Mumbai Court July 1932 Judgments
The Official Assignee of Bombay Vs. Chimniram Motilal and Sir Hukumcha ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1932
Reported in: (1932)34BOMLR1615
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal by the Official Assignee as representing the estates of defendants Nos. 2 and 3, who are insolvents, from a decree passed by Mr. Justice Rangnekar, but as it was an ex parte decree the matters which have been argued before us were not discussed before the learned Judge. Two objections are taken by the appellant to the decree; the first is against the plaintiffs in the suit, and the second is against defendant No. 6 in the suit who was a subsequent mortgagee. I will deal with the case against the plaintiffs first.2. On April 11, 1930, the plaintiffs were given a pledge to secure Rs. 50,000 on the machinery, types and other articles appertaining to a, printing press known as Shri Venkateshvar Press, the pledgora being a firm called Khemraj Shrikissondas, who were the original defendants to the suit. On August 1, the plaintiffs commenced this suit to enforce their pledge. On August 19, another suit was commenced by the person who afterwards bec...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagirathibai Bhalchandra Narayan Vs. Dwarkabai Shankar Baji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Bom135; (1933)35BOMLR44
Patkar, J.1. This is a suit by the daughter-in-law against the donees of the father-in-law of his self-acquired property. The finding of both the lower Courts is that when the husband of the plaintiff died the income of the ancestral property was Rs. 10 a year. Subsequently the father migrated from his native village Nivendi in Ratnagiri to the Thana District and acquired immoveable property. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the plaintiff's suit. On appeal the learned District Judge held that the plaintiff was entitled to maintenance out of the ancestral Nivendi property and also certain property which though self-acquired was not the subject-matter of the gift by the father-in-law but was inherited by the plaintiff's sisters-in-law.2. We have heard a learned and interesting argument from Mr. Gharpure on behalf of the appellant who has relied on certain texts appearing in Chapter XII relating to resumption of gifts in Mitakshara on verses 175 and 176 of Yadnyavalkya, Gharpure's ...
Tag this Judgment!The Guntur Cotton, Jute and Paper Mills Company, Limited Vs. Pydah Ven ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-1932
Reported in: (1933)35BOMLR107
George Lowndes, J.1. These consolidated appeals arise out of prolonged disputes over the management of a Madras manufacturing company which seems to have had an unusually troubled existence. The company was promoted in 1904 by the two respondents and one Majeti Subba Rao, since deceased, who were its first secretaries, treasurers and ex officio directors. Heavy litigation with its subscribers in respect of Unpaid calls characterised its early years, no less than 500 suits, BO their Lordships are told, being necessitated. The capital subscribed was insufficient, and loans from the local bank were required for the erection of buildings and the equipment of the mill, which seems to have proceeded at a somewhat leisurely pace during the succeeding decade; and it was not until August, 1914, that it was ready to commence the manufacture of jute bags for which it was intended. By that time it appears to have been heavily indebted. The bank refused further advances and the necessary finance wa...
Tag this Judgment!Hansraj Gupta Vs. N.P. Asthana
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-1932
Reported in: (1933)35BOMLR312
Russell, J.1. In this appeal, and in another appeal (No. 86 of 1930) in which the same parties are concerned, the relevant facts cover much common ground, and they were accordingly heard together.2. Lala Raghu Mal (who will be referred to as the testator) was a shareholder in a company (herein called the company) named the Dehra Dun-Mussoorie Electric Tramway Company, Limited, which was incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, on August 23, 1921. He carried on business under the style of Madharam-Hardeo Das at Calcutta and under the style of Madho Ram-Bud Singh at Delhi.3. On February 23, 1922, he entered into a contract in writing with the company (modified in some respects at a later date) by which he agreed to supply large quantities of tramway construction material to the company. Clause 16 of this contract was in the following terms :-The company shall pay to the contractors by way of advance when the contractors have placed the orders in accordance with the terms of par...
Tag this Judgment!Yusuf Ismailbhoy Lalji Vs. Abdullabhoy Lalji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-1932
Reported in: (1933)35BOMLR1158
Mirza, J.1. The suit out of which the present proceedings have arisen is for the winding up of a partnership which was dissolved as far back as February 4, 1920. The partnership assets consist of certain salt-pans at Aden which yield an annual net profit to the parties of between four to five lacs of rupees. The parties are some of the original partners and the legal representatives of the remaining original partners who are dead. By a consent order dated August 7, 1924, defendants Nos. 2 and 10, as representing two different branches of the family to which the partners belong, were appointed joint receivers without security and without remuneration, and thus became liable under the provision of Rule 435 of the High Court Rules as such receivers to file their accounts annually in the office of the Commissioner for Taking Accounts. The receivers have continued the method of managing this partnership business which they found had existed before they took over charge as receivers and have...
Tag this Judgment!Benoy Krishna Das Vs. Salsiccioni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-1932
Reported in: (1933)35BOMLR6
Tomlin, J.1. Their Lordships do not think it necessary to call upon counsel for the respondents in this case.2. The appellants, who are the plaintiffs in the action, are lessors claiming that a notice given by the respondents purporting to terminate their tenancy was not a good one.3. The notice was given in the circumstances which will shortly be mentioned, but before stating thorn it may be well to refer to the sections of the Transfer of Property Act which are relevant.4. The first is Section 106, which is in these terms :-In the absence of a contract or local law or usage to the contrary, a lease of immoveable property for agricultural or manufacturing purposes shall be deemed to be a lease from year to year, terminable, on the part of either lessor or lessee, by six months' notice expiring with the end of a year of the tenancy; and a lease of immoveable property for any other purpose shall be deemed to be 14 lease from month to month, terminable on the part of either lessor or les...
Tag this Judgment!Ramchandra Khaserao Thorat Vs. Ganesh Balvant Tagare
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Bom114; (1933)35BOMLR48
Patkar, J.1. The suit lands, survey Nos. 154, 155, 150 and 157, belonged to Thorats who mortgaged them to Yadavs in 1877. In 1891 survey Nos. 156 and 157 were sold to Tagares by two documents, Exhibits 62 and 63, for Rs. 99 each. Tagares brought a suit in 1904 against the original mortgagees Yadavs for redeeming the properties comprised in the mortgage of 1877. To this litigation the original owners, Thorats, were parties. Thorats contended in that litigation that the sale-deeds in favour of Tagares were in the nature of mortgages, but the contention was overruled and Tagares were allowed to redeem on payment of Rs. 1,562-8-0. Tagares obtained possession in 1906. The plaintiffs Thorats have brought the present suit in 1924 against Tagares for redemption and accounts of the mortgage transactions and for possession of the suit properties.2. Both the Courts held that the sale-deeds relating to the lands, survey Nos. 156 and 157, were in fact transactions of sale and not mortgage. With reg...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Pandurao Bhailal Desai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Bom686; (1932)34BOMLR1445
John Beaumont Kt., C.J.1. The applicant who is the Secretary of the Gujarat Lawyers' Association applied to the Additional City Magistrate's Court, Ahmedabad, for certified copies of the depositions and statement of Dr. Kanuga in the case of Emperor v. Dr. Kanuga in which Dr. Kanuga was charged under Section 17(7) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. The applicant desires to apply in revision as a third party and he suggests that he is a person affected by the order within s 548 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Magistrate refused his application on the ground that the applicant was not a person affected by the order, and I entirely agree with the learned Magistrate. Mr. Chhatrapati on behalf of the applicant in this Court has referred us to the case of Emperor v. Ladli Prasad Zuishi I.L.R (1931) All. 724 and has contended that that case decides that any member of the public is a person affected by the judgment of a criminal Court within Section 548. I can only say that if that...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Ramchandra Ganesh Khadkikar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-1932
Reported in: (1932)34BOMLR1676
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. The trial being by a First Class Magistrate, and not by a Special Magistrate, the fine of Rs. 1,500 is in excess of the sum which he was entitled to impose. We must reduce the fine to the limit ofRs. 1,000. The sentence in default will remain....
Tag this Judgment!Ramachandra Ganesh Khadkikar Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Bom58
Beaumont, C.J.1. The trial being by a First Class Magistrate, and not by a Special Magistrate, the fine of Rs. 1,500 is in excess of the sum which he was entitled to impose. We must reduce the fine to the limit of Rs. 1,000. The sentence in default will remain....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »