Mumbai Court March 1935 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.
Harilal Chhaganlal Desai Vs. Bai Manjoola
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Bom13; (1935)37BOMLR901
Blackwell, J. 1. This is an originating summons raising questions of construction under the will dated August 21, 1931, of one Jamnadas Chhaganlal, a Hindu, who died at Kapadvanj on or about March 19, 1932. The plaintiffs are the surviving executors. The deceased left a widow Bai Chanchal, who was also appointed an executrix, but who died at Kapadvanj on or about February 11, 1933. Bai Chanchal left two daughters Bai Manjula and Bai Kamla, defendants Nos. 1 and 2, who were both born during the lifetime of the testator. Defendant No. 1, Bai Manjula, has two sons,--defendant No. 3, who was born during the lifetime of the testator and who is now about seven years of age, and defendant No. 4, who was born after the death of the testator and is now about one and a half years of age.2. Question 9 arises in connection with clause 8 of the will which is in the following terms :-8. After payments are made to Behens Manjula and Kamlavati as (stated) above, as to the one-fourth or one-half share ...
The Great American Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Madanlal Sonulal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Bom353; (1935)37BOMLR461; 158Ind.Cas.554
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of Mr. Justice Kania, which raises a point of law. The plaintiff is described as Madanlal Sonulal, a minor by his next friend Goverdhandas Mohanlal, and the defendants are The Great American Insurance Co., Ltd., a company incorporated in New York, United States of America, carrying on business in Bombay at Apollo Street, within the Fort of Bombay. The plaint alleges that the plaintiff is the sole surviving coparcener of a joint Hindu family carrying on joint family business at Devalgaum in the name of Surajmal Sonulal, and that the business of the firm is carried on under the superintendence of Goverdhandas Mohanlal, the plaintiff's sister's husband, with whom the plaintiff resides. Then it alleges that the firm in the course of its business effected an insurance against fire with the defendant company on certain cotton bales, and then it is alleged that on the actual date on which the final insurance was effected, which was ...
Vijaysingji Chhatrasingji Thakor Vs. Shivsangji Bhimsangji Thakor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1935
Reported in: (1935)37BOMLR562
Shadi Lal, J.1. The property, which is the subject-matter of the dispute in the appeal, is an impartible taluqdari estate called Ahima estate. It is situated in the Kaira district of the Bombay Presidency, and the parties are agreed that the succession to the estate is governed by the rule of lineal primogeniture, and that females are excluded from inheritance.2. The relationship of the persons concerned in the dispute is shown in the following pedigree table :-Narsangji|||Rupaliba=Himatsangji=Surajba | (died 1888) || |Chandrasangji |(died 6-4-1899) |= widow Kesarba, defendant No. 2 |adopted Mansangji, defendant |No. 3, on 15-9-1917. || |Chhatrasingji |defendant No. 1, went in adoption |to Bharmaria on 2-8-1915 |= | wife Dolatba, defendant No. 4. Bhimsangji | plaintiff | (died on 22-1-26)| || |Bajuba (born before the |adaption of defendant No. 1) |defendant No. 5. |------------------------------------| |Shivsangji Laxmansangjiadded legal representative of defendant No. 6deceased plaint...
The Secretary of State for India Vs. the Municipal Corporation of Bomb ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1935
Reported in: (1935)37BOMLR513
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of Mr. Justice Davar. The facts giving rise to the appeal are that defendant No. 1 was a tenant from the Great Indian Peninsula Railway, which is a Government-owned railway, and the lands belonging to it are vested in the Secretary of State for India. Certain taxes became due in respect of the property in question under the City of Bombay Municipal Act, 1888, and those taxes were not paid. It appears that on October 21, 1927, the Secretary of State commenced proceedings in ejectment against defendant No. 1, and ultimately a decree was made in 1933. As far as I can ascertain from the record, the bulk of the taxes which are in dispute were incurred during the currency of the tenancy. It may be that a small amount was incurred after the ejectment suit was started, when the tenant would have become a trespasser. We have held in Secretary of State v, Bombay Municipality (No 1) : (1935)37BOMLR499 that land vested in Government is s...
The Secretary of State for India Vs. the Municipal Corporation of Bomb ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1935
Reported in: (1935)37BOMLR499; 158Ind.Cas.824
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal by the Secretary of State for India in 'Council against a decision of Mr. Justice Davar, and the question raised is whether lands in the City of Bombay belonging to Government are liable to a charge for property tax arising under Section 212 of the City of Bombay Municipal Act, 1888. The facts are not in dispute. The land in question was let on lease, and the liability for tax arose during the currency of the lease, and that liability was not discharged by the lessee. The lease has now been terminated, :and possession of the land has been recovered by Government, and the question is whether the unpaid tax for which the lessee was primarily liable is a charge upon the land in the hands of Government under the Act.2. The first contention of the Advocate General is that if the City of Bombay Municipal Act purports to impose a charge upon land of the Crown, it is, to that extent, ultra vires, because in the year 1888 the local Legislature had no...
Secy. of State Vs. Municipal Corporation
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Bom347; 158Ind.Cas.151
Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the Secretary of State for India in Council against a decision of Davar, J., and the question raised is whether lands in the City of Bombay belonging to Government are liable to a charge for property tax arising under Section 212, City of Bombay Municipal Act, 1888. The facts are not in dispute. The land in question was let on lease, and the liability for tax arose during the currency of the lease, and that liability was not discharged by the lessee. The lease has now been terminated, and possession of the land has been recovered by Government, and the question is whether the unpaid tax for which the lessee was primarily liable is a charge upon the land in the hands of Government under the Act.2. The first contention of the Advocate-General is that if the City of Bombay Municipal Act purports to impose a charge upon land of the Crown, it is, to that extent, ultra vires, because1 in the year 1888 the local Legislature had no power to legislate in de...
Secretary of State Vs. Municipal Corporation
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Bom352
Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of Davar, J. The facts giving rise to the appeal are that defendant 1 was a tenant from the G.I.P. Railway, which is a Government owned railway, and the lands belonging to it are vested in the Secretary of State for India. Certain taxes became due in respect of the property in question under the City of Bombay Municipal Act, 1888, and those taxes were not paid. It appears that on 21st October 1927, the Secretary of State commenced proceedings in abetment against defendant 1 and ultimately a decree was made in 1933. As far as I can ascertain from the record, the bulk of the taxes which are in dispute were incurred during the currency of the tenancy. It may be that a small amount was incurred after the ejectment suit was started, when the tenant would have become a trespasser. We have held in Secretary of State v. Bombay Municipality (No. 1), 37 Bom L.B. 499, that land vested in Government is subject to the charge for municipal taxes cre...
Sidick Haji HuseIn Vs. the Official Assignee of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Bom310; (1935)37BOMLR449; 157Ind.Cas.930
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order made by Mr. Justice Kania in, Insolvency.2. The application is by notice of motion made in Insolvency No. 169 of 1911 and asks for an order that the Official Assignee of Bombay do pay to the debtor two sums of Rs. 10,208-5-8 and Rs. 20,854-2-7 appertaining to the estate and transferred by the Official Assignee to the unclaimed dividend capital account on August 13, 1928.3. The nature of the claim is that the insolvent's adjudication was annulled in the year 1928, that at that time there were certain sums in the insolvency standing to the credit of the unclaimed dividend capital account, that the effect of the order of annulment was that those sums reverted to the debtor, and that he is now entitled, to be paid.4. The unclaimed dividend capital account arises under Rule 178 of the Presidency-towns Insolvency Rules, Bombay ; and under Section 121A of the Presidency-towns Insolvency Act, which was added by the Amending Act, Bombay...
Mathuradas Vassanji Vs. Raimal Hirji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Bom385; (1935)37BOMLR642; 159Ind.Cas.533
Tyabji, J.1. One Khetsey Khiasey died at Limbdi in Kathiawar on March 6, 1922. He left a will appointing his widow Bai Vejbai as executrix. Probate was obtained by Bai Vejbai on a petition dated June 13, 1922. In the schedule to the petition the assets were shown as Rs. 55,82,521-5-4 and the debts as Rs. 36,18,567-2-0, leaving a net estate of Rs. 19,63,954-3-4. The assets were not completely administered by Bai Vejbai, and on her death a petition for double probate was filed on January 6, 1926. The total assets as therein stated were Rs. 27,01,756-10-3 and the debts Rs. 23,82,153-1-0 leaving the net assets of Rs. 3,19,603-9-3.2. During the time that Bai Vejbai was administering the estate, defendant No. 1, Raimal Hirji, applied to her for payment of a sum due to himself as trustee of an institution (a Jain Boarding School at Palitana) established by the deceased on October 23, 1905. Under the trust deed the trustees were authorised to retain the sum dedicated by the deceased Khetsey Kh...
Mir NasiruddIn Ahmed Khan Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Bom439; (1935)37BOMLR763; 160Ind.Cas.846
Murphy, J.1. The claim in the Court below was for an account and administration of what was alleged to be a trust fund, amounting in 1915 to over eighteen lakhs of rupees, and for the claimant's share in that fund with interest to date of suit, future interest and 'costs.2. Plaintiff is a decendant, through a daughter, of the last Nawab of Surat, who died in 1843, and the case involves a consideration or review of certain historical facts.3. In 1800 the Honourable East India Company, as a sovereign power, entered into a treaty with the then Nawab of Surat, who was also a sovereign power, by which the Company took over the administration of the city of Surat and its defence from the Nawab. In return, the Company undertook to pay the Nawab a pension of one lakh of rupees plus a fifth of the net revenue of the ; city. This arrangement continued till 1818, when it was modified, the uncertain one-fifth share of the net revenue being replaced by an increment to the fixed pension of Rs. 50,00...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »