Mumbai Court July 1931 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.
Shivsangappa Irsangappa Kuppasad Vs. Muchkhandeppa Irsangappa Kuppasad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom160; (1931)33BOMLR1437
S.S. Patkar, Ag. C.J.1. This was a suit brought by the plaintiff for a declaration that the defendant was not the natural born son of Irsangappa bin Muchkhandeppa Kuppasad.2. The plaintiff is the son of Irsangappa by his first wife and the defendant is the son of Nilgangava, the second wife of Irsangappa. Irsangappa died on February 6, 1926, and the defendant was born to Nilgangava on January 4, 1927, that is 332 days after the death of her husband. The defendant in the written statement contended that the property in respect of which the declaration was sought was worth more than Rs. 5,000, and, therefore, the suit would not lie in the Court of the Second Class Subordinate Judge at Bagalkot.3. The learned Subordinate Judge held, that the Court had jurisdiction to try the suit, but on the merits decided in favour of the plaintiff, and gave a declaration that the defendant was not the natural born son of Irsangappa bin Muchkhandappa Kuppasad.4. On appeal, the learned District Judge held...
Haji Ahmed Haji Ibrahim Vs. AbdulhusseIn Tayaballi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom40; (1931)33BOMLR1433
Patkar, Ag. C.J.1. The question for decision in this application is whether an applicant who applies to set aside a decree passed ex parte must, at the time of presenting his application, either deposit the amount due under the decree or give security to the satisfaction of the Court for the performance of the decree, or whether if an application is made within time and followed by a deposit within time, there would not be a sufficient compliance with the terms of the proviso to Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act.2. It appears that in this case a decree was passed by the Small Cause Court, and the defendant, who was out of British India, knew of the result of the suit on December 22, 1929. On January 11, 1930, he made an application to set aside the ex parte decree under Order IX, Rule 13, and offered to furnish security. On January 21, 1930, he furnished the security within thirty days provided by Article 164 of the Indian Limitation Act. The application was heard on ...
Bhimaji Bhibhutmal Vs. Chunilal Javerchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom344; (1932)34BOMLR683
Tyabji, J.1. Section 28(2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, (which corresponds in its relevant part with the Presidency-towns Insolvency Act, 1909, Section 14) requires leave of the Court to commence suits, It runs :On the making of an order of adjudication,...no creditor to whom the insolvent is indebted in respect of any debt provable under this Act shall daring the pendency of the insolvency proceedings have any remedy against the property of the insolvent in respect of the debt, or commence any suit or other legal proceeding, except with the leave of the Court and on such terms as the Court may impose.2. If a suit is commenced without the leave of the Court is it imperative on the Court to dismiss the suit So it was argued by Mr. Coyajee for the defendant. He contended that the view taken by Mr. Justice Davar in In re Dwarkadas Tejbhandas I.L.R. (1915)Bom. 235 : 17 Bom. L.R. 925. was that once the suit had been brought without leave obtained, no course was open to the Court ...
Jotindra Nath Roy Vs. Nagendra Nath Roy
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-06-1931
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR1411
George Lowndes, J.1. There is no dispute as to the facts in this case. The sole question is as to which of two sets of cognates is entitled to succeed to the estate of a deceased Hindu who may for convenience be referred to as the propositus.2. The pedigree of the parties is as follows, the names of females being printed in italics :Gungammi = Ramnath = Gendumani RamlalBhabatarini Rameshwar = Mankumari Rajilakhmirespti. 1 respti. 2 Propositus Appellant. 3. It will be seen from the above that the appellant is a son of a sister of the mother of the propositus, while the respondents are sons of a half-sister of his father.4. The suit out of which the appeal arises was instituted by the appellant. He had two brothers who apparently refused to support his suit. They were joined as co-defendants with the respondents, but have taken no part in the proceedings.5. Both the Courts in India held that the respondents are the preferential heirs, though on slightly different grounds, with the result...
Rustomji and Ginwala Vs. Fazal Rahim
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom378; (1932)34BOMLR670
Tyabji, J.1. The plaintiffs base their suit on the consent decree in suit No. 4403 of 1924.2. The decree, after explaining the nature of the claim and reciting that a settlement of the suit beneficial to the minor concerned had been arrived at, removes certain trustees and appoints others; orders the retiringtrustee Karmally (the first defendant), to account; orders the receiver to hand over certain securities as directed and discharges him; provides that the new trustees do hold the trust estate, and that all allegations be withdrawn; and finally orders:that the respective costs of all the parties to the suit including thecosts, charges and expenses incurred by the trustees, be paid out of estate...and that the costs of thefirst defendant be paid to his attorneys, Messrs. Rustomji and Ginwalla, when taxed and noted in the margin hereofliberty to apply is then reserved.3. The suit is based on the penultimate part of the decree which I have quoted. The question I have to decide is short...
Emperor Vs. J.A. Finan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-1931
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR1182
Patkar, Ag. C.J.1. The petitioner applies for revision of the order passed by the Presidency Magistrate, Third Court, discharging the notice and dismissing the complaint brought by the petitioner against the opponent Sergeant Finan charging him with the offences under Sections 383 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code.2. It appears that, on October 26, 1930, the petitioner went to the Esplanade Maiden to witness the national flag salutation ceremony, and resisted the endeavors of the police-officers who tried to snatch the national flag in her hand, whereupon the petitioner along with thirteen others was made to sit in a police motor van, and it is alleged was made to get down at a lonely place between Ghatkopar and Bhandup in spite of her repeated protests either to take her to jail or back to Bombay.3. She filed a complaint before the learned Magistrate without mentioning the name of the Sergeant, The learned Magistrate issued a notice, and the Police Commissioner on December 10,1930, fur...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›