Mumbai Court September 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.
ismail Essak Chand Nagori Vs. Abdulla Haji Cassum
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1930
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR1660; 129Ind.Cas.748
J.W.F. Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the decision of Mr. Justice Baker and it raises an important question between lessor and lessee as to the liability to pay property tax based on an increased assessment made after the date of the lease.2. The lease was made between one Tarmahomed Haji Ali-mahomed, who has since died and whose executors are the plaintiffs, as the lessor and the defendant as the lessee. The lease demised certain property, which consisted of buffalo stables, for a term of three years from September 1, 1924, at a monthly rent of Rs. 2,501, and the lessee covenanted with the lessor that he would, during the continuance of the term, pay and discharge the Municipal bill for water consumed in the premises. That is the only material covenant by the lessee. The lessor covenanted for himself his heirs executors administrators and assigns with the lessee that he would, during the said term, pay all existing and future rates and taxes charges and outgoings whatsoever f...
In Re: Hanifabai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-1930
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR1499
Madgavkar, J.1. This is an application in revision by the petitioner Hanifabai against the order passed by the Presidency Magistrate, second Court, Bombay, dismissing her application for separate maintenance against the opponent husband, Mahomed Yakub.2. The petitioner alleged brutal ill-treatment such as knocking out of a tooth and causing miscarriage so that she had to go to her adopted father, Oomar Master's. In support of the application she adduced, besides giving her own evidence, the evidence of two other witnesses, and also produced subsequently a copy of her complaint to the police. The main evidence in the case was taken on March 5, hut there is no record of it in writing. The case was adjourned to May 9, when her former complaint to the police was brought on the record, and it was adjourned further to enable her to produce the rest of her evidence which she was unable to do. On June 6, the respondent made a statement denying the ill-treatment; and on June 13, the order made ...
In Re: Industrial Bank of Western India, Ld.; in Re: Manchand Walchand ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-1930
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR1656; 129Ind.Cas.890
J.W.F. Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of Mr. Justice Rangneker confirming a decision of the Official Assignee which rejected a proof of claim of the Industrial Bank of Western India Ltd., in the insolvency of the firm of Manchand Walchand & Co. The appellant bank put in a claim in the insolvency for a sum of Rs. 2,47,656-1-11. The insolvency commenced in 1922. The debt due from the insolvents was in part secured, by certain hundies which had been drawn by the insolvent firm in favour of the appellant bank and had been accepted by Haribhai Devkaran & Co. Haribhai Devkaran were a joint Hindu firm, and it had been alleged at one time, but it has not been proved, that that firm was a partner in the insolvent firm of Maoshand Walchand & Co. It is quite clear that the first member of the family firm of Haribhai Devkaran, namely, Hirachand Ramchand, was a partner in the firm of Manchand Walchaud & Co., but it is alleged that the family firm was not a partner. The family firm...
The Secretary of State for India Vs. Husenabu Daudbhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-1930
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR361; 136Ind.Cas.189
Patkar, J.1. The question urged on behalf of the appellant in these appeals is whether the suits are barred under Section 11 of. the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act X of 1876. The learned District Judge held that Section 11 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act did not apply because Section 11 contemplates an act, i.e., a positive act of dispossession and would not cover an order or decision by the city survey officer. We think the learned District Judge erred in holding that the section did not apply to an order or decision by the city survey officer. The word 'act' is wide enough to cover a judicial or a quasi-judicial act, viz., the passing of an order or decision by a revenue officer. Section 11 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act contemplates the presentation of all such appeals allowed by law before bringing the suit. All such appeals would refer to appeals against the act or omission. Section 203 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, Bombay Act V of 1879, prescribes an appeal aga...
Shivji Poonja Kothari Vs. Ramjimal Babulal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-1930
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR1650; 129Ind.Cas.886
J.W.F. Beaumont C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Mirza. The matter has got into a considerable state of confusion owing to the parties not having complied with the rules as to procedure. The rules of procedure are made in the long run for the convenience and benefit of litigants. Occasionally expense and delay may be involved in complying with the rules, but if the parties do not comply with the rules, they must take the consequences.2. The material facts are these. The appellants and respondents are both members of the Marwari Chamber of Commerce, and as such they are bound under the rules to submit all disputes between them to arbitration. They had a dispute, and the matter was referred to the arbitration of two arbitrators. The arbitrators were unable to make their award within the fifteen days required under the rules, and they applied to the chairman on January 18, 1929, to extend the time. The time was in fact extended by the vice-chairman. On January 27,...
Lakshman Balvant Khisti Vs. Vasudev Mohoniraj Pande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-1930
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR356
Madgavkar, J.1. The question in this appeal is whether the plaintiff-appellant is entitled to possession from the defendant No. 2-respondent.2. In 1902 Ramrao and Shamrao were in difficulties and passed the sale-deed of June 22, 1902, in favour of defendant No. 1. That sale-deed is held by both the lower Courts to have been benami and possession retained by the vendors, On August 6, 1923, defendant No. 1 respondent passed a registered sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff-appellant, under which the present suit is brought. The only issues in the lower Court, apart from whether the plaintiff proves his sale-deed, were the benami nature of the transaction, whether possession had been with defendant No. 1 or with defendant No. 2, and in the latter case, whether the possession with defendant No. 2 was adverse to plaintiff and defendant No. 1.3. The trial Court found that the plaintiff had proved his sale-deed, but answered all the other questions in favour of defendant No. 2 The plaintiff's...
In Re: Manji Jetha Lakhani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-1930
Reported in: (1932)34BOMLR606
Mirza, J. 1. This is an application by the only heir of a residuary legatee, who is dead, to have letters of administration to the estate of the deceased testator with the will annexed issued to him. The application is made under the provisions of Section 233 of the Indian Succession Act. That section provides that when a residuary legatee, who has a beneficial interest, survives the testator but dies before the estate is fully administered, his representative has the same right to administration with the will annexed as such residuary legatee. The residuary legatee in this case, who was also the executor under the will, obtained probate of the will after the death of the testator, but died without having fully administered the estate of the testator. The present applicant is the only surviving son of the residuary legatee.2. A practice which has hitherto prevailed in the office of the Testamentary Registrar is that in such cases the heir of the residuary legatee is required to obtain ...
Lakshman Balwant Khisti Vs. Vasudeo Mohoniraj Pande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Bom227
Madgavkar, J. 1. The question in this appeal is whether the plaintiff appellant is entitled to possession from defendant respondent 2. 2. In 1902 Ramrao and Shamrao were in difficulties and passed the sale deed of 22nd June 1902, in favour of defendant 1. That Sale deed is held by both the lower Courts to have been benami and possession retained by the vendors. On 6th August 1923, defendant respondent 1 passed a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff appellant, under which the present suit is brought. The only issues in the lower Court, apart from whether the plaintiff proves his sale deed, were the benami nature of the transaction, whether possession had been with defendant 1, or with defendant 2 and in the latter case, whether the possession with defendant 2 was adverse to plaintiff and defendant 1.3. The trial Court found that the plaintiff had proved his sale deed, but answered all the other questions in favour of defendant 2. The plaintiff's appeal failed in the District ...
Tukaram Krishna Patil Vs. Dinkar Nisbat Mahadu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-1930
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR289
Patkar, J.1. This was a suit brought by the plaintiffs Shankar and Dinkar for possession of certain property on the ground that they were the dasiputras of one Mahadu Daryaji Patil who died in February 1924, Defendant No. 1 the brother of Mahadu contended that the plaintiffs were not the dasiputras of the deceased Mahadu, and that Mahadu and defendant No, 1 were kshatriyas and not shudras.2. Both the lower Courts came to the conclusion that Mahadu and defendant No. 1 were shudras, that Shankar was born in November 1918, that Radha's husband died on August 6, 1918, and that therefore Shankar was not the illegitimate son of Mahadu, but Dinkar, who was born on March 10, 1922, was the illegitimate son of Mahadu and was entitled to succeed to the property of Mahadu.3. In second appeal it is urged that the finding of both the Courts that Mahadu and defendant No. 1 were shudras should not be accepted on the ground that the decision in Maharaja of Kolhapur v. Sundaram Ayyar ILR (1924) Mad. 1 w...
Tukaram Krishna Patil Vs. Dinkar Bisbat Mahadu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-1930
Reported in: 131Ind.Cas.883
Patkar J.1. This was a suit brought by the plaintiffs Shankar and Dinkar for possession of certain property on the ground that they were the dasiputras of one Mahadu Daryaji Patil who died in February 1924. Defendant No. 1 the brother of Mahadu contended that the plaintiffs were not the dasiputras of the deceased Mahadu, and that Mahadu and defendant No. 1 were Kshatriyas and not Shudras.2. Both the lower Courts came to the conclusion that Mahadu and defendant No. 1 were Shudras, that Shankar was born in November, 1918, that Radha's husband died on 6th August, 1918, and that, therefore Shankai was not the illegitimate son of Mahadu, but Dinkar, who was born on 10th March, 1922, was the illegitimate son of Mahadu and was entitled to succeed to the property of Mahadu.3. In second appeal it is urged that the finding of both the Courts that Mahadu and defendant No. 1 were Shudras should not be accepted on the ground that the decision in Maharaja of Kolhapur v. Sundaram Ayyar : AIR1925Mad49...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »