Mumbai Court March 1932 Judgments
Lakshman Morshet Mapuskar Vs. Gangaram Narayan Gudekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Bom592; (1932)34BOMLR1293; 140Ind.Cas.571
Broomfield, J.1. These are two references under Section 14 of the Guardians and Wards Act, VIII of 1890.2. An application has been made by one Laxman Morshet Mapuskar in the District Court of Poona for being declared the guardian of the person of his minor wife Sonabai. An application has also been made in the District Court of Ratnagiri by Valibai, the mother of the said Sonabai, praying that she should be appointed guardian of the person and property of her minor daughter. In accordance with the provisions of Section 14 the District Judges have stayed proceedings and referred the matter to this Court in order that it may be determined in which of the Courts the proceedings with respect to the appointment or declaration of the guardian for the said minor shall be had.3. Presumably, in deciding whether the proceedings should be had in the District Court of Poona or in the District Court ofRatnagiri, this Court should be guided by consideration of the question of jurisdiction. The prope...
Tag this Judgment!Abdullabhai Ebrahimji Vs. Isabhai Najmuddin
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Bom634; (1932)34BOMLR1425
Blackwell, J.1. This is an application on the part of the defendants to set aside an ex parte decree passed by Mr. Justice Rangnekar on March 11, 1932.2. The suit had been filed as a summary suit, and the defendants had obtained leave to defend in 1929, and the suit had gone into the long causes list. It appeared on the daily board of Mr. Justice Rangnekar on March 7, 1932, being sixth on the list. It continued to appear on the daily board of Mr. JusticeRangnekar for some days, It was again sixth on the list of Mr. JusticeRangnekar's board on March 11. That learned Judge, as was known, was shortly to sit. in the Criminal Sessions, and, as is also well known, in such circumstances, a learned Judge may not then be prepared to take up any case which is likely to last a long time. It might, therefore, have been anticipated by solicitors and counsel engaged in any of the cases then appearing on the board that any one of those eases, particularly if short, was likely to be called on and disp...
Tag this Judgment!ismailji Mahomedalli Bohori Vs. the District Deputy Collector
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Bom37; (1932)34BOMLR1457
Baker, J.1. These two appeals arise from the decision of the District Judge of Nasik in two references under the LandAcquisition Act. The lands in the two references are of a similar nature and are situated together and the two references may be treated together.2. The references arise out of the acquisition by Government of a large block of land in the village of Shinwe Bahula near Deolali for the purposes of a Rifle Range for the troops at Deolali. The bulk of the survey numbers acquired, which amount to over 200 acres, belonged to the applicant Esmailji, and only a small portion of them belonged to the applicant Nomenbhai, The land acquisition officer after taking into consideration the sales which were put forward by the applicants in the proceedings came to the conclusion that they could not be relied on to show the rate per acre at more than Rs. 195, and he ignored the rent which had been paid by the Military authorities for a short period to the claimants for these lands, and ul...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Sanjiv Ratnappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-1932
Reported in: (1932)34BOMLR1090
Baker, J.1. In this case accused No. 1, Sanjiv Ratnappa Ronad, late Sub-Inspector of Kolhar, and accused No. 2 Mahomad Haja-ratsa, who was a constable serving under him, were convicted by the Sessions Judge of Bijapnr, No. 1 under Sections 830, 348 and 465, and No. 2 under Sections 330 and 348 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code with voluntarily causing hurt to extort a confession and with wrongful confinement of persona with a view to extort a confession, and accused No. 1 was farther convicted under Section 465 of forgery for having made a false document, viz, a copy of his case diary as evidence in his favour. The accused were sentenced to various periods of imprisonment and fine, [His Lordship after stating the facts summarised above proceeded :]2. The charge of forgery in this case has been the subject of considerable argument and has given rise to two or three questions of some importance in law, which, I think, should be dealt with before I go to the facts, The first ...
Tag this Judgment!Uderaj Boduram Vs. Clement Griffith Hall
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-29-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Bom432; (1932)34BOMLR843
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of Mr. Justice Wadia in insolvency. The insolvent is a man named Hall, who is an engine-driver employed by the G.I.P. Railway. On August 20, 1931, he presented his petition in insolvency to this Court. There are twelve creditors all of whom reside outside the original jurisdiction of this Court. On September 23, 1931, the appellant, who is a creditor, applied for annulment of the adjudi-cation, but that application was dismissed on October 6, 1931, by Mr. Justice Wadia. From that dismissal this appeal is brought with leave of the learned Judge.2. The first question is whether this Court has jurisdiction to en-tertain the petition, and that depends upon whether the debtor personally works for gain within the limits of the original jurisdiction of this Court within the meaning of Section 11, Sub-section (c), of the Presidency-towns Insolvency Act. The facts as found by the learned Judge are that the insolvent resides in Bhusawa...
Tag this Judgment!Manilal Lallubhai Vs. the Bharat Spinning and Weaving Co., Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Bom433; (1933)35BOMLR941; 147Ind.Cas.587
John Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of Mr. Justice Kania. It arises on a summons taken out in the matter of an arbitration seeking to make the two appellants liable on an award made against a firm.2. The material facts giving rise to the dispute are that in the year 1925 there was a firm called Vallabhdas Hiralal doing business in piece-goods in Bombay, and the partners in that firm were another firm called Ramniklal Manilal, a man named Hiralal, and a man named Umersi. The partners in the firm of Ramniklal Manilal were the two appellants in the present case and a man named Harakchand. Towards the end of the year 1928 the firm of Vallabhdas Hiralal was dissolved, and a new firm was started, which I will call 'the respondent firm', Mulchand Pranjivandas. It is admitted that in that firm Umersi and Harakchand were partners, they having been partners in the old firm, Umersi in his own right and Harakhchand as a partner in the firm of Ramniklal Manilal, and Hiralal was ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Pothan Joseph
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Bom468; (1932)34BOMLR917
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application under Section 23 of the Indian Press Act, 1931, asking us to set aside two orders passed by the Government of Bombay on March 11, 1932, made under Section 3, Sub-section (3) and Section 7, Sub-section (3) of that Act. Under Section 3, Sub-section (3), whenever it appears to the Local Government that any printing press is used for printing or publishing any newspaper containing any words, signs or visible representations of the nature described in Section 4, Sub-section (1), the Local Government may, by notice in writing to the keeper of the press stating or describing such words, signs or visible representations, order the keeper to deposit with the Magistrate, within whose jurisdiction the press is situated, security to such an amount not exceeding three thousand rupees as the Local Government may think fit to require. Section 7, Sub-section (3), confers similar powers on Government in respect of a publisher of a newspaper. The present...
Tag this Judgment!ismail Haji Nana Mafat Vs. the Bombay Baroda and Central India Railway
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Bom452; (1932)34BOMLR826; 140Ind.Cas.249
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of Mr. Justice Kania, and, as the learned Judge says in his judgment, the result of his decision is unfortunate, because the plaintiff unquestionably met with an accident on the defendant's railway, which reunited in the loss of both his legs. He sued the railway company for damages in respect of that injury. The learned Judge held that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover.2. The accident in question occurred on June 18, 1927. The learned Judge bus dealt with the evidence in detail, and 1 can state quite shortly the material facts, There is a certain amount of doubt on the evidence as to the exact order in which different events occurred, and as to the precise movements of the engine which caused the accident. But I think substantially there is no doubt about the facts. The plaintiff on the day in question came to the goods-yard of the Dohad station of the defendants' railway. The Dohad station is situate on the south of...
Tag this Judgment!Jivraj Joharmal Vs. Lalchand Shreekison and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Bom446
Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of Davar, J., which raises a short point of law. The material facts are that a man named Ganeshlal Munda owed a sum of Rs. 27,500 to Messrs Gill & Co., who held as security for the debt 212 bales of cotton belonging to Munda. The appellant, who is the defendant in the suit, was also entitled to a debt due from Munda, and there was another firm, in which the appellant was interested, which was also owed money by Munda.2. In those circumstances an arrangement was made in July 1925, the effect of which was that the appellant took over the liability of Munda to pay Gill & Co.'s debt and also the liability for the debt to the other firm in which the appellant was interested though nothing, I think, turns on that debt; and Gill & Co., agreed that they would hold the 212 bales to the account of the appellant, instead of to the account of Munda. The transaction, the nature of which is not in dispute, is proved by a clerk of Gill & Co., who pro...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shaw, Wallace and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-1932
Reported in: (1932)34BOMLR1033
George Lowndes, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court at Calcutta delivered on a reference made to it under Section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act, XI of 1922 The reference arose out of an assessment to income tax upon the respondents for the year 1929-30, in respect of an item of Rs. 9,88,361, part of a larger euro of Rs. 15,25,000 received by them in 1928 as compensation for the termination of certain agencies.2. The respondents carry on business in Calcutta as merchants and agents of various companies, and have branch offices in different parts of India. For a number of years prior to 1928 they acted as distributing agents in India of the Burma Oil Company and the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, but had no formal agreement with either company. In or about the year 1927 the two companies combined and decided to make other arrangements for the distribution of their products, The respondents' agency of the Burma Company was accordingly terminated on December 81,1927, and...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »