Mumbai Court December 1932 Judgments
Nagappa Bandappa Kadadi Vs. Gurushantappa Shankrappa Umarji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-22-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Bom255; (1933)35BOMLR432; 147Ind.Cas.1227
Patkar, J.1. This is an appeal in execution of the decree in suit No. 214 of 1923 against the order of the learned First Class Subordinate Judge dismissing the application of the applicant for the necessary certificate to be sent to the First Class Subordinate Judge at Sholapur under Order XXI, rules 5 and 6, and for an order of transfer of the execution under Section 39 of the Civil Procedure Code. The principal ground on which the learned First Class Subordinate Judge dismissed the application is that the application for execution is beyond time under Article 182 of the Indian Limitation Act.2. It is necessary to state the facts which have given rise to the contention that the application for execution is barred by limitation. In Civil Suit No. 214 of 1923 the assignors of the appellant, who were defendants Nos. 1 and 2, had obtained a decree against defendant No. 3 on December 14, 1925, to the extent of Rs. 42,940. Defendant No. 3 applied for a review and appeal No. 35 of 1926 was f...
Tag this Judgment!Fakirgowda Basangowda Patil Vs. Dyamawa Gowdappagowda Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Bom287; (1933)35BOMLR418; 145Ind.Cas.262
Patkar, J.1. In this case the plaintiff sues to recover by partition one-third share of the suit properties which consist of watan as well as non-watan properties mentioned in the plaint. The defendant contended first that the decision in suit No. 1 of 1905 operated as res judicata, secondly, that the claim of the plaintiff was barred by limitation, and, thirdly, that with regard to the watan lands he was the preferable heir under Bombay Act V of 1886.2. One Chanbasangauda died in 1877 leaving a widow Basava who died in 1879. They left a daughter Sankava who was married to the defendant. Sankava died in February 1902 leaving three daughters Dyamava, the plaintiff, Savantrava and Gangava. The present suit is brought by Dyamava against her father in respect of one-third share of both watan and non-watan properties which were inherited by Sankava from her parents.3. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the decision in suit No. 1 of 1905 did not operate as res judicata, secondly, that t...
Tag this Judgment!Rai Shadi Lal Vs. Lal Bahadur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-1932
Reported in: (1933)35BOMLR308
Dinshah Mulla, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree, dated November 10, 1926, of the High Court at Allahabad which varied a judgment and decree, dated July 31,. 1923, of the Subordinate Judge of Bareilly.2. On December 20, 1905, Munshi Inder Sahai executed a mortgage of his share of a village situated at Bareiily to secure payment of Res. 7,000 lent to him by Rai Kishun Lal at interest at the rate of seven annas percent. per mensem.3. The mortgage was one with possession, and the mortgagee was put in possession of the property on the same day. The mortgage was for a term of five years.4. On June 15, 1906, the mortgagor executed a document called zamanatnama (security bond) by which he created a charge on two other properties, the charge to operate if the property mortgaged by the deed of 1905 was found to be insufficient for payment of the mortgage debt in full. It was stated in the document that both these properties belonged to the mortgagor.5. Some time thereafter the m...
Tag this Judgment!V.M. Abdul Rahman Vs. D.K. Cassim and Sons
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-1932
Reported in: (1933)35BOMLR331
George Lowndes, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was instituted in the name of the first respondent firm (hereinafter referred to as respondents No. 1) on the original side of the Rangoon High Court, alleging, in effect, a conspiracy between the two named defendants to ruin the business of the respondents No. 1, and claiming Rs. 5,00,000 by way of damages. The first of the two defendants was the appellant, V.M. Abdul Rahman, now deceased, and represented by his heirs. The other was respondent No. 2, who does not appear before the Board.2. After the hearing of the suit had commenced in the trial Court respondents No. 1 were-apparently upon their own application-adjudicated insolvents. On this being brought to the notice of the Judge, he, on February 13, 1929, adjourned the trial, and gave a month's time to the official assignee to consider whether he would proceed with the suit on behalf of the creditors. On March 11, 1929, the Judge being then engaged in the Criminal Sessi...
Tag this Judgment!Abdulla Asghar Ali Vs. Ganesh Das Vig
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-1932
Reported in: (1933)35BOMLR337
George Lowndes, J.1. The principal question in this appeal is whether an application for the execution of a decree is time-barred under the provisions of Article 182(o) of the first schedule to the Indian Limitation Act, 1908. The Article allows a period of three years only for such an application from the date of the decree, 'or where there has been an appeal, the date of the final decree or order of the Appellate Court.' It is not disputed that if in the present case the period is to be reckoned from the date of the decree, the application was out of time, nor, per contra, if the respondents can take advantage of a certain order of the appellate Court, that it was within time.2. The suit out of which the appeal arises was launched as long ago as 1912. Some four years later it came up in appeal Abdullah Ashgar Ali Khan v. Ganesh Dass, I.L.R. (1917) Cal. 442 19 Bom. L.R. 972, p.c to this Board, but was sent back for trial in the Baluchistan courts, where the proceedings dragged on for ...
Tag this Judgment!Jnanendra Mohan Bhaduri Vs. Rabindra Nath Chakravarty
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-1932
Reported in: (1933)35BOMLR327
Dinshah Mulla, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal, dated December 11, 1930, which set aside an order of the Third Subordinate Judge of Hooghly, dated June 29, 1929, and directed that an application for execution of a decree presented by the respondent to the Court of the Subordinate Judge be entertained as an application for execution of an award.2. The appellants are two of the executors of the will of Rajendra Lal Goswami, who died on August 21, 1917. The testator's widow, Annapurna Debi, (since deceased), was also an executrix of the will. The will is dated November 18, 1916, and it was admitted to probate on December 19, 1917.3. The appellants are residuary legatees under the will. The respondent, the testator's widow and Radhika Lal Goswami are beneficiaries under the will.4. Disputes arose as to the construction of the will, and by an agreement in writing, dated December 22, 1917, the matters in difference were referred ...
Tag this Judgment!Hansraj Gupta Vs. the Official Liquidators, Dehra-dun Elec. Tramway Co ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-1932
Reported in: (1933)35BOMLR319
Russell, J.1. For the facts relevant to this appeal their Lordships refer to the judgment which was delivered in July last in Hansraj Gupta v. N.P. Asthana (1932) 35 Bom. L.R. 312 The re-argument, therein foreshadowed, of the appeal No. 86 of 1930, has taken place, and their Lordships now proceed to consider whether all or any of the three sums in question in that appeal (viz., Rs. 27,000, Rs. 35,000 and Rs. 7,703-13-0) are or is recoverable.2. The principal and most difficult points turn upon the true construction and effect of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, because their Lordships are of opinion that, apart from any questions of limitation, the three sums in question are all recoverable by the liquidators.3. This is obviously so as regards the Rs. 7,703-13-0. As regards the other two sums, it was contended by the appellants that these were not recoverable upon the ground that in each case the sum was paid as a deposit or earnest to secure the due fulfilment of a contract, and that ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Vs. Tejbhandas Motumal.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-1932
Reported in: [1933]1ITR202(Bom)
. - This is a reference under Section 66(2), Income Tax Act. The assessee is a firm carrying on business at Karachi. This firm was constituted under as agreement which, inter alia, recites as follows :'3. The capitalist partners of the first part shall contribute to the partnership Rs. 1,00,000 (one lac) out of which the partner ship shall pay interest on Rs. 94,900 at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum. The balance of Rs. 5,100 shall not carry any interest. It is optional with the capitalist partners to advance further capital if they so choose in which event the further advances shall carry interest to be borne by the partnership at the same rate as above said.'During the period of assessment in question the firm paid two sums of Rs. 2,166 and Rs. 5,555 to the capitalist partners as interest on a sum of Rs. 76,000 which remained with it in excess of the sum of Rs. 5,100 which was not to carry interest. Before the Income-tax Collector it was contended that in assessing the taxable inco...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Parashram Bhika
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-15-1932
Reported in: (1933)35BOMLR245
Broomfield, J.1. This revision application is presented on behalf of two persons who have been discharged by the Magistrate, the Sessions Judge having subsequently set aside the order of discharge and having directed under Section 437 of the Criminal Procedure Code that they should be committed for trial to the Sessions Court along with three other persons on charges of dacoity, wrongful confinement and other offences. The case involves a question of principle of some importance.2. The allegations of the complainant in the Magistrate's Court were that he bad filed a civil suit against Jaffar Alli, accused No. 1, and that while that suit was pending, Jaffar Alli and two other persons, accused Nos. 2 and 3, had come to his house, had overpowered him and thrown him on the ground and had robbed him of an account book, which was required in connection with the civil suit. Accused No. 3 had then run away to a motor car which was waiting about sixty paces off, but the complainant pursued him ...
Tag this Judgment!Radhakisson Gopikisson Vs. Balmukund Ramchandra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-15-1932
Reported in: (1933)35BOMLR303
Thankerton, J.1. The suit in which the present appeal arises was instituted by the appellants on November 21, 1928, in the High Court of Judicature (Original Jurisdiction) at Bombay against the respondents for recovery of the balance due in respect of a series of transactions in cotton carried out by the appellants as commission agents on behalf of the respondents.2. Various grounds of defence were put forward by the respondents, but only two of these are involved in the present appeal, viz.:-(I) that the suit was not maintainable under the provisions of the Bombay Cotton Contracts Act, XIV of 1922, and Article 96 of the Articles of Association of the East India Cotton Association, Ltd., which were applicable to these transactions and under which arbitration was a condition precedent to any suit in Court, and (2) that the transactions did not comply with the statutory by-laws of the Association, and were, therefore, rendered void by the provisions of the Act.3. The trial Judge (Kemp J....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »