Mumbai Court September 1930 Judgments
Sulleman Haji Ahmed Oomer Vs. Aishabai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1930
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR1668; 129Ind.Cas.751
J.W.F. Beaumont, C.J.1. This ease raises the question whether the landlord is liable under a covenant in a lease to pay excess tax because of an increase in the assessment after the date of the lease. We had a similar point before us last week (Ismail v. Abdulla : (1930)32BOMLR1660 , and we then decided that if the covenant of the landlord is to pay all rates and taxes in terms clear enough to cover future rates and taxes, then the effect of the covenant is that the landlord has contracted himself out of the provisions of Section 147 of the City of Bombay Municipal Act, and he is bound to pay the whole of the rates and taxes including the increased assessment.2. The learned Advocate General in that case appeared for the successful party. He does not dispute that that decision is binding upon us, but he says that it is distinguishable on two grounds. He says, first of all, that the covenant here is not in the same terms, and is not so strong against the lessor, as the covenant in that c...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Life Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Bom150
Beaumont, C.J. 1. This is a petition Under Section 45, Specific Relief Act, by a company called the Indian Life Assurance Company which is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act and having its registered office at Karachi. The petitioners were assessed to Income-tax for the year 1928-29 by the Income-tax Officer at Karachi, and in that assessment the petitioners were allowed a deduction of Rs. 74,000 odd in respect of depreciation of immovable properties Owned by the petitioners and they paid their Income-tax less that, deduction.2. The respondent who is the Commissioner of Income-tax for the Presidency of Bombay including the province of Sind disagreed with the deduction which the petitioners had been allowed and acting under the power conferred upon him by Section 33, Income-tax Act, he disallowed the petitioners' claim for that deduction and I suppose made a fresh assessment upon them. The petitioners were dissatisfied with the order of the Commissioner and they request...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Sakinabai BudruddIn Lukmani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-1930
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR1506; 129Ind.Cas.346
Madgavkar, J. 1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Thana inviting us to set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 4 of Ordinance V of 1930, on the accused, Sakinabai, wife of Badruddin Lukmani, who was sentenced by the Resident Magistrate, Kurla, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100, in default to one month's rigorous imprisonment.2. The accused is a resident of the village of Chembur, near Bombay. Two constables stated that from 10-30 a.m. till midday on the day in question the accused was standing about twenty-five or thirty paces from the country liquor shop, and that she dissuaded a certain number of persons from going into the shop. The accused alleged that there was no need for her to dissuade because there were no customers, She took no other part in the proceedings.3. The Resident Magistrate, Kurla, held, firstly, that the accused was loitering near the country liquor shop at Chembur, secondly, that she did so with a ...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Basantibai Vs. Municipal Commissioner of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Bom173
Beaumont, C.J. 1. This is a petition presented Under Section 45, Specific Relief Act, asking that a rule may issue to the Municipal Commissioner to show cause why he should not be directed to refuse sanction to an application made by Gordhandas Chunilal, whom I will refer to as 'the building owner,' for passing the plans for an addition to the height of his building, and that the Municipal Commissioner may be restrained from giving his sanction.2. The matter arises in this way. The petitioner is the owner of a certain property in Bombay which adjoins the property of the building owner, and the building owner is proposing to increase the height of his building. The building owner's property, it is alleged, has two frontages, one on a narrower road and another on a broader road, and the substantial question in dispute is whether the height of the building should be limited Under Section 349-B, City of Bombay Municipal Act, by the width of the wider road or of the narrower road. The build...
Tag this Judgment!Narsidas Nathubhai Vohra Vs. Manharsing Agarsing Thakor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-26-1930
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR370
Patkar, J.1. This is a revisional application against the order of the lower Court declining to take action under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, and passing an order under Order XXI, Rule 29, of the Civil Procedure Code.2. The applicant Narsidas Nathubhai Was the Karbhari of the talukdari estate of Gamph in the Dhandhuka Taluka in the Ahmedabad District. The opponent's father Agarsingji passed a document of pension dated January 6, 1915, in favour of the applicant with the approval of the Talukdari Settlement Officer by which a pension of Rs. 100 per month was agreed to be paid to him during his lifetime, and Rs. 50 per month to his heirs for one generation. On October 1, 1918, the applicant retired, or, as is stated on the other side, his services were dispensed with. The applicant received the amount of the pension up to May 81, 1921. The father of the opponent Thakor Agarsingji died on June 15, 1923, and was succeeded by his minor son the opponent Manharsingji. On October 7, 1925, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramdas Khatau and Co. Vs. Atlas Mills Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Bom151
Beaumont, C.J. 1. This is an appeal from a decision of Rangnekar, J. in which he granted an injunction to restrain the defendants from proceeding with a certain arbitration.2. The point arises in this way. The plaintiffs and the defendants entered into an agreement which contained a clause referring matters in dispute to arbitration. Disputes arose between the parties, and the defendants alleged that the plaintiffs had been guilty of misrepresentations which had induced them to enter into the contract, and that they were not bound by the contract, and ultimately, in a letter dated 27th April 1929, the defendants required the plaintiffs to refer the disputes to arbitration, and they set out in that letter five points of difference to be submitted to the arbitrator. The third of those points was 'whether in the circumstances the defendants are not entitled to avoid the contract dated 14th February 1928, 'and the fourth was' whether the defendants should not be paid back the amount of dep...
Tag this Judgment!Balling Vithaling Sakharpekar Vs. Shri Devasthan Fund
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-1930
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR378
Madgavkar, J.1. This is an application in revision against the order of the District Judge holding that the petitioner's application to review his judgment was not competent.2. It is argued for the petitioner that the appeal having been withdrawn before the application for review came on for hearing, the withdrawal of the appeal was tantamount to a non-preferring of the appeal on the consistent decisions of this Court in Pandu v. Devji ILR (1883) 7 Bom. 287, Ramappa v. Bharma ILR (1906) 30 Bom. 625, 8 Bom. L.R. 842, and the view of the Allahabad High Court in Ram Prasad v. Asa Ram ILR (1920) All. 288. It is argued for the opponents that on the date when the review application was filed the second appeal was pending and had not been withdrawn, and therefore under Order XLVII, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, the review application was not competent and was rightly dismissed by the District Court.3. Apart from the slight alteration in the Code of Civil Procedure by the words 'No appeal has ...
Tag this Judgment!Maruti Babaji Vadekar Vs. Ramchandra Balvant Punekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-1930
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR396
Patkar, J.1. This was a suit brought by the plaintiff to recover the sum of Rs. 9, 900 alleged to have been deposited with the defendant by one Meghagir and for a declaration that the settlement dated April 7, 1921, passed by Meghagir in favour of Anusuya and Umedmal was void as against the plaintiff.2. The plaintiff Punekar obtained a decree against Meghagir in suit No. 325 of 1921 for Rs. 5, 620-3 0 and filed darkhast (Exhibit 26) No. 757 of 1921 on July 6, 1921. The defendant Wadekar made an application No. 293 of 1921 (Exhibit 24) on October 4, 1921, to raise the attachment against the house attached on the ground that he had become the purchaser, and on January 7, 1922, the attachment was raised on the ground that the property did not belong to Meghagir, the judgment-debtor, and the darkhast No. 757 of 1921 was disposed of on January 30, 1922.3. Punekar thereupon filed a second darkhast No. 197 of 1922 for attachment of Rs. 9, 900 on February 4, 1922, (Exhibit 23) and it appears t...
Tag this Judgment!Essa Abdulla Khatri Vs. Khatijabai and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Bom161
Beaumont, C.J. 1. This is an appeal from a decision of Baker, J., in which he held that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the action having regard to the terms of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act. The learned Judge did not express any opinion of his own upon the point. He dealt with the authorities, and came to the conclusion that, although the authorities were conflicting, the greater weight of the. authorities was in favour of the view that there is no jurisdiction to entertain the action, and therefore ho considered himself bound to adopt that view.2. The question really turns on the construction of two sections of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act. That Act provides in Section 3 that The provisions of this chapter shall apply to.(b) suits of the descriptions next here in after mentioned. Then it provides:The descriptions of suits referred to. are the following, namely: (w) suits for the recovery to money alleged to be due to the plaintiff on account of money lent or ad...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Motilal Amratlal Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1930
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR1502; 129Ind.Cas.342
Madgavkar, J. 1. The petitioner applied to the Municipality of Mehnmdabad for permission to put up a weather shed. He first obtained permission to put it up. Subsequently the permission was rescinded as being opposed to a certain rule, but he maintained it. The opponent neighbour tiled a civil suit to compel him to remove the weather shed and subsequently filed the present complaint before the First Class Magistrate Mehmadabad, purporting to be made under Sections 161 and 155 of the District Municipal Act, in respect of this weather shed. The petitioner accused contended that the complaint was without jurisdiction, not having been made by the Municipality. That application as well as the application to stay the complaint pending decision of the civil suit were rejected by the Magistrate. The accused aplies in revision to this Court and asks that the proceedings should be quashed or, in the alternative, they should be stayed pending decision of the civil suit.2. It is argued for the pet...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »