Mumbai Court January 1933 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
R.S. Rochi Ram Vs. Faizullah Khan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1933
Reported in: (1933)35BOMLR745
Atkin, J.1. These are two appeals from a judgment and two decrees of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of the North-West Frontier Province, in which the plaintiffs were Faizullah Khan in the first suit and Mauladad Khan, since deceased, in the second suit, who were suing to recover their shares on a settlement of certain partnership transactions between them and the respective defendants. It appears that the plaintiffs had been partners in a contract for supply and transport, which had been obtained from the Commissariat Department, and which ran from September, 1919, to March, 1920. There was a second contract obtained afterwards in continuation of the first, but with that their Lordships are not concerned in these two suits. The accounts of the parties were not finally adjusted until the year 1924, and at that date it is alleged by each of the plaintiffs that a settlement was arrived at between all the partners under which each plaintiff became entitled to the amount of money fo...
Dwarkanath Varma Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-1933
Reported in: (1933)35BOMLR507
Atkin, J.1. These are two appeals against conviction and sentence by the High Court of Judicature at Patna. The appeal of Gaya Prasad was brought by special leave of the Privy Council after an application for leave to appeal had been refused by the High Court. The appeal of Dwarkanath Varma was by leave of the High Court granted after the special leave had been given to the other appellant. Both appeals were consolidated by order of the High Court. The accused were tried before a bench of the High Court consisting of the Chief Justice and Kulwant Sahay and Dhavle JJ. and a special jury of nine persons, on an information exhibited by the Government Advocate by the direction and with the sanction of the Local Government pursuant to Clause 17 of the Letters Patent constituting the High Court and Section 194 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The appellant, Gaya Prasad, an Assistant Civil Surgeon, hereinafter called the doctor, was convicted of perjury and sentenced to five years' ri...
Manekchand Ramchand Madhekar Vs. Ganeshlal Govardhan Marwadi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Bom298; (1933)35BOMLR588
Rangnekar, J.1. The real question in this appeal is whether the judgment-creditor, who is the respondent here, is entitled to bring the properties of the judgment-debtors, the appellants, to sale.2. The question arises this way. The respondent brought a suit on a money claim against the appellants who were traders to recover a sum of Rs. 6,199. Pending the suit the parties arrived at a compromise, under which the respondent agreed to accept a sum of Rs. 5,000 payable by certain instalments. It was further agreed as follows :-The properties mentioned in the application, Exhibit 6 in the suit, are to be security for the said sum of Rs. 5,000, they being considered as mortgaged. The said properties are to remain as security until payment of the moneys. In default of the payment of any one instalment by the defendants, plaintiff do recover the whole of the amount then due, by the sale of the properties mentioned in Exhibit 6. Plaintiff has given remission to the defendants of the rest of t...
In Re: Vallibhai Adamji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Bom407; (1933)35BOMLR881; 145Ind.Cas.619
B.J. Wadia, J.1. This is a notice of motion taken out by the applicant Vallibhai Adamji to set aside the adjudication order made on November 7, 1932, adjudicating him and his son Salebhai Vallibhai, both described as 'lately carrying on business in partnership at Taher Building, Koliwada, Mandvi, Bombay, in the name and style of Salebhai Vallibhai and at Saddar Bazaar, Bilaspur, in the name and style of Adamji Kadibhai'. The petitioning creditors had filed a suit on the Original Side of this Court, being suit No. 1107 of 1932, against the son, Salebhai Vallibhai, individually, and a decree was passed against him alone for Rs. 3,326-7-0 on August 10, 1932. The applicant, therefore, contends that there is no debt due and payable by him, and that under Section 13(1) and (4) of the Presidency-towns Insolvency Act it was not competent to the petitioning creditors to get him adjudicated. The petitioning creditors say that they only subsequently learnt that the applicant was a partner with hi...
Maneckchand Ramchand and ors. Vs. Ganeshlal Goverdhan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-1933
Reported in: 145Ind.Cas.582
Rangnekar, J.1. The real question in this appeal is whether the judgment-creditor, who is the respondent here, is entitled to bring the properties of the judgment-debtors, the appellants, to sale. The question arises this way. The respondent brought a suit on a money claim against the appellants, who were traders, to recovery sum of Rs. 6,199. Pending the suit the parties arrived at a compromise, under which the respondent agreed to accept a sum of Rs. 5,000 payable by certain instalments. It was further agreed as follows:The properties mentioned in the application, Ex. 6 in the suit, are to be security for the said sum of Rs. 5,000, they being considered as mortgaged. The said properties are to remain as security until payment of the moneys. In default of the payment of any one instalment by the defendants, plaintiff do recover the whole of the amount then due, by the sale of the properties mentioned in Ex. 6. Plaintiff has given remission to the defendants of the rest of the claim an...
Kunwar Mahabir Singh Vs. Kunwar Rohini Ramanadhwaj Prasad Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-1933
Reported in: (1933)35BOMLR500
Thankerton, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated February 12, 1930, which reversed a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Aligarh dated June 2, 1925, and dismissed the suit.2. The suit was instituted by the appellant on September 7, 1923, claiming absolute possession of an estate called Biswan. The present respondent is now defendant as representative of his brother the original defendant, who died pending the suit, and is in possession of the estate.3. The following table will conveniently show the alternative pedigrees maintained by the parties :-4. The main question at issue turns on the true parentage of Matmatangadhwaj Prasad Singh alias Misrilal (hereinafter called 'M'). The appellant maintains that he was the son of Shivbaran Singh and Musammat Earn Kunwar, while the respondent maintains that his parents were Thakur Garurudhwaja Prasad Singh (hereinafter called 'G') and Rani Basant Kunwar.5. On the death of his father, Gir Prasad ...
Raja Raghunandan Prasad Singh Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-1933
Reported in: (1933)35BOMLR536
Macmillan, J.1. This appeal brings before their Lordships eight questions relating to the taxable income of the appellants for the year 1926-27. The appellants carry on the business of money-lenders and are liable under Section 3 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, to pay income-tax for the year 1926-27 in respect of the profits or gains of their business in the previous year, 1925-26, as computed in accordance with the provisions of Section 10 of the Act.2. Being dissatisfid with the assessment of the income-tax officer and with the result of an appeal to the Assistant Commissioner, the appellants under Section 66 (2) required the Commissioner to refer to the High Court of Judicature at Patna a series of questions purporting to be questions of law arising out of the Assistant Commissioner's order. The Commissioner accordingly, as directed by the Act, drew up a statement of the case and referred it to the High Court with his own opinion on the eight questions which he formulated.3. The...
Commissioner of Income Tax, Bihar and Orissa Vs. Kameshwar Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-1933
Reported in: (1933)35BOMLR731
Macmillan, J.1. Their Lordships have to dispose of two consolidated appeals from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, dated November 25, 1929, dealing with certain questions referred to the Court by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar and Orissa, under Section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The questions all relate to the assessment for tax purposes of the income for the year 1926-27 of the Maharajadhiraj of Darbhanga, who died on July 3, 1929, and is now represented in these proceedings by his eldest son. As regards two of the questions, the Commissioner of Income-tax is appellant ; as regards the rest the assessee is appellant.2. By Section 3 of the Act of 1922, income tax is chargeable in India 'in respect of all income, profits and gains of the previous year.' The assessee's practice was to make up his accounts for the Fasli year which ends on September 30, and consequently, under Section 2(11)(a) of the Act, the 'previous year' in the present case is the ...
Pandurang Hanmantrao Vs. Yesubai Tatyasaheb Salunke
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Bom355; (1933)35BOMLR775; 145Ind.Cas.769
Rangnekar, J.1. These are two cross-appeals from a decision of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Satara in a suit brought by the plaintiff for a declaration that defendant No. 2 was not validly adopted by defendant No. 1, and for consequential reliefs.2. The genealogical tree of the family is set out in the print and it appears from it that Appasaheb and Balasaheb were brothers. Appasaheb died leaving a son Tatyasaheb who died about forty-five years ago leaving his son Yeshwantrao and a widow Yesubai, who is defendant No. 1 in the suit. Yeshwantrao died in May 1914, his wife Anusuyabai having predeceased him. Yeshwantrao left a son Shankar who died on May 24, 1914. The plaintiff in the suit is the grandson of Balasaheb, the brother of Appasaheb.3. The plaintiff's case was that there was no separation in the family, and, therefore, the adoption of defendant No. 2 by Yesubai was invalid as it was not consented to by him, he being the only coparcener in the family. Plaintiff further co...
In Re Ramchandra Babaji Gujjar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Bom307; (1933)35BOMLR384; 145Ind.Cas.161
Broomfield, J.1. This is an application for stay of criminal proceedings pending the decision of the civil suit in which it is contended that the same matters are in issue. Certain other prayers have been made in the application, but those have been given up.2. The material facts are these-3. The applicant has a brother named Lalchand whose house has been rented to the Nipani Municipality, or to the School Board of that Municipality, it is not quite clear which. Lalchand is, therefore, entitled to rent from the Municipality. On the other hand, he has to pay taxes to the Municipality, and there appear to have been disputes between them. On March 7, 1932, Lalchand brought a suit against the Municipality for rent and also for an injunction restraining the Municipality from recovering taxes. The opponent is the Chief Executive Officer of the Municipality. After the filing of the suit he levied a distress on a motor garage belonging to the applicant and took away certain goods to recover th...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »