Mumbai Court December 1932 Judgments
Rai Bishunath Prasad Singh Vs. Rani Chandika Prasad Kumari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-15-1932
Reported in: (1933)35BOMLR341
Blanesburgh, J.1. In this case many questions were canvassed in the Courts in India, but all, except one, have passed into history. They survive merely as an excuse for the over elaborate and bulky record which is before their Lordships.2. The one issue which remains effective concerns a moiety share of a taluqa known as Jakhanian in the Jaunpur district in the province of Agra which by a registered deed of gift dated September 16, 1862, was given by Pirthipal Singh, the head of his family, to Musammat Balraj Kunwar his daughter-in-law. The question is whether that lady had under the deed power to make alienations of the property giving to the respondents titles which are valid after her death. That question has been answered in the affirmative by the Subordinate Judge of Jaunpur and the result is embodied in his decree of December 21, 1921, which on appeal was affirmed by a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, dated March 2, 1926. The surving plaintiff claiming under t...
Tag this Judgment!Shankarrao Keshavrao Deshmukh Vs. Vadilal Mulchand Gujarati
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-15-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Bom239; (1933)35BOMLR462
Patkar, J.1. The mortgage-bond, on which defendant No. 1 obtained a decree, was executed by one Balwantrao bin Nana Deshmukh as heir of Parvatibai for her debts, and Survey Nos. 159, 160, 161 and 162 belonging to her were mortgaged under the mortgage-deed. According to the compromise in the partition suit of 1896 between the heirs of Parvatibai, Survey No. 159 was allotted to Keshavrao, the plaintiffs' grandfather, free from the mortgage-debt and the liability to pay the mortgage-debt was allotted to the share of defendants Nos. 2 to 6. In execution of the partition decree the plaintiffs got possession of Survey No. 159, The mortgagee was not a party to the partition decree.2. The mortgagee brought a suit on the mortgage in 1914 against the members of the family to enforce the mortgage. The present plaintiffs were defendants Nos. II and 12 in that suit. During the pendency of the suit the mortgagee gave a purshis by which he consented to abide by the decree in the partition suit and ha...
Tag this Judgment!Khemchand Ramdas Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-15-1932
Reported in: [1933]1ITR249(Bom)
ASTON, A.J.C. - This is an application under s. 66, cl. (3) Income Tax Act, XI of 1922, applying to this court for an order to direct the Commissioner to state the case and refer it to this court, The facts briefly are as follows. On 17th January, 1927, the applicants, Messrs. Khemchand Ramdas, who are the firm doing business at Bunder Abbas and Carmine, were assessed as a registered firm for income-tax for the year 1926-1927, and the assessment was duly levied. On 4th February, 1928, proceedings were taken by the Income-tax Collector, Sikarpur, under Section 34 for re-assessment on the income for the year 1926-1927. On 13th February, 1928, the Commissioner of Income-tax cancelled the registration of the firm and the proceedings under Section 34 were dropped. On 7th May, 1929, the applicants were served with a notice demanding a sum of Rs. 9,468-12-0 as super-tax for the year 1926-1927. An appeal was made to the Assistant Commissioner against the super-tax. On 12th April, 1930 the appe...
Tag this Judgment!Swami Rajrajeshwarashram Vs. Shri Sharda Peeth Math
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Bom260; (1933)35BOMLR458
Patkar, J.1. This is an application under Section 109 (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure for leave to appeal to the Privy Council. We have treated this application as an application for leave to appeal under Section 109, cl, (a), and also under Clause (c), though no specific prayer is made in the application for leave to appeal under Section 109 (c), Civil Procedure Code.2. This is a dispute between two rival claimants to the property which is in the possession of the District Judge under Regulation VIII of 1827. The lower Court held that the suit was barred by limitation. On appeal, this Court came to a contrary conclusion and remanded the suit for decision on the merits. The question, therefore, in this application is whether an order reversing the decision of the lower Court on the point of limitaion and remanding the case for decision on the merits is a 'final order' passed on appeal by the High Court within the meaning of Section 109 (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure.3. Several c...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Satyadhyana Tirth Vs. Bhujang Chintaman Nadgauda
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Bom253; (1933)35BOMLR368
Baker, J.1. The plaintiff, who is the Swami of the Uttaradhi Math, sued, the defendants to recover possession of some property alleged to belong to the Math stated to have been gifted about forty or fifty years ago by the then Swami of the Math, one Krishnacharya Garlpad, the ancestor of defendants Nos. 8 and 9, the remaining defendants being transferees and tenants of Garlpad. A preliminary issue was framed as to whether the suit is in time. It was found that it was not in time, and it was dismissed. On appeal, the District Judge of Belgaum framed two issues, (1) Has the plaintiff proved that the property in suit is comprised in a Hindu religious or charitable endowment ?, and (2) if so, can a suit for the purpose of following such property be maintained, notwithstanding the lapse of any length of time ?, and found in the negative on both these issues, and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff makes this second appeal.2. It is conceded by the learned advocate for the appellant that Act I ...
Tag this Judgment!Ebrahim Haji Jusab Vs. Jainibi Anuddin
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Bom270; (1933)35BOMLR410; 145Ind.Cas.273
Patkar, J.1. In this case the applicant claimed compensation for the death of her son Yasin Anuddin, who was employed by the appellant owning property at Parel, and who fell from the scaffolding while executing repairs to his building.2. The Commissioner found that the workman's employment was not of a casual nature, but on the contrary he was regularly employed for an appreciable period of time by the same employer.3. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the employment of the deceased was of a casual nature. 'Workman' is defined in the Workmen's Compensation Act, VIII of 1923, Section 2(1)(n), as follows :-'Workman' means any person (other than a person whose employment is of a casual nature and who is employed otherwise than for the purposes of the employer's trade or business) who is employed, either by way of manual labour or on monthly wages not exceeding three hundred rupees, in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule II.4. Under Schedule II, Clause (vi), any per...
Tag this Judgment!Bharmal Tilokchand Vs. Bai Vishnabai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-09-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Bom200; (1933)35BOMLR365
Murphy, J.1. This revision application comes to us in the following manner. The plaintiffs in a Small Causes Court suit alleged that a person originally called Choitram Bharmal had hired a flat belonging to them at a rent of Rs. 60. They sued for Rs. 120 as due under the contract of letting. The suit was not defended and a decree ex parte was passed against the defendant then named Choitram Bharmal. What had happened was that when the summons was issued on the defendant in the suit, 'Choitram Bharmal', the bailiff, accompanied by the rent collector, went to the residence of Tulsidas Karani, where the defendant was said to be residing, and the summons was tendered to the present applicant, whose name is Bharmal Tilockchand and whose son is Choitram Bharmal. The rent collector identified Bharmal Tilockchand as the defaulting tenant, but service was refused on the ground that he was not the person named in the summons. Subsequently a decree was passed against the defendant who had been id...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Rayaji Kulkarni Vs. Rango Ramchandra Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-07-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Bom183; (1933)35BOMLR280
Baker, J.1. This is an appeal against an order by the First Class Sub-ordinate Judge of Dharwar granting a review of an order made determining mesne profits in execution proceedings. The facts are that the plaintiff obtained a decree for partition in 1922 awarding him a one-third share in the property with mesne profits, which was confirmed by the High Court in 1925. In 1927 the plaintiff applied to the lower Court to determine the mesne profits under Order XX, Rule 12. The defendant put in a written statement. Certain issues were framed, evidence recorded, and the Subordinate Judge determined the amount due for mesne profits in July 1930. But a month later the amount found due was corrected and reduced by about Rs. 300 on the ground that there had been a miscalculation. Thereafter the defendant applied for a review of the order on the ground that the lower Court did not take into consideration several of the points which were alleged in his written statement and the purshis which had ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Tukaram Khandu Koli
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1932
Reported in: (1933)35BOMLR234
Baker, J.1. A preliminary point has been raised in this case that the confession of accused No. 1 Tukaram Khandu, is inadmissible in evidence because the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code governing the recording of confessions have not been complied with. Three points have been raised by the learned advocate for the appellant, viz., that the memorandum which is necessary to be made under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not show that the accused was warned before his confession was recorded that he was not bound to make a confession. The second point is that the Code requires that the memorandum under 9. 164 should be in the Magistrate's own hand, whereas in the present, case it is a typed form signed by the Magistrate, and the third point taken is that this memorandum is attached not to the confession of the accused in vernacular, but to the English memorandum of the substance of it made by the Magistrate.2. As regards the first point, under Section 164 of th...
Tag this Judgment!Halemabi Vs. Ardeshir B. Cursetji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Bom197; (1933)35BOMLR293
Patkar, J.1. In this case the widow of one Mahmed Ahmed Shaikh Mahiboo claimed compensation for the death of her husband who died as a result of an injury which he sustained while in the employment of the respondents.2. Various contentions were raised in the lower Court : (1) whether the applicant was a dependent; (2) whether the deceased workman received an injury as the result of an accident which arose out of and in the course of his employment, and whether the injury caused his death; and (3) whether notice was given as provided in Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, and whether if such notice was not given, the failure to give notice was due to sufficient cause. On the first two points the Commissioner decided in favour of the applicant. On the last point he held that there was no sufficient cause to prevent the deceased from going to the Doctor and also informing his foreman, who was constantly on the ship, and therefore the failure to give notice was not due to suffici...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »