Mumbai Court August 1934 Judgments
Hartencia De Souza Vs. John Sebastian De Souza
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Bom121; (1935)37BOMLR55
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a petition by the wife under the Indian Divorce Act for judicial separation, and a preliminary point is taken by the husband as to the jurisdiction of the Court. The facts with regard to that are that the parties were married in Bombay in 1919, and they soon after went to Nairobi in East Africa. They returned to Bombay in 1921, and in 1922 the husband went back to Nairobi and the wife followed in 1923. They lived then for two years in Nairobi, and in 1925 they returned to Bombay, and lived together at Dadar. Then in 1926 they returned separately to Nairobi, and lived there until October, 1933, when the wife left her husband and came back to Bombay, where she has since resided, and she was residing in Bombay at the time of the presentation of this petition. Section 2 of the Indian Divorce Act provides that nothing thereinafter contained shall authorize any Court to grant any relief under that Act other than a decree of dissolution of marriage or of nul...
Tag this Judgment!Vasanji Kallianji Uka Vs. Eruchshaw Dossabhai Harwar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Bom203; (1935)37BOMLR170
Rangnekar, J.1. This action raises a question under the Indian Limitation Act. The action is instituted by the mortgagee against the mortgagor on a personal covenant contained in the mortgage deed to recover the amount remaining due to him after the mortgage property was sold. The deed of mortgage is registered and is dated March 19, 1927, and the date of repayment was March 19, 1929. The mortgagee sold the property on November 12, 1929, in exercise of the power of sale reserved to him by the mortgage deed and the deficiency was Rs. 32,199. The suit was filed on January 9, 1934. The only defence is that the suit is barred by the law of limitation. If the shorter period of three years under Article 66 or Article 115 applies, the suit would obviously be barred, but saved if the longer period of six years applied under Article 116 of the Indian Limitation Act of 1908, and this is the only question in the suit.2. I shall first examine the articles of the Indian Limitation Act relevant to t...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Sorab Shavaksha Batlivala
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-1934
Reported in: (1934)36BOMLR1129
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. These are three applications in revision in which the accused complains of his convictions by the City Magistrate of Sholapur, under Sections 143 and 188 of the Indian Penal Code. The convictions were upheld by the Sessions Judge of Sholapur. The cases have certain features in common, because in all the cases the District Magistrate had made orders under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the accused was charged with having broken the orders and thereby committed an offence under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code. In all the cases the validity of the orders was challenged. In the first two cases, viz., Criminal Revisions 320 and 321 of 1934, it is not necessary, in my opinion, to deal with that point.2. The substance of the orders made in Criminal Revisions 320 and 321 of 1934 was that the residents, frequenters, and visitors of Sholapur city were restrained from organizing or taking part in meetings, on any road, public thoroughfare, highway,...
Tag this Judgment!Dhirendrarao Krishnarao Gunjikar Vs. Virbhadrappa G. Hosmani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-1934
Reported in: (1935)37BOMLR78
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a revision application, in which we are asked to review an order of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Dharwar, allowing rateable distribution of the proceeds of a sale in execution at the suit of the applicant, amongst the various opponents jointly with the applicant.2. The material facts are that on September 7, 1930, the applicant obtained a decree for Rs. 6,000 odd in a suit in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge, Dharwar, against the defendant in the suit, and on . November 20, 1931, filed a darkhast asking for the sale of immoveable property of the judgment debtor, and the darkhast was sent to the Collector for execution. On July 21, 1932, the applicant got leave to purchase the property at the Court sale and to set off the purchase money against the decretal amount. On September 3, 1932, the sale took place and realised substantially the exact amount due upon the applicant's decree. It appears that at the date of the sale there wer...
Tag this Judgment!Dhirendra Rao Krishnarao Gunzikar Vs. Virbhadrappa G. Hosmani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Bom176; 159Ind.Cas.505
Beaumont, C.J.1. This is a revision application, in which we are asked to review an order of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Dharwar, allowing rateable distribution of the proceeds of a sale in execution at the suit of the applicant, amongst the various opponents jointly with the applicant. The material facts are that on September 7, 1930, the applicant obtained a decree for Rs. 6,000 odd in a suit in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge, Dharwar, against the defendant in the suit, and on November 20, 1931, filed a darkhast asking for the sale of immovable properly of the judgment-debtor, and the darkhast was sent to the Collector for execution. On July 21,1932, the applicant got leave to purchase the property at the Court sale and to set off the purchase money against the decretal amount. On September 3, 1932, the sale took place and realized substantially the exact amount due upon the applicant's decree. It appears that at the date of the sale there were darkhasts outs...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Harnam Kisha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-1934
Reported in: (1934)36BOMLR1117
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal by the accused against his conviction for murder by the Sessions Judge of Kaira, and against the sentence of death passed upon him, and there is an application to confirm the death sentence.2. The case for the prosecution is this: The accused was sleeping with his wife on the night in question. He had a quarrel with her because she refused to have sexual intercourse with him, and he beat her to death with a dharia. He then left the house, in which the only other occupant was his old mother, and went to his elder brother Fulabhai and told him what he had done. He then proceeded to the Police Sub-Inspector of Dakore, about seven miles away, and arrived there at six o'clock in the morning and he there made a statement, which is exhibit 16, stating the facts in accordance with the prosecution case. Fulabhai, accused's brother, reported the matter to the Police Patel and subsequently made a statement before a Magistrate under Section 164 of the C...
Tag this Judgment!Vershi Kanji Vs. Kaku Kanji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Bom212; (1935)37BOMLR148
Murphy, J.1. delivered a judgment on merits, setting aside the award on technical grounds and re-opening the matter.Sen, J.2. I agree. At the hearing of this appeal Mr. Jathar for the respondents raised a preliminary point as to whether the appellants' valuation of the subject-matter of the appeal at Rs. 200 was proper, the plaintiff having valued his claim in the suit at Rs. 5,450. He contended that the appellants should pay court-fee on Rs. 5,450 under Section 7 (iv) of the Court-fees Act, and referred to the decision in Srinivasacharlu v. Perindevamma I.L.R(1915) Mad. 725 and Pochalal v. Umedram : AIR1928Bom476 Section 7 (iv) (f) relates to suits for accounts and is to the effect that the amount of court-fee payable in such suits is ' according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or memorandum of appeal'. Prima facie, therefore, the appellant would be entitled to value the relief sought by him at his own figure. The ruling in Srinivasacharlu v. Perindeva...
Tag this Judgment!The Indian Casablancas High Draft Company Vs. the Millowners' Associat ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Bom195; (1935)37BOMLR187; 157Ind.Cas.385
Kania, J.1. In this matter the petitioners applied for an extension of Indian Patent No. 3294 by a petition dated January 10, 1934, and addressed to the Governor-General in Council. Under the rules framed by the Governor-General in Council, in pursuance of the powers given under Section 77 of the Indian Patents and Designs Act (II of 1911), the petition was lodged with the Controller and was duly notified. The objectors now appearing filed their objections before the Controller as provided in rule 25. Thereafter the matter was forwarded to the Governor-General in Council for decision. Having regard to the inquiry involved in the matter, under the power given by Section 15 of the Act, the Governor-General in Council has referred the matter to the High Court for decision.2. It is alleged that the papers having reached the Prothonotary's office the Prothonotary sent for the petitioners' atttorney and after a discussion advised him to file a petition in the form petitions are ordinarily fi...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Darabsha Nasarwanji Mehta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Bom167; (1935)37BOMLR112; 159Ind.Cas.41
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference made by the Commissioner of Income-tax on his motion under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, in which he raises two questions, the first one being, in effect, whether Section 24B, which was added to the Indian Income-tax Act by the Indian Income-tax (Second Amendment) Act of 1933, has retrospective effect so as to apply to the case of a person dying before the Amendment Act was passed, and, secondly, whether, if the Amendment Act has retrospective effect, the Commissioner was justified in taking action against the assessee under Section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act.2. It was held by this Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Reid I.L.R.(1930) 55 Bom. 312 : S.C. 33. Bom. L.R. 388 (Proctor's case), which was decided at the end of the year 1930, that where a person dies after the commencement of the financial year, but before his income has been assessed for the purpose of income-tax, his estate is not liable to pay the ta...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay Vs. D. N. MehtA.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-1934
Reported in: [1935]3ITR147(Bom)
BEAUMONT, C. J. - This is a reference made by the Commissioner of Income Tax on his motion under Section 66 (1), Income Tax Act, 1922, in which he raises two questions, the first one being, in effect, whether Section 24-B, which was added to the Income Tax Act by the Income Tax (Second Amendment) Act of 1933 has retrospective effect so as to apply to the case of a person dying before the Amendment Act was passed, and, secondly, whether, if the Amendment Act has retrospective effect, the Commissioner was justified in taking action against the assessee under Section 34, Income Tax Act.It was held by this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Reid, which was decided at the end of the year 1930, that where a person dies after the commencement of the financial year, but before his income has been assessed for the purpose of income tax, his estate is not liable to pay the tax. The amendment Act was passed on 11th September, 1933, no doubt, with a view to removing the difficulties pointed ou...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »