Mumbai Court April 1932 Judgments
The Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Provinces Vs. Sir S.M. Chitnav ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-26-1932
Reported in: (1932)34BOMLR1071
Russell, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, Central Provinces, upon a reference of questions of law, made at the instance of an assessee, under Section 66 (2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, which will hereafter be referred to as the Act.2. The questions involved were considered by the said Court to be of such importance that the case was (after argument before two Commissioners) re-argued before a full bench.3. Two separate and distinct matters were raised for decision before the said Court, and its adjudication upon each wasadverse to the present appellant. In respect of one of such matters he made no attempt to appeal, and the dispute in regard thereto is at an end. In regard to the other matter, however, he applied to the said Court for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council, and in response to that application the Court certified that the requirements of Section 109(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, were fulfilled,' inas...
Tag this Judgment!Pranlal Bhaichand Vs. the Maneokji Petit Manufacturing Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-22-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Bom46; (1932)34BOMLR1252; 140Ind.Cas.610
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. In this suit the plaintiffs sue for the price of certain piecegoods sold by them to the defendants under a contract dated October 3, 1929, which is Exh. A. The first plaintiffs are themanufacturers. and the second plaintiffs are the selling agents, through whom the contract was made. Under the contract the goods sold are described as ' banto to be manufactured, from November 1929, to January 1930,' and the purchasers are to take delivery of the bales in those months, and if they fail to take delivery they are to be debited with interest. The goods are described as partly ' Satin Gangaghat' and partly 'domestic ', but the argument on the appeal has been confined to the ' Gan-gaghat' goods. The price is to be at the rate of fourteen annas per lb.2. Mr. Justice Rangnekar gave judgment for the plaintiffs, and on the appeal, three points have been argued by the defendants: first, that the sale was by sample and that the goods were not in accordance with sample, se...
Tag this Judgment!The District School Board Vs. Bhagwan Vasudev Marathe
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-22-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Bom651; (1932)34BOMLR1500
Patkar, J.1. Those are nine appeals from orders arising out of suits instituted by the plaintiffs, who are teachers, serving in the District School Board of Bijapur, constituted under the Bombay Primary Education Act, IV of 1923, as amended by Act XV of 1927, for damages for degradation and punishments inflcited by the District School Board, and for an injunction restraining the Board from giving effect to its resolutions, dated July 16, 1928, and May 22, 1928.2. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the School Board is not a corporation, and therefore such a body, although it may have been given certain powers, has not been saddled with the liability of being sued in the same manner as the District Local Board incorporated under Section 47 of the Bombay Local Boards Act (VI of 1923), and if a power to sue or be sued was intended to be conferred on the School Board, provision ought to have been made either in the Bombay Primary Education Act or in the rules made under that Act,3. On ...
Tag this Judgment!Nagendra Nath Dey Vs. Suresh Chandra Dey
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-1932
Reported in: (1932)34BOMLR1065
Dinshah Mulla, J.1. This appeal raises a question as to the construction of Article 182 of Schedule I of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908.2. In a suit brought many years ago for partition of certain properties, held jointly by the parties to this appeal and their predecessors, a receiver was appointed with power to raise a loan on the security of a mortgage of the properties. The receiver borrowed Rs. 18,000 from some of the co-sharers, and on July 10,1894, he executed a mortgage of the properties in their favour. Amongst the mortgagees were Nagendra Nath Dey and Pulin Behari Dey, who are the appellants before this Board, and Madan Mohan and his son, who are respondents Nos. 24 and 27 respectively. The position at that date was that some of the co-sharers were mortgagees and all the co-sharers were mortgagors.3. In 1907, after the shares of the several co-sharers in the partition suit had been alloted to them and the receiver discharged, Madan Mohan and his son instituted the suit out o...
Tag this Judgment!The Vacuum Oil Company Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-1932
Reported in: (1932)34BOMLR1057
Blanesburgh, J.1. The appellants, an American company, with headquarters in New York, are engaged in the manufacture of various grades of oil used in the lubrication of machinery. One of their specialities is an oil known as ' Mobiloil' specially manufactured for the lubricating of motor cars. Large quantities of 'Mobiloil' are imported into India and are sold by the appellants to retailers in one gallon tins. No question, however, is in these proceedings raised as to any oils so imported and sold. They were the subject of another suit to be referred to later. This case is concerned only with the import duties on the appellants' machinery lubricating oils, including incidentally 'Mobiloil' in drums or barrels, which are imported into India through the Port of Bombay and are thereafter sold by the appellants direct to consumers. The dispute is as to the proper basis upon which these imported oils are assessable to duty under the Sea Customs Act, 1878. Since such an issue must ultimately...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Tippanna Musheppa Karigar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-1932
Reported in: (1932)34BOMLR1110
Broomfield, J.1. The applicants together with, three other persons were tried by the second class Magistrate, Dharwar, for offences under Sections 448 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, and abetment thereof. The applicants were convicted of abetment of the offence of causing simple hurt, and were sentenced to pay fines of Rs. 15. There was an appeal to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, who confirmed the convictions, The order of the appellate Court was in these terms:-The pleader for the appellants argued the case at great length cm the merits of the case generally but could not point out any specific glaring discrepancies in the prosecution evidence. On going through the prosecution evidence I find that itis consistent and credible and there is no reason to disbelieve it. The evidence adduced by the defence is very inconsistent and contradictory and appears to have been concocted simply to get out of the trouble. 2. The Magistrate then dealt with the case of accused No. 2, with which we a...
Tag this Judgment!Sardar Nisar Ali Khan Vs. K.B. Sardar Mohammad Ali Khan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-1932
Reported in: (1932)34BOMLR1299
Tomlin, J.1.These consolidated appeals are concerned with four properties, one in Oudh and three in the Punjab, of which at his death on October 28, 1923, the late Sir Fateh Ali Khan, K.C. I.E. was in possession.2. Nisar Ali Khan, who is the appellant in the first appeal and respondent in the second appeal, and is hereinafter called the appellant, is SirFateh's son.3. Mohammad Ali Khan, who is the respondent in the first appeal and the appellant in the second appeal, and is hereinafter called the respondent, is a first cousin of Sir Fateh, being a son of Sir Fateh's uncle Nawab Nasir Ali Khan, who died on November 19, 1896, in possession of the four properties.4. On the death of Nawab Nasir, Sir Fateh entered into possession of the estates in question and remained in possession thereafter until his death. 5. The following pedigree sufficiently explains the descent of Sir Fateh and the positions in the family of the appellant and respondent respectively.6. The family are Shia Mohammadan...
Tag this Judgment!Tulsidas Jesingbhai Parikh Vs. Raisingji Fulabhai Vaghela
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-1932
Reported in: (1932)34BOMLR1483
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference to a fall bench on the question whether, under Hindu law, a de facto guardian of a minor can validly sell the property of the minor to a third person for legal necessity. The question being a pure question of law, we are not concerned with the underlying fact? whether the person who has purported to sell is in truth a de facto guardian, or whether the sale was in fact for legal necessity. Those matters we assume.2. The question has been referred to a full bench because of the state of the authorities upon the subject. I will, therefore, state the position of the authorities before I deal with the question on principle.3. We were referred in the first instance to certain texts of the Mitakshara and Manu, but it is, I think, clear that the Hindu law texts are silent upon this point. The passages relied on by Mr. Divatia in Manu are really dealing with matters of agency. For instance, there is a statement that ' should even a slave make a con...
Tag this Judgment!Tulsidas Jesingbhai Parikh and ors. Vs. Raisingji Fulabhai Vaghela and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Bom15
Baker, J.1. The question that arises in this appeal is whether under Hindu law a de facto guardian of a minor can validly sell the property of the minor to a third person for legal necessity. This question has been considered by various High Courts, but some difficulty arises in Bombay by reason of the decision in Limbaji Ravji v. Rahi Ravji A.I.R. 1925 Bom 499 in which it was held that a sale made by a step-mother on behalf of her minor son was a sale by an unauthorized person and the minor was entitled to have it set-aside. This point is dealt with in two lines on p. 579 (of 49 Bom.) no authority being quoted. Subsequently in a later case, liar Hal Ranchhod v. Gordhan Keshav A.I.R. 1927 Bom 611 it was held:A separated uncle of a Hindu minor, who has never intermeddled or acted as a guardian, cannot claim to be authorized as a guardian de facto to sell property on behalf of the minor. Such a person would be a guardian de hoc, and not a guardian de facto. A transferee however from such...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Mani Vs. Maganlal Chimanlal Desai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-20-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Bom602; (1932)34BOMLR1317; 140Ind.Cas.745
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a second appeal from the decision of the Assistant Judge of Ahmedabad. The facts are that in June 1927 one Mohanlal Mulchand applied to be adjudicated an insolvent, and he was adjudicated on October 22,1927, and on the same date a receiver was appointed. On February 1, 1928, the receiver made an application, out of which this appeal has arisen, under a 4 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, asking that the appellant on this appeal, Bai Mani who is the first wife of the insolvent, be directed to give possession to the receiver of certain immoveable property. Her answer was this: She says that her husband and herself belong to the Visha Shrimali Shravak community of Ahmedabad, and that there is a caste rule of that community that a male person is not to marry a second wife in the lifetime of the first wife without the permission of the community, and the community require on giving their permission that suitable provision be made for the maintenance and re...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »