Mumbai Court February 1930 Judgments
Tulsidas Jasraj Parekh Vs. the Industrial Bank of Western India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1930
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR953
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. These three appeals by the liquidator of the Viramgam Spinning and ., (hereinafter called ' the company') raise important questions under Section 227(2) of the Indian Companies Act, 1913, which runs as follows:-(2) In the case of a winding-up by or subject to the supervision of the Court, every disposition of the property (including actionable claims) of the company, and every transfer of shares, or alteration in the status of its members, made after the commencement of the winding-up shall, unless the Court otherwise orders, be void.2. In the present case the winding-up order was made on March 3, 1925, but ' the commencement of the winding-up ' was June 12, 1924, when the Industrial Bank of Western India, Ahmedabad, (hereinafter called ' the Industrial Bank ' who are the respondents in Appeal No. 28 of 1928) presented their petition for the compulsory winding-up of the company. At that date the Industrial Bank were unsecured creditors of the company for ab...
Tag this Judgment!Arnavaz Hormusji Major Vs. Hormusjl Framji Major
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Bom536; (1930)32BOMLR1079
Blackwell, J.1. This is an application by defendant No. 1 to review a taxation.2. The suit was a matrimonial suit under the Parsi Matrimonial Act, being the wife's petition for dissolution, her husband being defendant No. 1. A decree by consent was passed dismissing the suit. Nothing was said in the decree about costs. At the time when the order for dismissal wan made, the parties, however, had come to an agreement with one another for a judicial separation. One of the terms of that agreement was that the defendant was to pay the plaintiff's attorneys her costs of the suit taxed as between attorney and client on the Original Side scale.3. On December 6, 1928, the plaintiff's attorneys obtained an order under Rule 494 of the High Court Rules for taxation of the bill. The bill was carried in by the plaintiff's attorneys and on September 4, 1929, the Taxing Master gave his ultimate decision allowing two counsel, having upheld the plaintiff's objection to the disallowance of two counsel. T...
Tag this Judgment!Lady Aimai Hormusji Wadia Vs. Sir Jamshedjee Jeejeebhoy Bart
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Bom481; (1930)32BOMLR1175
Baker, J.1. This is a suit of a very unusual character. The plaintiff, who is the mother and administratrix of the estate and effects of one Ardeahar Hormusji Wadia, who died on June 17, 1928, sues for a declaration that, in the events that have happened, defendant No. 3, who was formerly the wife of the said Ardeshar Hormusji Wadia, is not entitled to any benefit or payment under the settlement dated March 8, 1913, or in the alternative for rectification or variation of the said deed of settlement by inserting the words 'provided that the said intended marriage is not dissolved otherwise than by the death of the said Ardeshar Hormusji Wadia' and by inserting certain other words, and for a decree against defendants Nos. 1 and 2 to hand over and convey to the plaintiff all the property and securities held by them as the trustees under the said settlement, and for costs. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are trustees of the marriage settlement which was made on the occasion of the marriage of Arde...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Shivputraya Baslingaya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Bom244; (1930)32BOMLR574
Mirza, J.1. This is a reference made by the Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum, tinder Section 307 of the Criminal Procedure Code in a case he tried with a jury in which the accused were charged with having committed offences under Sections 457 and 395 of the Indian Penal Code. The jury returned an unanimous verdict or not guilty. The Sessions Judge differing from that verdict has made this reference and is of opinion that the accused could be convicted of offences under those sections.2. The case for the prosecution rests upon the identification of accused Nos. 1. 3, 4 and 5 and upon the production of part of the stolen property by accused Noel 3 to 4 jointly and by accused No. 2 from his own house.3. There can be no doubt that an offence of house breaking and theft was committed in the house of the complainant Adiveppa on the night of September 11, 1929. At that time the only occupant of the house was Adiveppa's daughter-in-law Basavanewa. The evidence of Basavanewa is that on that n...
Tag this Judgment!Annu Mukunda Kakade Vs. Shripati Tukaram Shinde
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Bom373; (1930)32BOMLR705
Madgavkar, J.1. The question in this appeal is, whether the deed of gift passed by the plaintiff-appellant Annu and her deceased mother-in-law Bai Tanu in favour of Haribai, the deceased wife of the defendant Shripati, is valid. The following genealogical tree shows the relationship of the parties:-Bhiku = Tanu---------------------------------------------------------| | |Anu = Mukunda Tukaram Haribai = Shripati2. The property in suit originally belonged to Bhiku, who died leaving two sons, Mukunda and Tukaram and a daughter Haribai. On his death, it was enjoyed by the joint Hindu family consisting of his two sons. Mukunda died first, and Tukaram twelve days later, on August 14, 1907, the estate then vesting in Tanu as Tukaram's heir. On November 23, 1910, Tanu and Annu passed a deed of gift now in question in favour of Haribai. The important recitals of the deed of gift are as follows :-The husbands of both of us are dead ; neither of us have any children. You are always looking after ...
Tag this Judgment!Sitalakshmi Ammal Vs. Venkata Subrahmanian
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-1930
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR887
Atkin, J.1. This is an appeal from the High Court of Judicature at Madras in a suit in which the infant plaintiff suing by his next friend, his father, Gopalakrishna Ayyar, claimed from the defendants' possession of the properties of Sitarama Ayyair, who died in January, 1922. The plaintiff claims to be the adopted son of Sitarama Ayyar and also to be devisee under a will of Sitarama Ayyar, said to have been made on the day of the adoption and confirming the adoption. The defendants are the widow of Sitarama, the mother of Sitarama, and one Seeni Nadalwar, a lessee of the property. They deny that there ever was any adoption or any will, and upon those two issues of fact the case turns. The suit was brought in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Dindigal. The Subordinate Judge, after several days' hearing, found against the adoption and the will: the High Court reversed these findings and decided in favour of the plaintiff in both issues. The defendant widow now appeals.2. Sitarama a ...
Tag this Judgment!Ephrayim H. Ephrayim Vs. Turner, Morrison and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Bom511; (1930)32BOMLR1178
Baker, J.1. A preliminary point has been taken on behalf of the defendants that the plaint is not properly signed, inasmuch as it was signed by a person holding not a general power of attorney but a special power of attorney given by the plaintiff for the purposes of this particular suit. The case is governed by Order III, Rule 2, and the rule in the Civil Procedure Code on that point has been modified by the rules of this Court which will be found at p. 1215 of Mulla's Code of Civil Procedure. The persons who, under Order VI, Rule 14, are held to be duly authorised by a party unable to sign the plaint himself, are, under the rules of this Court made under Section 122, ' persons holding general powers of attorney from parties not resident within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court within which limits the appearance, the application or act is made or done, authorising them to make and do such appearances, applications and acts on behalf of such parties.' The plaintiff in t...
Tag this Judgment!Jethalal Chhotalal Shah Vs. Lallubhai Mulchand Mehta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Bom380; (1930)32BOMLR702
Madgavkar, J.1. This appeal turns on the construction of Section 61 (4) of the Provincial Insolvency Act (V of 1920).2. The firm of Lallubhai Hirachand consisted of two partners, Chunilal Hirachand and Vrijlal Lallubhai. On November 14,1926, the firm borrowed Rs. 2,00O from the appellants Jethalal and Hiralal Chhotalal, the promissory note being signed by Chunilal one of the partners, for the firm, and again by Chunilal, for himself. The appellants sued both the firm as well as Chunilal on the promissory note, and obtained a decree against the firm and against Chunilal. The firm and the partners became insolvent. The appellants desired to obtain their amount from the separate property of Chunilal, The recovers were doubtful if they could proceed against this property and applied to the Court for directions as to the schedule in which the decree in favour of the appellants should figure. The trial Court decided that the decree-holders were entitled to be paid from Chunilal's separate pr...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Mohaniraj Krishna Korhalkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Bom337; (1930)32BOMLR589; 129Ind.Cas.581
Broomfield, J. 1. The facts leading to bins application for revision are as follows. On July 24, ] 924, the present applicant Mohaniraj Krishna purchased a house at Kopargapa from Baghu-nath Balvant Thombare. The sale-deed contained certain recitals which are alleged to be untrue and prejudicial to the rights of Damodar Shivram Thoinbare, the present opponent, who is the owner of a neighbouring house. On October 23, 1924, Damodar filed a civil suit against Mohaniraj for a declaration that the said recitals were false and fraudulent and for certain injunctions. On April 19,1926, the Subordinate Judge made a decree declaring plaintiff' Damodar's exclusive right to a plot of land between the houses of the parties and negativing defendant Mohaniraj's right to do any act interfering with Damodar's enjoyment of the same. This decree involved a finding that the recitals in the sale-deed were incorrect. Damodar then moved the Subordinate Judge to take proceedings against Mohaniraj for forgery,...
Tag this Judgment!Mulchand Chouthmal Marwadi Vs. Hirabai Fakirchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Bom400; (1930)32BOMLR695
Madgavkar, J.1. The question in this appeal is, whether, as both the lower Courts have held, the plaintiff's suit is barred by limitation. The land in suit originally belonged to Chouthmal who had two sons Mulchand the plaintiff, and Fakirchand the deceased husband of defendant-respondent No. 1 Hirabai. Chouthmal purchased the land in 1891, and on July 16, 1899, leased it for eleven months to Ragho the deceased father of the defendant respondent No. 2 Ganpat and the uncle of defendant-respondent No. 3 Bhila. In 1905, there was a partition between Mulchand and Fakirchand. Both were ignorant of their claim to their property in suit. It was, however, agreed between the two that any property not included in that partition should, if subsequently discovered, be divided equally between them. In 1912, Fakirchand became aware of his interest in this property. On July 8, 1912, Fakirchand filed a suit on his own behalf for possession and rent against Ragho and obtained a decree which was confirm...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »