Mumbai Court September 1935 Judgments
Ganapati Manja Hegade Vs. Subraya Rayappa Shetti
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-26-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Bom137; (1936)38BOMLR104
Broomfield, J.1. The question in this case is whether the sale certificate to be granted by the Court under Order XXI, Rule 94, of the Civil Procedure Code, can be given to the assignee of the auction-purchaser. The auction-purchaser was opponent No. 2. He bought the lands in suit at a Court-sale and the sale in his favour has been confirmed. Subsequently he sold his right, title and interest in the lands to the applicant. The applicant asked for the sale certificate under Rule 94, and his request was refused because the learned Subordinate Judge was of opinion that he had no power to issue a sale certificate to the assignee of the purchaser.2. I think the learned Judge is clearly wrong. He says that under the rule in question a sale certificate can be granted to a person, who at the time of sale is declared to be the purchaser. But that is not what the rule says. The rule is this: ' Where a sale of immoveable property has become absolute, the Court shall grant a certificate specifying...
Tag this Judgment!The Calico Printers Association Limited Vs. Gosho Kabushiki Kaisha Lim ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Bom408; (1936)38BOMLR823; 165Ind.Cas.994
B.J. Wadia, J.1. The plaintiffs are the registered proprietors under the Indian Patents and Designs Act, II of 1911, of a certain design printed on textile piece goods bearing No. 34681 and duly registered. They allege that the defendants in the two suits respectively have imported into Bombay a large number of cases of Japanese prints having imprinted thereon without the plaintiffs' license or consent a design which is identical with and | or a fraudulent or obvious imitation of the plaintiffs' registered design. Plaintiffs have accordingly filed these suits, praying for an injunction against the defendants, and in addition they have asked that the defendants may be ordered to render an account of the profits made by them from sales of the goods bearing the said design, or in the alternative to pay damages, or in the further alternative to pay the sum of Rs. 1,000 under the provisions of Section 53 (2) (a) of the Act. The suits were filed on July 18 and June 26, 1935, respectively, bu...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Fatma Vs. Gulamnabi Hajibhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Bom197; (1936)38BOMLR261
Macklin, J.1. The facts relating to this second appeal are as follows :- The original owner of the house in suit died leaving a widow, two sons, and a daughter, who is the appellant in this appeal. The widow and one of the sons sold the house in suit and another house to the father of the present plaintiffs. The purchaser himself took possession of one of the houses, but allowed his vendors to stay in the suit house as his tenants. In 1913 he sued them for possession of the house on the strength of his rent-note, but was met by the contentions of the present defendant-appellant that she had a share in the house and that her share had not been sold to the father of the plaintiffs. On appeal it was decided that the purchaser could get possession of the house subject to the shares of the present defendant and her brother, since they had not been parties to the sale. The purchaser then sued for the determination of his share, and in that suit it was held that the plaintiffs had a share of ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: P.D. Shamdasani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1935
Reported in: (1935)37BOMLR970
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a petition under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act by which in substance the petitioner asks that the Municipal Commissioner may be directed to hear and decide certain objections which the petitioner takes to a recent election in B Ward in the city.2. Before coming to the facts, it is desirable to look at the material provisions of the City of Bombay Municipal Act, 1888, under which the election was held. Section 26 provides that candidates for election at a ward election must be: duly nominated in writing in accordance with the provisions of the section ; and under Sub-section (2)(e) (Hi) if any person nominated is disqualified for being a councillor for any of the reasons set forth in Section 16, the Commissioner shall declare such person's nomination invalid. Under Section 16, a person is disqualified if he fails to pay any arrears of any kind due by him to the Corporation within three months after a special notice in that behalf has been serve...
Tag this Judgment!Vithaldas Govindram Gandhi Vs. Vadilal Chhaganlal Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1935
Reported in: (1936)38BOMLR257; 163Ind.Cas.129
Barlee, J.1. The appellant applied for limited letters of administration in respect of certain property in the Ahmedabad District which, he said, belonged to one Vadilal Gulabji who died on April 16, 1912. At the date of his death he left a son Jivrara, who was then a lunatic though he does not appear to have been a congenital lunatic. Jivram was married and had a daughter called Bai Jashi. Bai Jashi married one Vadilal Chhaganlal and died on June 16, 1930. The petitioner presented his application on behalf of the lunatic Jivram since he had been appointed a curator of the lunatic by the Huzur Court of the Mansa State. The property in respect of which letters of administration were asked consisted of certain shares in a company at Ahmedabad, The application was contested by Vadilal Chhaganlal, the husband of the deceased Bai Jashi, and the question on which the parties fought in the Court of the Assistant Judge of Ahmedabad was whether the lunatic Jivram was entitled to the estate of t...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary of State for India Vs. Vedavyas Venkatesh Bhatta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Bom213; (1936)38BOMLR267; 163Ind.Cas.357
Barlee, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Divatia.. The facts on which his decision is based are shortly these-The Divisional Forest Officer had a claim against one Ganpat under the Forest Act for Rs. 1,844 in respect of advances from the Ankola Firewood Depot, and he sent his claim to the Collector in order that the said amount might be recovered as arrears of land revenue under the Land Revenue Code. Ganpat's property was sold and thereafter two other claims were put forward, one claim in respect of money due to the Forest Department from Ganpat and his brother, known as Sunksal dues, and a claim made on behalf of the Ankola Urban Co-operative Credit Bank. Before the sale had taken place this bank had obtained award decrees against Ganpat and his brother and the plaintiffs, their sureties, and they claimed a share of the proceeds of the sale.2. The question for determination was whether the claims made by Government were to be preferred to the claims that were mad...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Corporation Vs. Haji Eisa Haji Oosman
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Bom49
Beaumont, C.J.1.This is an appeal by the Municipality of Bombay against a decision of Mr. Justice Tyabji; and the principal question is, whether upon the true construction of the Bombay City Municipal Act, 1888, a charge for water supplied by meter in respect of certain premises can be recovered by means of a charge on the premises under Section 212 of the Act. The question turns upon the construction of a few of the sections of the Act in question. Property taxes are imposed by Section 139, and Section 140 defines 'property-taxes' as including amongst other things,a water-tax of so many per centum of their rateable value as the Corporation shall deem reasonable with reference to the expenses of providing a water-supply for the city,and then Section 141 enacts what premises are to be subject to the water-tax. Putting it shortly, they are premises connected with the Municipal water-works, or premises situate in a district in respect of which the Commissioner has given public notice that...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Janke Gopal Koli
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Bom35; (1935)37BOMLR967; 160Ind.Cas.689
Broomfield, J.1. There is a case under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code proceeding in the Court of the Second Class Magistrate at Bassein. One Pedru, the person alleged to have been injured, instructed an advocate of this-Court Mr. Kondkar to appear for him. The case was sent up by the Police, and a police-officer who is styled the Court Jamadar (it appears that he is a first grade head constable) was also present in Court, and to begin with the prosecution was conducted partly by Mr. Kondkar and partly by the Court Jamadar. Later on, when the witnesses for the defence were to be cross-examined, the Court Jamadar claimed the right to conduct the prosecution for the rest of the case instead of Mr. Kondkar. This claim was upheld by the Magistrate who declined to allow Mr. Kondkar to take any further part in the; case. Then an application was made on Pedru's behalf to the Sessions Judge. He is of opinion that the Magistrate had no right to stop Mr. Kondkar conducting the prosecution, ...
Tag this Judgment!T.R. Pratt (Bombay) Ltd. Vs. E.D. Sassoon and Co. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Bom62
Kania, J.1. The first question which arises is as to the power of the company and its directors to borrow the money from M.T. Ltd. From the memorandum of association of the company it is clear that there is no limit to the borrowing power of the company as such for its business. The terms of Clause 3 (f) further authorize the company to mortgage any property or to secure the re-payment of any money borrowed by it in any manner as the company should think fit. As to the power of the directors to borrow money the matter has become complicated because certain articles of association were drawn up when the company was formed and under which the directors were given very wide and general powers, but these articles were not filed with the Registrar, with the result that the articles of association contained in the Schedule to the Indian Companies Act govern the company. Article 73 is the relevant article to be considered on this point. That article runs as follows:The amount for the time bei...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnaji Hari Dhamdhere Vs. Gopal Narayan Dhamdhere
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Bom166; (1936)38BOMLR218
Macklin, J.1. In this second appeal both the Courts below have held that the plaint must be rejected owing to insufficient Court-fees having been paid by the plaintiffs. The legality of the order rejecting the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11(6), of the Civil Procedure Code, is the only question for consideration.2. The suit is nominally one for accounts of the rent recovered by the defendants and for payment of the plaintiffs' share in those rents, when the amount recovered has been ascertained. The plaintiffs had previously given notice to the defendants (exhibit 80), calling upon them to pay to them a sum of Rs. 1,699-12-0. In the suit the plaintiffs put a valuation of Rs. 1,500 for pleader's fees, but no more than Rs. 200 for Court-fees. It was held by both the Courts that the valuation of Rs. 200 for the purpose of Court-fees was purely fictitious. The trial Court ordered that the plaintiffs should pay Court-fee upon the amount claimed in their notice (exhibit 80), holding that thi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »