Mumbai Court September 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.
isamoddIn AjmoddIn Vs. AjmoddIn Shamsoddin
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Bom176; (1936)38BOMLR255
Macklin, J.1. This second appeal arises out of an application by the receiver appointed in an insolvency petition, under Section 53 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, to have two transfers set aside by the Court. The insolvency was declared on January 31, 1931. But in the previous March there was an award in a partition suit between the insolvent and his brother and sister, and the award, dated March 3, 1930, was embodied in the decree, dated March 5, 1930. Under that award-decree some of the insolvent's property passed to his brother and sister. Two days after the decree the sister, who is now opponent No. 1, transferred what she obtained under the decree to the sons of the insolvent, opponents Nos. 2, 3 and 4. The receiver asks that the transfer represented by the decree may be set aside on the ground that the award was fraudulent, and he also asks that the transfer by the sister two days after the decree may also be set aside as fraudulent. In both cases he seeks the aid of Section 5...
Bai Jivkore Lakshmiram Vs. Himatlal Girdharlal Parekh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Bom98; (1935)37BOMLR965
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application in revision against an order of the Judge of the Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad, in which he held that he had no jurisdiction to deal with the suit, on the ground that the lease in suit created a tenancy-at-will.2. I do not agree with the grounds on which the learned Judge proceeded. The Small Causes Courts Act provides, under the Schedule, Clause (4), that a Small Causes Court has no jurisdiction to try a suit for the possession of immoveable property or for the recovery of an interest in such property. That was amended by Bombay Act No. VI of 1930 by inserting after the words ' such property ' the following words : ' but not including a suit for ejectment where....' Then, there; are three sub-clauses specifying the conditions which have to be fulfilled. Conditions (a) and (b) are admittedly fulfilled in this case. Condition (c) is in these terms :-(c) The only substantial issue arising for decision is as to whether the lease has determ...
Manilal Lallubhai Vs. the Bharat Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Bom242; (1936)38BOMLR388; 163Ind.Cas.467
B.J. Wadia, J.1. This is a chamber summons taken out by the Bharat Spinning and Weaving Company, Limited, who were the respondents in Appeal No. 51 of 1932, for an order that their objections dated April 9, 1934, to the taxation of the bill of costs of the appellants may be allowed, and the appellants ordered to pay their costs of and incidental to this summons and also of the objections filed by them before the Taxing Master. The bill of costs was lodged for taxation by the appellants' attorneys, Messrs. Khandwalla and Chhotalal, on September 15, 1933, and the taxation was completed on or about March 22, 1934. Thereafter the respondents filed their objections, and a warrant to review the taxation was issued in the ordinary course. After hearing the attorneys of the parties the Taxing Master gave his judgment on August 15, 1934, a copy of which is annexed to his certificate dated August 17, 1934.2. There were disputes between the company and the firm of Mulchand Pranjiwandas in respect...
Jamnabai Gulabchand Gujarati Vs. Dattatraya Ramchandra Gujarati
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Bom160; (1936)38BOMLR251
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a second appeal from a decision of the Assistant Judge, Poona, confirming a decree made by the Subordinate Judge, Poona. The material facts are that in 1926 defendant No. 2, who is the wife of defendant No. 1, purchased a certain house. In 1927 the plaintiff obtained a decree against defendant No. 1 in the Small Causes Court at Poona, and in due course he filed a darkhast to recover the amount of his decree by sale of the house which had been purchased by defendant No. 2, the contention of the plaintiff being that defendant No. 2 purchased the house as benamidar for her husband, defendant No. 1. On July 21, 1929, the house was attached, and defendant No. 2 objected to the attachment under Order XXI, Rule 58, Civil Procedure Code. Thereupon the plaintiff' withdrew the attachment, and the darkhast was disposed of. On October 1, 1929, the plaintiff started this suit asking for a declaration that the house in dispute is owned by defendant No. 1 and was pu...
Vithal Tukaram Kulkarni Vs. Balu Bapu Gude and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Bom283
Divatia, J.1. The only question in both these appeals is, 'whether the brother or the sister, or both, of a deceased Hindu widow married in an approved form succeed to her stridhan property (other than shulka) if she dies without leaving any issue or any heir in her husband's family. The appellant contends that the sister alone or in the alternative the brother and sister equally succeed, while the respondents' case is that the brother alone is the heir to the exclusion of the sister. The point arises in this way: One Suganda a Hindu widow, died without having any issue. No heir in her husband's family also can be traced. Her mother Renuka, had one-fourth share in certain property and on her death she left one son Bapu, and two daughters, Limba and the said Suganda. That one-fourth share being Renuka's stridhan property devolved on her daughters Limba and Suganda to the exclusion of Bapu, so that each of them took one-eighth share. The succession to the one-eighth share of Suganda is n...
Tukaram Rangrao Patil Vs. Subhedar Nanaji Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-1935
Reported in: (1936)38BOMLR242
Broomfield, J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice N. J. Wadia confirming the decree of the lower Courts dismissing the plaintiff-appellant's suit for redemption.2. The material facts may be very briefly stated. The property in suit was mortgaged in July, 1871, by the father of the plaintiff to the father of the defendant. At the same time the father of the plaintiff executed a rent-note in favour of the mortgagee and remained in possession. He failed to pay the rent and the mortgagee filed a suit to recover it, and obtained a decree, in execution of which he brought the mortgaged property to sale. At the Court-sale he purchased it himself. The available records of this suit do not enable us to say whether this purchase was or was not with the permission of the Court.3. The question for decision is whether under these circumstances the mortgagor is entitled to redeem. The case-law has been very fully considered in the judgment of Mr. Justice N. J. Wadia, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›