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.
In Re: the Indian Stamp Act, 1899
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-07-1933
Reported in: (1934)36BOMLR467
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference by the Superintendent of Stamps and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Bombay, raising a question as to the stamp duty to be charged upon a certain instrument alleged to be an instrument of exchange. Under the instrument in question the Trustees of the Port of Bombay conveyed certain land to the Secretary of State for India in exchange for other land conveyed to the Trustees by the Secretary of State, and for equality of exchange the Trustees paid to the Secretary of State a sum of over Rs. 3 lakhs. It is suggested by the learned Advocate General that having regard to the substantial sum paid in cash the transaction was not an exchange. But it would appear from the duty charged that the land conveyed by the Secretary of State was of the estimated value of over Rs. 89 lakhs. So that it comes to this, that the Port Trustees transferred land worth about Rs. 86 lakhs and Rs. 3 lakhs in cash in return for land worth Rs. 89 lakhs conveyed to t...
V.N. Bhajekar Vs. K.M. Shinkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Bom243; (1934)36BOMLR483
Rangnekar, J.1. The suit is a sequel to a resolution passed by the board of directors of the 6th defendant company and an extraordinary resolution passed in a general meeting and confirmed as a special resolution in another extraordinary general meeting of the shareholders of the company. In pursuance of the last two resolutions an agreement was executed by the 6th defendant company, the effect of which is to appoint the 7th defendant company as managing agents of the 6th defendant company. The plaintiffs, who are some of the directors, have brought this suit for challenging the said resolutions and the respective meetings in which they were passed, and for a declaration that the said resolutions were invalid and of no effect, and for an injunction restraining the 7th defendant company from acting on the agreement executed in pursuance thereof.2. After the institution of the suit the plaintiffs took out a notice of motion for an interim injunction restraining the 7th defendant company ...
Ramgopal Shriram Vs. Ramgopal Bhutada
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Bom307; (1934)36BOMLR643
Divatia, J.1. This appeal arises in execution proceedings of a decree obtained by the present respondent against the appellants, who are the judgment-debtors. The decree was passed on November 24, 1923, for Rs. 5,550 in suit No. 973 of 1921. Two years later, another suit was filed by the present appellants against the respondent. That was suit No. 1169 of 1923 in which the appellants ultimately got a decree in their favour against the respondent on February 20, 1925. An appeal was filed against this latter decree by the present respondent on June 15, 1925, and that appeal was decided finally on January 27, 1930, by the appellate Court, which confirmed the trial Court's decree.2. Now, the events that led to this appeal arose in this way3. The present respondent filed his darkhast No. 70 of 1924 against the appellants on January 16, 1924, and therein he applied for the execution of the whole of the decree obtained by him, i. e., to recover Rs. 5,550 with interest and costs. After this da...
Joharmal Ramkaran Vs. Laxmandas Shivlal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Bom467; (1934)36BOMLR983
Mirza, J.1. The plaintiffs have filed this suit against Laxmandas Shivlal who are described as a firm carrying: on business as merchants at Parbhani in the territories of H.E.H. the Nizam of Hyderabad. In paragraph 9 of the plaint they have stated that a material part of the cause of action in this suit has arisen in Bombay and that with leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent this Court would have jurisdiction to entertain this suit. Leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent was granted and the plaint was admitted on the file by the chamber Judge on June 22, 1933. It is not mentioned anywhere in the body of the plaint that the plaintiffs were suing a firm consisting of a single proprietor. On the face of the plaint, the plaint did not fall within the provisions of Order XXX, Rule 1, which enables 'any two or more persons claiming or being liable as partners and carrying on business in British India to sue or to be sued in the name of the firm of which such persons were p...
Ramgopal Shri Ram Vs. Ramgopal Bhutada
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1933
Reported in: 153Ind.Cas.273
1. This appeal arises in execution proceedings of a decree obtained by the present respondent against the appellants, who are the judgment-debtors. The decree was passed on November 24, 1923, for Rs. 5,550 in Suit No. 973 of 1921. Two years later, another suit was filed by the present appellants against the respondent. That was Suit No. 1169 of 1923 in which the appellants ultimately got a decree in their favour against the respondent on February 20, 1925. An appeal was filed against this latter decree by the present respondent on June 15, 1925, and that appeal was decided finally on January 27, 1930, by the Appellate Court, which confirmed the trial Court's decree. Now, the events that led to this appeal arose in this way: The present respondent filed his Darkhast No. 70 of 1924 against the appellants on January 16, 1924, and therein he applied for the execution of the whole of the decree obtained by him, i.e., to recover Ks. 5,550 with interest and costs. After this darkhast was file...
Madho Ram Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-1933
Reported in: (1934)36BOMLR246
John Wallis, J.1. In this case the plaintiff, Mahdo Ram, contractor, Lahore Cantonment, instituted a suit to recover Rs. 37,500 from the defendant, the Secretary of State for India in Council, by way of damages for breach of contract, entered into by the Supply and Transport Corps with the sanction of the General Officer Commanding the Lahore Divisional Area, for the supply of 'oils of sorts other than kerosine,' deliverable at Lahore Cantonment, Ferozepore, Multan, Jullindur, and Amritsar, for the year April 1, 1917, to March 31, 1918.2. The plaintiff having put in a tender for this year in the prescribed form, the written sanction of the G.O.C. was obtained 'for the period at the rates quoted' in the schedule to the tender after a 'comparative statement' had been submitted to him, which no doubt showed the rates accepted in the preceding year or years.3. The sanction having been duly recorded in the schedule to the tender, the schedule was signed on the same day by the plaintiff and ...
Mota Raghunath Marwadi Vs. Sidhram Annaji Manurkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Bom248; (1934)36BOMLR502; 152Ind.Cas.60
Barlee, J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal from the decision of Mr. Justice Barlee reversing the decree of the District Judge of Poona passed on appeal. The facts are simple. There was a dispute about a wall between the plaintiff and the defendant, who are neighbours. The first Court awarded the plaintiff's claim, and on appeal the District judge of Poona confirmed the decree on the ground that the matter was res judicata by reason of a suit in 1913 between the parties. On appeal Mr. Justice Barlee, sitting singly, reversed the decision of the District Judge on the ground that the question that was decided in 1913 was a boundary dispute with which the Court had no jurisdiction to deal, and, therefore, that decision does not bar the present suit by res judicata, and that in 1917 there was a demarcation of-the boundary line which showed that this wall was in defendant's land. Therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to succeed. From that decision this Letters Patent appeal is presente...
Sakharam Shivram Mahadik Vs. Dhaktojirao Shripatrao Kadam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Bom321; (1934)36BOMLR633; 152Ind.Cas.434
Murphy, J.1. The plaintiff sued for an account of a mortgage with possession executed on April 16, 1918, the consideration being Rs. 2,940. The Courts below have found that nothing is now due on it.2. The transactions between the parties were investigated under the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act, Section 13, and were found to go back to a mortgage of 1891, which was for Rs. 1,500, and accounts were taken on this basis. Both the mortgages were with possession, the rent being agreed to be taken in lieu of interest by the mortgagee. There were accounts from 1891 to 1906-07, but for the period after that none were produced.3. The learned Subordinate Judge's finding was that the mortgagee got as rent in kind two khandis and twelve and a half maunds of paddy from 1891 to 1897; two khandis and twelve maunds from 1898 to 1904, and two khandis and five maunds from 1905 to 1917, but that he should have got five khandis, one maund and eight payalis of paddy with some maunds of nagli and sheav...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Tehri-garhwal State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-1933
Reported in: (1934)36BOMLR257
George Lowndes, J.1. Between April 1, 1925, and March 31, 1926, the Tehri-Garhwal State, the respondent in this appeal, carried on a timber business in British India, which resulted in considerable profits. The State was not during that year subject to the Indian Income-tax Law, but in 1926 the Government Trading Taxation Act was passed by the Indian Legislature and came into force on April 1 that year. Section 2 of the Act is in the following terms:2. (1) Where a trade or business of any kind is carried on by or on behalf of the Government of any part of His Majesty's Dominions, exclusive of British India, that Government shall, in respect of the trade or business and of all operations connected therewith, all property occupied in British India and all goods owned in British India for the purposes thereof, and all income arising in connection therewith, be liable (a) to taxation under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, in the same manner and to the same extent as in the like case a comp...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›