Mumbai Court November 1935 Judgments
Bai Premabai Vs. Jivandas Vallabhram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Bom456; (1936)38BOMLR977
Kania, J.1. The original plaintiff filed this suit against three defendants, claiming a sum of Rs. 12,000 and odd from them. On February 26, 1934, the present plaintiff obtained a decree for Rs. 16,027-8-0 against the three defendants for debt and interest, and costs of the suit. On July 10, 1934, the plaintiff obtained an order in execution of the decree and attached the whole property now in dispute in the execution proceedings. The plaintiff alleges that the property belonged to defendant No. 1 and his sons who. were members of a joint and undivided Hindu family. Objections were raised to other attachments on other properties, and on a summons taken out the plaintiff was directed to file suits to establish her right to attach those properties. One such suit was accordingly filed in Thana Court against Mathuradas, one of the sons of Jivandas. Pending these proceedings the firm of Jivandas Vallubhram and Co., in which defendant No. 1 herein was a partner, were adjudicated insolvents o...
Tag this Judgment!Kusum Kumari Vs. Debi Prasad Dhandania
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-28-1935
Reported in: (1936)38BOMLR349
George Lowndes, J.1. The suit out of which these consolidated appeals arise was filed before the Settlement Officer of the Sonthal Parganas praying for the enforcement of a mortgage dated February 27, 1911. The plaintiffs were in effect the mortgagees, and the principal defendant the representative of the mortgagor. A number of other parties were joined as interested, or possibly interested, in the mortgage, but none of them seem to have taken I part in the proceedings in India nor are they represented before the Board.2. The suit was duly transferred for trial to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Bagalpur, who passed a preliminary mortgage decree dated June 20, 1927, in the usual form. He assessed the mortgage debt including costs payable at the expiry of six months from the above date at Rs. 4,12,662-13-0, and allowed the mortgagees further interest on this sum at the rate of six per cent, per annum until realization.3. It is not disputed that the suit fell to be determined in ac...
Tag this Judgment!Basangouda Giriyeppagouda Patil Vs. Basalingappa Mallangouda Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Bom301; (1936)38BOMLR593
Broomfield, J.1. This litigation is concerned with the rights of the parties in the patilki watan of the village Masuti in the Bagewadi taluka of the Bijapur district. The plaintiff, whose suit has been dismissed by the trial Court and who now appeals, is the adopted son of one Giriyeppagauda, and as such claims to be entitled to the right of service as patil, and also to the lands in the possession of the defendants which form part of the watan. The last undisputed holder of the rights and lands in question was Ningangauda, the adopted son of Irappa Ningappa. He died in 1891, leaving no one in that particular branch of the family except a sister Ningava. The parties to the present litigation belong to collateral branches of the family. Their exact relationship to propositus is a matter of much dispute, but it is common ground that, apart from certain difficulties arising from the fact that Parutagauda, the ancestor of defendants Nos. 1 and 2, was given in adoption, to another family, ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Bhawan Surji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Bom172; (1936)38BOMLR164
Divatia, J.1. This is a reference made by the Additional District Magistrate, Broach and Panchmahals, recommending that the conviction of accused No. 1 of the offence of mischief under Section 429 of the Indian Penal Code be quashed, and that the fine imposed in respect of this offence be remitted.2. The accused had been charged with the offences of stealing the calf of the complainant, and of committing mischief by subsequently killing it. The learned Magistrate who tried the case found that the accused stole the calf and thereafter killed it, and he convicted him of the offence of theft as well as of mischief under Sections 379 and 429 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 25 for each of the offences, and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a month for each offence. The other accused were convicted of the offence of assisting in the disposal of stolen property under Section 414, Indian Penal Code.3. The learned Additional District Magistrate has ...
Tag this Judgment!Pachan Ladha Vs. the Municipal Commissioner
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Bom264; (1936)38BOMLR556
Kania, J.1. This is a petition filed against the Municipal Commissioner for the City of Bombay, praying that he be ordered forthwith to grant a license on the terms and conditions usual and proper, authorising the petitioner to carry on, or be allowed to carry on, upon his premises in Bombay the trade or operation of melting vegetable oil.2. The petitioner had been carrying on business in Bombay prior to March, 1933, and held a license from the respondent, which contained inter alia condition 4A, which ran as follows :-Ghee or butter, or other animal fat, whether unmixed or mixed with vegetable oil or with other substance shall not be kept on the premises.The license so granted expired on March 31, 1933. The respondent thereafter refused to renew licenses in Bombay for melting vegetable oil and it is alleged that among others he refused to renew the license of the petitioner also. On July 19, 1933, a complaint was filed under the directions of the respondent charging one Kheraj Ubhaiya...
Tag this Judgment!Bhojraj Vs. Sita Ram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-1935
Reported in: (1936)38BOMLR344
Roche, J.1. These are consolidated appeals from two decrees of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated March 26, 1930, which reversed the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Mainpuri and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit with costs.2. The dispute was as to the property of one Tej Raj, a wealthy Brahman landowner, which was situate at Kusyari and elsewhere in the district of Mainpuri. Tej Raj died in 1855 leaving surviving him three widows and a deceased son's widow, to whom Tej Raj's widows gave a portion of the property in lieu of her right to maintenance. These four ladies at various dates from 1873 onwards alienated the property in favour of the predecessors in title of the defendants, and by 1924 when Musummat Bakht Kunwar, the youngest widow of Tej Raj and the last survivor of the four ladies, died, all the property in question in the suit was in the possession of the defendants. In 1890 a declaratory suit had been brought by plaintiffs other than the present plai...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Puttan Hassan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-1935
Reported in: (1936)38BOMLR19; 160Ind.Cas.1060
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a petition to the Court to review the conviction of the accused of the offence of murder by the Bombay Sessions Court and the sentence of death passed upon him, the petition being based on a certificate of the Advocate General given under Clause 26 of the Letters Patent. The certificate granted by the Advocate General is that in his judgment the question whether the direction to the jury by the learned Judge in this case and the omission to direct the jury do not amount in law to a misdirection should be further considered by the Court. The basis of the petition for review is, therefore, that there were misdirections and omissions in the summing up of the learned Judge which amount to error in a point of law. 2. Section 297 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that in cases tried by jury, when the case for the defence and the prosecutor's reply (if any) are concluded, the Court shall proceed to charge the jury, summing up the evidence for the prose...
Tag this Judgment!Bindeswari Charan Singh Vs. Bageshwari Charan Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-1935
Reported in: (1936)38BOMLR339
Thankerton, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Patna dated July 29, 1932, which reversed a decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Hazaribagh dated March 31, 1928, and decreed the plaintiff-respondent's suit with costs. 2. The following pedigree shows the relationship of the parties :-Senior wife = Thakur Jadu Charan Singh, = Junior wife | died 21st Feb. 1924 || || |----------------------- || | |Babu Ramdhan Jibdan Charan Bindeshwari Charan SihghCharan Singh Singh. (Defendant-Appellant).(eldest son), died 30th Jan. 1920|Thakur BageshwariCharan Singh (Plaintiff-Respondent).3. Thakur Jadu Charan Singh was the owner of an impartible estate in the District of Hazaribagh. On his death intestate in 1924 the respondent succeeded to the estate, his father having died in 1920.4. The management of the estate was vested in a manager appointed under Section 2 of the Chota Nagpur Encumbered Estates Act (VI of 1876) from 1894 until May 15, 1909, when it was...
Tag this Judgment!The National Mutual Life Association of Australia Limited Vs. the Comm ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-1935
Reported in: (1936)38BOMLR364
Thankerton, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, dated February 27, 1933, whereby the Court answered adversely to the appellants two questions of law, which had been referred to the Court by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Presidency, on his own motion, under Section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act (XI of 1922).2. The appellants are a mutual life insurance company, whose head office is in Melbourne, Australia. They have branches all over the world, and in India they have two branches, one of which is in Bombay and the other in Calcutta. The questions of law arise out of a dispute as to the method of computation of the income, profits or gains of the appellant company in the business of its Indian branch offices for the purpose of its assessment to income-tax for the financial year ending on March 31, 1932.3. The facts are set out in the letter of reference and may be summarised as follows :-The company is limited by guarantee and ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Yesa Nana Didwagh and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-1935
Reported in: 169Ind.Cas.41
Beaumont, C.J.1. This is a reference made by the Additional Sessions Judge of Satara asking us to quash a committal order under Section 215, Criminal Procedure Code. Certain persons have been committed by the Magistrate to the Sessions Court of Satara on charges under Sections 419 and 467, read with Sections 109 and 114, Indian Penal Code, and Section 82, Sub-sections (c) and (d) Registration Act. The learned Judge takes the view that the prosecution under Section 82, Registration Act, is incompetent without the sanction of the registration authority tinder Section 83 of the Act, and for that reason he invites us to quash the committal order. The question whether a sanction to a prosecution under Section 82, Registration Act, is required under Section 83 has given rise to a difference of opinion amongst certain of the High Courts of India, but this Court does not seem to have expressed any opinion upon the subject. Now, reading the Act in the first place, apart from authority, the sect...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »