Mumbai Court December 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.
Nanhelal Vs. Umrao Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-1930
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR450
George Lowndes, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave. It raises an interesting question as to execution proceedings which seems to be of not infrequent occurrence. Differing opinions have been expressed in India, particularly in the Court from which the appeal comes, and the matter calls for an authoritative decision, Under these circumstances it is a matter of regret to their Lordships that the respondents have not been represented before them.2. The proceedings in question commenced with an award by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Central Provinces and Berar, By this award, the respondents were ordered to pay to the Manegaon Society a sum of Rs. 21092 with interest, and in default, certain immovable property of the respondents, which had been mortgaged to the society, and which was described as Patti No. 2, half share of Mauza Bagada (or Bagra) Manegao in the Hoshangabad District, was ordered to be sold. By virtue of rules made by the Local Government under the Co-operati...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. the Remington Typewriter Company Li ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-1930
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR413
Russell, J.1. The dispute in this appeal has, by reason of a recent decision of their Lordships' Board, been reduced to small compass.2. A statement of the relevant facts is, however, necessary.3. Assessments, in respect of the two financial years 1924-1925 and 1925-1926 were made under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), upon the Remington Typewriter Company (Bombay), Limited, as agent for the Remington Typewriter Company of New York. This last-mentioned company is a company incorporated in the United States of America and carries on the business of manufacturing and selling the well-known Remington typerwriting machine. These two companies may be conveniently referred to as the Bombay Company and the American Company respectively.4. The assessments were made in respect of (1) dividends paid by two Indian Companies, viz., the Remington Typewriter Company (India), Limited, and the Remington Typewriter Company (Madras), Limited, to the American Company ...
Abdul Ghafur Vs. HussaIn Bibi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-1930
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR420
Macmillan, J.1. The plaintiffs in this suit, now the appellants, sue for possession of certain properties described in their plaint, which formerly belonged to the deceased Saleh-ud-Din and which they claim by right of succession, In order that their claim may succeed they have to establish two things; (1) that they are collaterals of the deceased, and (2) that the deceased's succession was governed by customary law. The present respondents are two sitters and the children of a deceased sister of the late Saleh-ud-Din. They deny that the appellants were in any way related to the deceased and maintain that Mahomedan law alone governs the succession to the properties in question.2. The Senior Sub-Judge at Gujranwala, before whom the matter came in the first instance, decided both of the two issues above mentioned in favour of the appellants, for whom he accordingly gave judgment. On appeal, the High Court of Judicature at Lahore (Martineau and Zafar Ali JJ.) reversed this decision, holdi...
Narayanlal Bansilal Vs. the Maneckji Petit Manufacturing Co. Ld.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-1930
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR556
Baker, J.1. This suit raises an important and rather difficult question, and although no evidence has been recorded, the arguments have lasted several days. This is a suit by a shareholder in the Maneckji Petit Manufacturing Company, Limited, on behalf of himself and all other shareholders against the company for a declaration that the extraordinary general meeting of February 15, 1927, was not duly convened in accordance with the law, and that the resolutions purporting to have been passed thereat are invalid and inoperative and void, and that the company, its directors, servants and agents may be restrained by an order and injunction from carrying into effect the said resolutions.2. The issues are:--1. Whether the notice referred to in the plaint dated February 4, 1927, was insufficient, invalid or ineffective in law?2. Whether the meeting of February 15, 1927, was duly convened in accordance with law, and whether the resolutions passed thereat are valid and operative?3. The only que...
In Re: Morarji Jairam Naranji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-1930
Reported in: (1932)34BOMLR1175
Mirza, J.1. On November 18,1930, an application was made to me on behalf of the applicants Messrs. Debi Sahi Bhaniram who are the creditors of the insolvent that certain costs incurred by them in the course of this insolvency may be awarded to them. The application was made after giving notice to the Official Assignee. No creditor appeared to oppose the application but the Official Assignee was represented before me by the Deputy Official Assignee. An affidavit was filed by the creditors in support of the application. No affidavit was filed on behalf of the Official Assignee or any creditors to oppose the application. When the application came on before me, Mr. Abuwalla, the Deputy Official Assignee, frankly admitted that the applicants had rendered assistance in the course of the insolvency but that his instructions from the Official Assignee were to oppose the application as it was not the practice of the Official Assignee's Office to allow costs incurred by creditors in the course o...
Natvarlal Nagindas Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-1930
Reported in: 131Ind.Cas.476
Beaumont, C.J.1. This is a reference to us by the District Magistrate, Surat. The two accused in this case who were allege! to be uuder the age of fifteen years were convicted of theft under Section 379, Indian Panal Code, by the First Class Magistrate of Chorasi. The learned Magistrate, acting under Section 563, Criminal Procedure Code, released the accused on their entering into a bond of Rs. 50 to be of good behaviour for two months. The Magistrate has referred the case to us saying that the learned Magistrate who tried the case had no juris-diction to do so because he is not one of those specially empowered under Section 29-B, Criminal Procedure Code.2. Section 29-B, Criminal Procedure Code, lays down that any offence, other than one punishable with death or transporation for life, committed by any person who at the date when he appears or is brought before the Court is under the age of fifteen years may be tried by the class of Magistrates therein referred to including a Magistrat...
Babubhai Tansukhlal Vs. Madhavji Govindji and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-1930
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR759
Patkar, J. 1. This is an application in revision against the order of the Chief Judge of the Small Cause Court, Bombay, dismissing the plaintiff's suit in pursuance of an award under by-law 38A of the East India Cotton Association.2. The applicant filed a suit in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay to recover a sum of Rs. 1,023-8-0, consisting of Rs. 1,000, the amount paid as deposit, together with Rs. 11 as interest, and Rs. 12 8-0 on account of profits in the transactions of sale and purchase of one hundred bales of cotton done by the defendants as the plaintiff's brokers, on December 10, 1926, and December 14, 1926. The defendants admitted the amount of the deposit and interest, and also the two contracts sued upon ; but contended that there were other contracts and several payments by them on account of the transactions which resulted in a loss to the plaintiff, and the amount of Rs. 100-10-0 was payable by the plaintiff to the defendants, and that the whole matter had been referre...
Venkatraman Krishna Bhatta Vs. Mahableshwar Narayan Hegde
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-1930
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR750
Madgavkar, J. 1. A decree was passed against the petitioners by the Kumta Court and was transferred to the Honavar Court. On September 10, 1924, the judgment-debtors' right, title and interest were put up for sale by the Mamlatdar and were purchased by the opponent, who paid twenty-five per cent deposit, but failed to pay the balance. On September 10, 1925, the petitioners-judgment-debtors applied to the Kumta Court to set aside that sale. That application was rejected, and a resale was held by the Mamlatdar of Honavar on December 10, 1925, which resulted in a deficiency of the price realised at the first sale by the opponent. The Mamlatdar sent the papers to the Collector, who returned them to the Subordinate Judge. The judgment-debtors applied in 1927, under Order XXI, Rule 71, of the Code of Civil Procedure, to recover the deficiency from the opponent defaulting purchaser of the first sale.2. Two main objections were taken in the trial Court by the opponent purchaser. Firstly, that ...
Hari Mahadev Vadekar Vs. Vishnu Balkrishna Risbud
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-1930
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR622
Madgavkar, J.1. The question in this appeal is whether the present darkhast is in time. That depends upon the question whether the darkhast of April 15, 1920, was a step-in-aid of execution, as both the lower Courts have held.2. In that darkhast, the judgment-debtor Devki died leaving minor children and her husband. Instead of presenting the darkhast against the children by their guardian the father as the legal representative, the darkhast of 1920, was against the husband of Devki as such. That mistake was subsequently corrected. But it is nevertheless a bona fide mistake as the decree-holder had nothing to gain by omitting the children by their guardian the father and putting forward the father alone. In this view, the case falls within the class of cases where all bona fide applications against a wrong person as the legal representative save limitation: Balkishen Das v. Bedmati Koer ILR (1892) Cal. 388, Hari v. Narayan ILR (1887) 12 Bom. 427, and Ramaswami Chettiar v. Oppilamani Che...
Parashram Yeshvantseth Alwe Vs. Lakshmibai Babaji Samant
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-1930
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR755
Patkar, J. 1. The question involved in this appeal is whether the permanent leases of part of the land by the mortgagor's representative to the mortgagee's representative subsequent to the date of the mortgage are valid.2. In 1897, the plaintiff's father Govind mortgaged certain property to Yeshwant, the father of defendants Nos. 1, 2, and 3. The mortgagor . Govind died leaving Annapurnabai his widow, two sons Dattatraya and Tukaram, and a daughter the present plaintiff. In 1901 Dattatraya died and Tukaram was a lunatic. In 1902, Annapurnabai, as the guardian of her lunatic son Tukaram, passed a second mortgage in favour of defendant No. 1; and in 1907 passed two permanent leases, one in favour of defendant No. 1, Exhibit 55, and another in favour of defend-No. 2, Exhibit 56. Tukaram died and the plaintiff as the heir of Tukaram brought a suit for redemption of the mortgage, contending that the leases passed by Annapurnabai in the year 1907 were not binding on her.3. The learned Subord...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »