Mumbai Court February 1934 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.
Kodoomal Jethanand Wadhwa Vs. Hiranand Vishindas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Bom450; (1934)36BOMLR987
Mirza, J.1. This is a notice of motion taken out on behalf of defendant No. 2 applying for an order that an order made by this Court on December 14, 1933, so far as it relates to defendant No. 2, may be vacated and the plaintiffs' notice of motion dated August 4, 1933, on which that order was made, be dismissed as against defendant No. 2. The notice of motion dated August 4, 1933, was against both the defendants to this suit. It was for an order that the defendants and each of them be restrained by an order and injunction of this Court from proceeding with a certain suit which was filed against the plaintiffs in the Court of the District Judge at Quetta in so far as that suit related to the contracts which were the subject-matter of this suit and/or the accounts between the parties in respect thereof and/or from filing or proceeding with any other suit which the defendants or any of them might contemplate against the plaintiffs in respect of the contracts the subject-matter of this sui...
Trustees of the Sir Currimbhoy Ebrahim Baronetcy Trust Vs. the Commiss ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1934
Reported in: (1934)36BOMLR557
Sidney Rowlatt, J.1. The question in this case, as it finally came before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, is whether the appellants, who are a body of trustees incorporated by an Act of the Indian Legislature, are liable to be assessed to income-tax and super-tax (which in this respect stand upon the same footing) in respect of the income of the trust or whether as regards the whole or any part of it they are not so liable on the ground that they are not beneficially interested. Certain complications, arising out of previous practice, which affected the case in its earlier stages, were got rid of by arrangement and need not now be noticed. The question so propounded was answered in the affirmative by the High Court in a judgment dated August 18, 1931. This is an appeal by the trustees, an incorporated body.2. The Act incorporating them (Act IV of 1913) is described in its title as an Act for settling certain properties belonging to Sir Currimbhoy Ebrahim, Baronet, so as to acco...
Mary Geraldine Rooke Vs. John William Rooke
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Bom230; (1934)36BOMLR492; 150Ind.Cas.1136
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference Under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act to confirm a decree nisi for dissolution of marriage pronounced at the instance of the wife. In cases under the Indian Divorce Act District Judges do not, in our experience, pay sufficient attention to the terms of the Act, particularly as to domicile. We have to deal to-day with four cases all of which will have to be returned to the trial Court for a further finding as to domicile, thereby occasioning waste of time and money to the parties. It is, therefore, desirable to make some general observations for the guidance of District Judges.2. In order that the Court may have jurisdiction to grant a decree for dissolution of marriage, the parties must profess the Christian religion, and they must also be domiciled in India at the date of the presentation of the petition. The domicile of the wife is the same as that of the husband, and it is his domicile which has to be considered. The first question...
Yeshvant Ramchandra Bhide Vs. Govind Chintaman Bhide
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Bom313; (1934)36BOMLR612; 155Ind.Cas.50
Divatia, J.1. This appeal is filed by the original defendants Nos. 1 to 3 in a suit by the plaintiffs to recover by partition possession of their one-fifth share in a house at Poona. The plaintiffs are the sons of one Chintaman who died in 1907, and defendants Nos. 1 to 3 are the stepbrothers of Chintaman. One Bhikaji was also a brother of Chintaman, and both Bhikaji and Chintaman were the sons by the first wife of Ramchandra while defendants Nos. 1 to 3 were the sons by his second wife. Ramchandra died in 1902 and Bhikaji is also dead. The plaintiffs' case was that all the sons of Ramchandra were members of a joint Hindu family, and the suit house along with the other propertysituated at Sangli formed the joint family property ; that after Ramchandra's death, the plaintiffs' father lived at Miraj and that he used to come off and on to Poona where Ramchandra lived with his sons. The family property at Sangli being in a Native State was not included by the plaintiffs in the suit here. T...
Krishnaji Shivaji Pawar Vs. Hanmaraddi Mallaraddi Maidur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Bom385; (1934)36BOMLR814; 153Ind.Cas.800
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff in this suit, a minor suing by the Deputy Nazir as guardian, sued on a promissory note made in the year 1919 by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff's father, the suit being in the Court of the First Class Joint Subordinate Judge, Dharwar. The learned Subordinate Judge raised an issue as to whether the plaintiff was competent to file the suit, and he answered that issue in the affirmative. The defendant appealed, and on appeal, this Court took the view that inasmuch as the promissory note on which the plaintiff sued was given to the father, the plaintiff could not sue upon it in his own right and could only sue upon it as manager of the joint family, or as heir of his father, if it were proved that the father had renounced the world. Accordingly, an issue was sent down to the lower Court to determine, whether the plaintiff's father had renounced the world. With all respect, the issue should have been directed to the date on which this suit w...
Kasturchand Okaji Marwadi Vs. Hari Govind Wagle
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Bom491; (1934)36BOMLR1068
N.J. Wadia, J.1. This appeal arises out of suit No. 315 of 1926 filed by the appellants against the respondent in the Court of the Second Class Subordinate Judge at Alibag. The appellants alleged that the defendant Wagle was till 1921 in the service of their firm as a clerk and that while he was in their service he had entered into an agreement with them by which he and they jointly were to render financial assistance to certain litigants in connection with their suits on condition of their receiving half the profits of the litigation if it was successful, the half share so received to be divided between the plaintiffs' firm and the defendant.2. On July 28, 1913, the defendant Wagle entered into an agreement with one Vinayak Mukund Deshmukh in connection with a suit filed by one Kelkar against Vinayak. The agreement is exhibit 81. By this agreement Vinayak, in consideration of the defendant's giving him monetary help for the purposes of the litigation, agreed to give the defendant a ha...
Pannaji Devichand Vs. Senaji Kapurchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Bom361; (1934)36BOMLR786; 152Ind.Cas.580
Murphy, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Dharwar dismissing the plaintiffs' suit in the following circumstances. The plaintiffs, purporting to be a firm, filed a suit against the defendants, three separate firms at Bellary, praying for a decree for Rs. 3,09,960-6-0 with interest from November 13, 1918, at the rate of six per cent. per annum till date of suit, against the defendants' firm personally, and from their estates. They also prayed for future interest and costs.2. The suit arose out of a certain transaction, which took place in October, 1918. It appears that about this time there was much activity in the Gadag yarn market. The agreements which are relevant to the appeal were three in number. The first was made on October 6, 1918, between some Marwadi firms and individuals, and the idea was to corner the market in what is called Count No. 20 of Gokak yarn. The corner failed to be secured and broke down.3. This agreement was made betw...
Vytla Sitanna Vs. Marivada Viranna
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-19-1934
Reported in: (1934)36BOMLR563
John Wallis, J.1. These are two appeals from judgments and decrees of the Madras High Court on appeal from the Subordinate Judge of Cocanada which have been consolidated and heard together. In 1880 one Tirupayya, son of Dorayya, died leaving a widow Venkataramanamma (hereinafter referred to as the widow) who survived him for forty-one years. On her death the plaintiff, as next reversioner to her husband's estate, instituted the present suit to recover the properties that had stood in his name. The family belonged to the agricultural caste of Kammas, among whom the illatom custom obtains. After Tirupayya's death there were disputes which were referred to a panchayat who gave an award under which the estate was partitioned between the widow and one Ammanna, who was married to Tirupayya's sister and according to the defendants' case had been adopted by Tirupayya's father Dorayya as an illatom son-in-law, and had thereby acquired a share in the family properties.2. In 1888 the widow execut...
Haidarali Gulamali Vs. Saiyed Gulam Mohiuddin
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-19-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Bom343; (1934)36BOMLR687; 152Ind.Cas.781
N.J. Wadia, J.1. This is an application for revision of an order passed by the District Judge of Broach on an application made by the opponent Saiyed Gulam Mohiuddin alias Mirasaheb Bavasaheb against the petitioners under Section 3 of the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act (XIV of 1920) praying that the petitioners should be directed to furnish accounts of the trust properties belonging to the Dargah of Halimsha Pir of Ankleshvar, and for examination and audit of the accounts for three years. The opponents in the lower Court contended that the villages were their private property, only one survey number measuring three acres and four gunthas being wakf, and also that they had become owners of the villages by adverse possession for the statutory period. The learned District Judge found after inquiry that the properties mentioned in the application, viz., the villages of Dadhal and Amboli in the Ankleshvar taluka of the Broach District, were wakf properties of the Dargah of Halimsha Pir...
Burjorji Shapurji Sheth Vs. Madhavlal Jesingbhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Bom370; (1934)36BOMLR798; 152Ind.Cas.575
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. These are two appeals from decisions in darkhast proceedings before the First Class Subordinate Judge of Ahmedabad. Both the appeals raise the same points in respect of two different respondents, and I can deal with them in the same judgment.2. The facts giving rise to the darkhast proceedings are that in August, 1930, four suits were proceeding in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Ahmedabad between the present appellant and the two respondents. The appellant was suing each of the respondents in separate suits Nos. 1446 and 1527 of 1927 for a sum of Rs. 18,000 and interest, and then there were two other suits against the appellant which were in the nature of cross suits. On August 14, 1930, the parties executed a document, which is Exh. 15, under which they left it to Mr. Mavlankar, who was the appellant's pleader in the suits, to settle the matters in dispute between the parties, and by that document, to which I will refer more in detail in a...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »