Mumbai Court December 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.
Shivbasappa Chinnappa Mughi Vs. Marigowda Huchangowda Achamatti
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-1933
Reported in: (1934)36BOMLR499
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. The facts material for the purpose of this appeal are as follows. One Nilava filed a suit No. 107 of 1927 against Marigowda who is the respondent and other defendants to recover certain property as the heir of a deceased person. The suit was filed in forma pauper is and the defendant Marigowda applied that security for costs should be taken from the plaintiff. This was ordered to be done, and Shivbasappa, who is the appellant, entered into a surety bond making him self liable to pay the plaintiff's costs in the suit. The suit was dismissed with costs. An appeal has been filed, No. 126 of 1930, which is still pending in this Court. In the meantime the respondent took out execution (darkhast No. 623 of 1930) against Nilava and Shivbasappa the appellant. In these proceedings he applied that the amount of costs awarded to him should be realised by sale of the property of Shivbasappa, and on September 21, 1931, the Court ordered that his property should be sold. S...
Emperor Vs. Bhimabai Sitaram Mane
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Bom176; (1934)36BOMLR314
Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application in revision made by the Government of Bombay, and the question which arises is as to the jurisdiction of the Bench Magistrates.2. The material facts are that there was a complaint against certain persons under Section 323, Indian Penal Code, of causing hurt. That complaint was heard by three Magistrates constituting a bench, each of them being a Magistrate having second class powers. They dismissed the complaint, and then under Section 250 of the Criminal Procedure Code called upon the complainant to show cause why he should not be ordered to pay compensation to the accused on the ground that the complaint was frivolous and vexatious, and the learned Magistrate directed the complainant to pay Rs. 10 to each of the five accused. An appeal was then made to the District Magistrate at Satara who sent the case to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate for disposal. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate held that he had jurisdiction to deal with the appeal. He all...
The Baraboni Coal Concern, Limited Vs. Shree Gopinath Jiu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-1933
Reported in: (1934)36BOMLR390
Alness, J.1. The first respondent, in his plaint, describing himself as servitor and shebait to Sri Sri Iswar Gopinath Jiu idol (the respondents' family deity), sought to recover Rs. 62, 382, annas 7, 15 gandas, in respect of his alleged one-fourth share, as one of the four shebaits of the said deity, of the entire royalties on the entire raisings of coal in Mouza Monoharbahal for the six years ending April 13, 1924. The suit was directed against (1) the appellant company and (2) the second, third and fourth respondents as defendants pro forma-they being the first respondent's co-shebaits at the time when the suit was instituted.2. The first respondent's claim was based on a lease, dated May 24, 1901, granted by four lessors, viz., the first and second respondents, as shebaits aforesaid, the grandfather of the third respondent, and the father of the fourth respondent-on the one hand, in favour of one Kuverji Bhoja, the predecessor-in-title of the appellant company, on the other hand. T...
Mohammedally Adamjee Peerbhoy Vs. Akberalli AbdulhusseIn Adamji Peerbh ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-1933
Reported in: (1934)36BOMLR386
Lancelot Sanderson, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree dated August 18, 1930, made by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in its appellate jurisdiction, affirming (with some variations which are not material to this appeal) a decree dated March 12, 1929, and made by Mr. Justice Madgavkar sitting in the said High Court in its original civil jurisdiction.2. The plaintiffs are members of the Dawoodi Borah community and, having an interest in the trust, which is the subject-matter of the suit, they obtained the consent of the Advocate General at Bombay to institute the suit in pursuance of Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code of 1908 on the basis that the trust was created for public purposes of a charitable. and religious nature.3. The first plaintiff is a grandson of the late Sir Adamji Peerbhoy, who created the above-mentioned trust.4. The first five defendants are sons of the said Sir Adamji Peerbhoy, the sixth defendant is the official assignee and assignee of the estate of the...
Kamakhya Dat Ram Vs. Kushal Chand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-1933
Reported in: (1934)36BOMLR399
Macmillan, J.1. Their Lordships do not think it necessary to call upon counsel for the appearing respondent.2. In these consolidated appeals from the Chief Court of Oudh at Lucknow the sole question for decision arises with regard to the terms of a para graph in the will of Rai Bahadur Sri Ram. The will is dated May 22, 1911, and the paragraph to be interpreted reads as follows:Besides the villages comprised in Taluqa Rasulpur entered In List III other villages and shares in villages entered in List IV given at the foot of this deed, shall pass to the said Sitapat Ram and after him to his eldest son under the rules of succession laid down in Act I of 1869.3. The question is whether by this provision the testator conferred on his son, Sitapat Ram, an absolute right of property in the villages and shares in villages comprised in List IV or only a life interest. The question has become of material importance because during his lifetime Sitapat Ram apparently incurred debts to a large amou...
In Re: Sirdar Sayedna Taher Saifudin
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Bom169; (1934)36BOMLR311
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application by Sirdar Sayedna Taher Saifudin Saheb Mullaji Saheb of the Dawoodi Bohra community asking us to stay the prosecution lodged against him under Section 10 of the Mussal-man Wakf Act, Act XLII of 1923, and now pending before the Chief Presidency Magistrate.2. The charge against the applicant is that he has not sent the necessary statement and accounts under the Act, and his answer to the charge is that he does not admit the wakf in question. He contends that the property is not wakf property and, therefore, he is not a mutwalli.3. The first point argued on this application is that the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate has no jurisdiction to determine the question whether the property is wakf property or not. Upon that point I entirely agree with the judgment of the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate who has held that he has jurisdiction to determine whether the property is wakf property. Section 10 of the Wakf Act, under which the pros...
Jagadishprasad Ramlal Vs. D.B. Ambashankar Uttamram Malji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Bom324; (1934)36BOMLR625
Broomfield, J.1. This appeal raises an interesting point of Hindu Law as to the liability of a minor member of a joint family in connection with a new business started by his grandfather and father. The point arises in this way. On January 18, 1922, a mortgage deed was executed in favour of the plaintiff in the suit, from which this appeal arises, by defendant No. 1 in the suit, Rao Bahadur Motilal Chunilal Desai, and defendants Nos. 2 and 3, who were his sons. Defendant No. 2 signed the mortgage not only for himself but as the guardian of his minor son, defendant No. 4. The consideration for the mortgage was Rs. 24,999, and the bulk of this amount, that is Rs. 21,808, was due in respect of advances made by the plaintiff in the year 1920 for the purpose of financing a ginning factory started by Rao Bahadur Motilal or by him and his sons together in about 1917. The suit was brought to recover Rs. 38,753-10-6 upon this mortgage. The principal question in the suit and the only question in...
Jagdishprasad Ramlal Vs. D.B. Ambashankar Uttamram Malji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-1933
Reported in: 152Ind.Cas.405
Broomfield, J.1. This appeal raises an interesting point of Hindu Law as to the liability of a minor member of a joint family in connection with a new business started by his grandfather and father. The point arises in this way. On January 18, 1922, a mortgage deed was executed in favour of the plaintiff in the suit, from which this appeal arises, by defendant No. 1 in the suit, Rao Bahadur Motilal Chunilal Desai, and defendants Nos. 2 and 3, who were his sons. Defendant No. 2 signed the mortgage not only for himself but as the guardian of his minor son, defendant No. 4. The consideration for the mortgage was Rs. 24,999, and the bulk of this amount, that is Rs. 21,808, was due in respect of advances made by the plaintiff in the year 1920 for the purpose of financing a ginning factory started by Rao Bahadur Motilal or by him and his sons together in about 1917. The suit was brought to recover Rs. 38,753-10-6 upon this mortgage. The principal question in the suit and the only question in...
Divan Ramsaran Singh Vs. Thakur Mahabir Sewak Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-07-1933
Reported in: (1934)36BOMLR262
Thankerton, J. 1. The appellant brought the present suit in the Court of the Additional District Judge at Bilaspur for a declaration that he is entitled to succeed to the Lafa Zemindari estate as the son of the late Zemindar Diwan Dehraj Singh. The family tree, so far as material, is as follows: Raghunath Singh. : ----------------------------------------- : : Dehraj Singh. Deo Singh. : : d. February 16, 1910. d. 1912-13. : : =Wives Mahabir Sewaksingh : (Respondent 1). ------------------------------------------------------------- : : : : Mt. Amrit Kuar Mt. Ganesh Mr. Dulaurin Mt. Ful Kuar. d. 1922. Kuar. Kuar. d. 1913. (Respondent 2.) (Respondents.3) : Ram Saran Singh (Appellant).2. It is not disputed that the appellant is the son of Dehraj Singh by Musammat Ful Kuar, and the only question in the appeal is as to the legitimacy of the appellant, that is to say, whether there was a valid marriage between Dehraj Singh and Ful Kuar. The appellant no longer maintains that he is entitled to ...
Sir Rajendra Nath Mukerjee Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-07-1933
Reported in: (1934)36BOMLR267
Macmillan, J.1. On November 8, 1930, the Income-tax Officer for District V, Calcutta, made an assessment order on Burn & Co., an unregistered firm carrying on business in Calcutta, assessing them to income-tax and super-tax for the year 1927-28, under Section 23 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The main question in the present appeal, in which the individual partners of Burn & Co. are the appellants, is whether it was competent to make this assessment on the firm after the expiry on March 31, 1928, of the year in respect of which the assessment was made.2. The explanation of the delay in making the assessment is as follows. It appears that towards the end of the year 1926-27 the partners of the registered firm of Martin & Co., which also carried on business in Calcutta, purchased the business and assets of Burn & Co. The purchase was effected not by or on behalf of the firm of Martin & Co., but by the partners of that firm as individuals who contributed funds for the purpose pro...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »