Mumbai Court July 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.
The Municipal Corporation of Bombay Vs. Hormusji Maneckji Chowna
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Bom403; (1935)37BOMLR710; 159Ind.Cas.300
Blackwell, Officiating C.J. 1. This is an appeal from a decision of Mr. Justice B. J. Wadia on a petition under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act, calling upon the respondents, who are the Municipal Corporation of Bombay and the Municipal Commissioner, to show cause why they should not be restrained by an injunction from proceeding at a meeting of the Corporation to fill up one of two vacancies in the Corporation for B Ward in the circumstances set out in the petition, and why the 2nd respondent should not be directed to hold a bye-election for the purpose of filling up that vacancy. The facts are fully set out in the judgment of the learned Judge, and I do not think it necessary to detail them at length. It is sufficient to set out a few salient facts for the purpose of the decision of this appeal.2. Elections to the Corporation of Bombay are held once every three years. At the election held in 1932, sixteen persons were elected to represent the B Ward, with which this appeal is c...
Ramabai Gopal Sane Vs. Shripad Balvant Sane
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Bom421; (1935)37BOMLR749; 159Ind.Cas.509
Divatia, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal in a suit to recover from the defendant Rs. 300 per annum as her separate maintenance. It appears that previous to the institution of the suit the plaintiff had applied to the Court for permission to sue in forma pauperis. Notices were issued to the Government as well as to the opposite party, and at the hearing the petitioner was absent and so her application was rejected with costs. It appears that the Government did not appear, and therefore costs were to be paid to the opposite party alone. Subsequently the present suit has been filed not as a pauper but on payment of the Court-fee stamp by the plaintiff on the same cause of action, but the plaintiff had not first paid the costs of the opposite party in the pauper petition before instituting the present suit as provided in Order XXXIII, Rule 15, of the Civil Procedure Code. This defect was not noticed in this case for some time after the case was proceeded with, but the attention of the Co...
Satindra Nath Choudhury Vs. Jatindra Nath Choudhury
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1935
Reported in: (1935)37BOMLR833
Shadi Lal, J.1. On February 17, 1915, one Rai Hari Charan Choudhury,,. a rich land-owner of Nakipur in the Presidency of Bengal, died leaving him surviving a widow Katyayani Debi, and two sons Rai Satindra Nath Choudhury and Rai Jatindra Nath Choudhury. For about six years the sons with their mother lived together amicably, and jointly managed and owned the estate left by the deceased. In March, 1921, they effected partition of the joint estate ; and, while the immovable property was divided equally between the sons, the mother agreed to receive, in lieu of her share in the inheritance, an annuity of Rs. 12,000 from each of her sons during her life-time. The deed of partition, which was executed and registered on March 18, 1921, contained, inter alia, a promise by the sons to pay the annuity in two instalments, and interest thereon at one per cent, per mensem, in the event of failure to pay the money on the due date. As a security for the regular payment of the money, each son created ...
Shirinbai Dinshaw Chokshi Vs. Sir Navroji Pestonji Vakil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1935
Reported in: (1935)37BOMLR946; 160Ind.Cas.612
Barlee, J.1. This is a suit for the administration of the estate of Framji Pestonji Vakil, who died in April, 1897. As shown in the table, at page 229 of the Printed Book, he left surviving him two daughters by a first wife, and a son, Behramji, and five daughters by a second wife, and both his wives had predeceased him. By a will executed on February 18, 1897, just two months before he died, he appointed his brothers Navroji Pestonji Vakil, and Jehangirji Pestonji Vakil and his four sons-in-law, Paymaster, Dalai, Patel and Vakil as the executors and trustees, and he had created a trust of his salt works, named Pestonsagar, for the benefit of his son and five daughters by his second wife. The trustees were directed to carry on the management of the salt works properly and to divide and distribute the income thereof-whatever may remain over after deducting (thereout) the expenses relating to the Salt works,in the following proportion, viz., three annas each to the ladies and a one-anna ...
Advocate General of Bombay Vs. Phiroz Rustomji Bharucha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-1935
Reported in: (1935)37BOMLR722
Blanesburgh, J.1. Their Lordships after hearing these petitions came to-the conclusion that in none of them were the circumstances such as to justify them in advising His Majesty to grant special leave to appeal, and they gave expression to that conclusion.2. Their Lordships now propose to state in a few words certain considerations. which were present to their minds in reaching their decision.3. It is plain that the learned Judges of the High Court held that the fact that the advocates concerned had been convicted of a criminal offence was evidence of their misconduct within the meaning of Section 10(1) of the Indian Bar Councils Act and that this misconduct, though not committed in their professional capacity, entitled the Court to take disciplinary action against them. With this view their Lordships agree. The learned Judges, in the exercise of their statutory discretion, then proceeded to consider whether in the circumstances the misconduct so proved called for any disciplinary act...
Shankar Vinayak Nigade Vs. Ramrao Sahebrao Nigade
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Bom427; (1935)37BOMLR786; 159Ind.Cas.697
Broomfield, J.1. The facts material for our purpose in this second appeal are these.2. It arises from a suit for possession of certain land that once belonged to a joint family consisting of three brothers, Ramrao, Subhanrao and Vishwasrao, They had a step-brother named Ganpatrao, but he was separate from the rest of them. Ramrao died first, and then Subhanrao. The evidence is not as clear as one would like it to have been as to what happened to Vishwasrao. The plaintiffs, who are the descendants of Ganpatrao and are claiming the property as collateral heirs, have alleged in their plaint that he was unheard of. after the death of Subhanrao and had not been heard of for twenty-five years before they brought their suit in 1928. But defendant No.' 4, who is the son of one Vinayak, alleged to be adopted by the widow of Ramrao in 1908, says in his written statement that at the time of his adoption the estate had vested in his adoptive mother Sakhubai. No reference was made to Vishwasrao exp...
Waman Ramkrishna Ghotge Vs. Ganpat Mahadeo Nevagi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-1935
Reported in: (1935)37BOMLR925
Sen, J. 1. These are two appeals against the decision of the First Class Subordinate Judge, Ratnagiri, in Regular Civil Suit No. 106 of 1927 in which the plaintiff sued for a declaration that the properties mentioned in the plaint were liable for attachment and sale in execution of the plaintiff's decrees against defendants Nos. 5 and 6, and that the farkhat and award referred to in the plaint were fraudulent and therefore liable to be set aside.2. The facts, in this case, in brief, are as follows :- On December 5, 1921, the plaintiff and defendant No. 5 and one Pandurang Yeshvant Vengurlekar formed a partnership named ' Motiram Waman Vengurlekar ' as traders and commission agents in Bombay, and while Waman, the plaintiff, subscribed Rs. 5,000 towards the capital, defendant No. 5 for himself and defendant No. 6 for Vengurlekar each passed a promissory .note for Rs. 5,000 to plaintiff who advanced Rs. 10,000 towards the capital on those promissory notes. The firm continued to do busines...
Murhari Narayan Teli Vs. Narayan Balvant Kasture
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Bom416; (1935)37BOMLR747; 159Ind.Cas.170
Divatia, J.1. I think the decree of the lower appellate Court in this case should be reversed. The appellant is the judgment-creditor. The decree has. been attached by his own creditor. The question is whether the appellant can now execute the decree which he has got in his favour. The trial Court held that he is entitled to execute the decree in his favour subject to this that the amount realised should be deposited in Court for the benefit of the attaching creditor but that the execution of the appellant's decree should proceed. The appellate Court has, however, come to the conclusion that as the payment or adjustment cannot be recognised by any Court so long as the attachment remains in force under sub-r. (6) of Order XXI, Rule 53, this decree which the appellant has got in his favour cannot be executed at all during the pendency of the attachment.2. I do not think that that construction of Order XXI, Rule 53, is sound. It is provided under sub-r. (I) (>) (it) of that rule that if t...
Dhondi Dnyanoo Sinde Vs. Rama Bala Sinde
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Bom132; (1936)38BOMLR94
Sen, J.1. This is an appeal against the decision of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Satara dismissing the plaintiff's suit to recover possession of the property mentioned in the plaint with future mesne profits and other consequential reliefs. The relation between the parties will be apparent from the undermentioned genealogy :-Rowlaji|----------------------------| |Santoo Ranoo| |Hari Gopala| || ----------------------------------| | | || Dnyanoo m. Jana Balu (daughters)| Defendant No. 4 || (Died 8th July 1907) || |-------------------------------- || | | |Balu Bayabai Dnyanoo m. Balai (daughters) || Defendant No. 3 || || ---------------------------------------- | || | Nivritti BanuRamu Ganpati (Died 7th May 1909) Defendant No. 1 Defendant No. 22. The following are the relevant dates in the order of events: Dnyanoo died' on July 8, 1907. Nivritti, who is alleged to be the son of Balu, died on May 7, 1909. The gift-deed passed by Jana in favour of Dnyanoo son of Hari is dated May 15...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sir Kameshwar Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-1935
Reported in: (1935)37BOMLR822
Macmillan, J.1. The present appeal arises from an assessment to income-tax made upon the respondent for the year 1929-30, and the only question before their Lordships relates to an item of Rs. 91,283 included in the assessment. The appellant maintains that this item, the receipt of which is admitted, forms part of the taxable profits or gains of the business of moneylending carried on by the respondent; the respondent maintains, and the High Court has held, that it is 'agricultural income ' within the meaning of the Indian Income-tax Act and consequently exempt from income-tax.2. In order to determine which of these contentions is right, it is necessary to describe briefly the transaction out of which this item of receipt arose. It appears that in 1929 the respondent's father, who carried on an extensive moneylending business, made a loan of eighteen and a half lacs of rupees, with the sanction of the High Court at Patna, to Thakurain Kusum Kumari, widow and administratrix of the late ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »