party who could have appealed, so that if this application was made by the accused himself it would not lie.2. No doubt this Court has jurisdiction to entertain applications in revision, where no right of appeal has been exercised, where the application is made by a third party, but entert...
Emperor Vs. Balgaunda Ramgaunda Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-14-1930
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR296
J.W.P. Beaumount, C.J.1. In this appeal accused No. 1 was convicted under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code for using a forged document, viz., a will and accused Nos. 2 to 4 were convicted under Section 467 of the same Code which is the section which imposes a penalty for forging a will, the offence of forgery being described in Section 463 of the Code, The facts shortly are that the maker of the will, Malgaunda A, Patil, died on January 7, 1916, and five years later, viz., on January 21, 1921, an application was made by accused No. 1 to the District Judge of Satara for letters of administration with the will annexed. Accused No. 1 was the principal beneficiary under the alleged will. In these proceedings the District Judge came to the conclusion that the will was forged. He came to that conclusion after examining all the accused as witnesses and he dismissed the application. On November 6, 1922, he made an order under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code sending the case to t...
Revanshidaya Sangaya Vs. Gudnaya Ningaya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-12-1930
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR487
Patkar, J.1. This is an application to extend the time for making the deposit of Rs, 2,000 and also to change the form of the security required under Clause (a), Order XLV, Rule 7.2. It is urged on behalf of the opponent, relying on the proviso to Order XLV, Rule 7, and the decision in the case of Arunachala Naidu v. Balkrishna & Co. : AIR1925Mad449 , that it is permissible for the Court at the time of granting the certificate, after hearing the opposite party, to change the form of the security, and that after the certificate has once been granted the Court has no jurisdiction to change the form of the security. The proviso governs Clause (a) of Order XLV, Rule 7. According to the decision of the full bench in Nilkanth Bulwant v Vidya Narrsinha Bharati ILR (1927) 51 Bom. 430, 29 Bom. L.R. 302. the Court can, under Order XLV, Rule 7, of the Civil Procedure Code, read with Rule 9 of the Privy Council Rules, enlarge the time for furnishing security and making the deposit, beyond the peri...
Shankar Sadashiv Kulkarni Vs. Malhar Shankar Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-11-1930
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR479
Patkar, J.1. This was a suit brought by the plaintiff for a declaration that he was entitled to receive and enjoy certain haks and babs described in the plaint on the last Lakshmi fair and for Rs. 200 as damages from defendant No, 1 and for an injunction against defendant No. 1 restraining him from receiving the bab mentioned in para, (g) of the plaint.2. The learned Subordinate Judge held that at the last seven fairs it was the varshildar Kulkarni who all along received the plaint haks and babs and that the vahiwat or custom set up by the plaintiff was established. He, therefore, awarded the plaintiff's claim to the extent of Rs. 22 on account of the perquisites unauthorizedly received by defendant No. 1 at the last fair.3. On appeal, the learned Assistant Judge raised an issue which was not raised before the Subordinate Judge as to whether the civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The learned Assistant Judge hold that certain payments were to be made to the watandars of...
Sahoo Bala Jambhalee Vs. Narayanshastri Janardanshastri Marathe
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-06-1930
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR476
Madgavkar, J.1. The plaintiff's suit under the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act was dismissed in both the lower Courts which held that she was not an agriculturist within the meaning of Section 2 of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Belief Act. She applies in revision.2. The facts as found by both the lower Courts are that the plaintiff is a Maratha woman and that she was left a widow at an early age and returned to her parent's house and assisted in the cultivation of her brother's lands, which are situated close to the town of Satara, She has also been in the habit, for many years past, of taking her own milk along with that purchased from others, for selling it at a profit in the town. From the profits of the sale of milk she had purchased, and on the date of the institution of the suit was in possession of, some small lands of her own. The profit from these lands is, however, less than her profit from the sale of milk. It also appears not only from her own evidence but also from that o...
Balkrishna Bhimaji Beknalkar Vs. Ramkrishna Ganadhar Dikshit
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-04-1930
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR263
Patkar, J.1. This is a suit brought by the plaintiff to recover two years' rent and possession of the property with masne profits and costs. The plaintiff paid Court-fee on Rs. 156-5 0. The learned Subordinate Judge held that he ought to have paid Court-fees on Ea. 3,000 on the ground that the net profits from the land during the year next before the date of presenting the plaint were Rs. 200 and that the value of the land was deemed to be fifteen times the net profits under Section 7, Clause 5, Sub-clause (c), of the Court-Fees Act, and on the plaintiff's failure to pay the Court-fee stamp the plaint was rejected. On appeal, the learned Assistant Judge confirmed the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge.2. On second appeal, a preliminary point was raised on behalf of the respondent that where the Judge allots a particular kind of suit to any of the clauses of the Court-Fees Act, he has jurisdiction to decide the question of valuation and under Section 12 of the Court-Fees Act, no ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›