Mumbai Court October 1936 Judgments
Balu Sakharam Powar Vs. Lahoo Sambhaji Tetgura
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-1936
Reported in: (1937)39BOMLR382
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. In this second appeal certain questions have been referred by a bench consisting of Mr. Justice Divatia and Mr. Justice Macklin to a full bench. The justification for the reference is the doubt which exists as to how far recent decisions of the Privy Council have affected the law of adoption in this Presidency. The question is of great importance since questions relating to adoption form one of the most fruitful sources of litigation, and we are told that a good many pending appeals depend on the answers this bench may make to the questions referred.2. In dealing with the law of adoption two aspects of the matter have to be bome in mind, first, the right to adopt, and secondly, the effect of a valid adoption upon the vesting or divesting of property. In my opinion, there can be no doubt that recent decisions of the Privy Council, to which reference will be made hereafter, have greatly extended the rights, as formerly understood in this Presidency, of a Hindu ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: the Katni Cement and Industrial Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Bom423; (1937)39BOMLR675
Rangnekar, J.1. The Katni Cement and Industrial Co. Ltd., was incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1882, on August 13, 1912, with a nominal capital of rupees twenty lacs. The capital of the company was increased in 1919 and the present capital is rupees thirty lacs, divided into 5,000 first preference shares of Rs. 100 each, 10,000 second preference shares of Rs. 100 each, 14,376 ordinary shares of Rs. 100 each, and 1,560 deferred shares of Rs. 40 each.2. The first preference shares were issued in terms of Clause VII (') of the memorandum of association of the company and entitled the holders to a fixed cumulative preferential dividend at the rate of seven per cent, per annum on the capital for the time being paid up thereon and the right in a winding up to payment of capital in priority to the ordinary and deferred shares. The second preference shareholders were entitled to a fixed cumulative preferential dividend at the rate of seven per cent, per annum on the capital for the...
Tag this Judgment!Gangadhar Laxman Deshpande Vs. Dattatraya Laxman Deshpande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Bom211; (1937)39BOMLR159
Broomfield, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the Joint First Class Subordinate Judge of Poona refusing to file an award in an arbitration without the intervention of a Court. The award relates to the estate of the late Laxman Moreshwar Deshpande of Poona. There were disputes among the members of his family which were referred for settlement to two distinguished lawyers, Rao Bahadur Narhar Krishna Deshmukh and Rao Bahadur Ganesh Krishna Chitale. They are intimate friends of the family. The reference was made on July 28, 1931, and the award was given on January 27, 1933. The application for filing it in Court under para. 20 of Schedule II of the Civil Procedure Code was made by the appellants on August 19, 1933. Some of the other members of the family raised objections of various kinds which were made the subject of seventeen issues. Practically every point was decided in favour of the award, but the trial Judge refused to file it on two grounds; because he found (1) that one item...
Tag this Judgment!Murlidhar Shrinivas Vs. Motilal Ramcoomar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Bom111; (1937)39BOMLR32
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. In this case the following questions have been referred to a full bench :-1. Whether in computing the time for appealing from a decree, it is legitimate (in a proper case) to exclude the period requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree when no application for such copy was made till after the expiration of the time limited for appeal?2. Whether Yamaji v. Antaji I.L.R. (1898) 23 Bom. 442 and New Piece Goods Bazaar Co. v. Jivabhai : (1913)15BOMLR681 are good law?The facts in the appeal, so far as necessary for the determination of the questions referred, are as follows. The judgment was given on March 6, 1936, and, according to the practice prevailing in this Court, that date is the date of the decree. On the same date the appellant applied for a copy of the judgment, and on March 19 a copy was supplied to his attorneys. On April 9 the appellant applied for a copy of the decree. The decree was sealed on April 20. But the draft approved by the attorneys of th...
Tag this Judgment!Surji Fulaji Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-1936
Reported in: (1937)39BOMLR216
Sen, J.1. The plaintiff-appellant sued the Secretary of State, the defendant respondent, for a declaration that he is the owner of the land in suit and for a consequential injunction. The land in suit consisted of two plots marked X and Y in the map which has been produced in this case. The plaintiff's case is that these two plots belong to him and have been in the possession of his family from ancient times. The contention of the defendant is that the plot marked Y is used as a passage by the village people visiting or passing through the locality, that the plot marked X is an open wada and that both the plots belong to Government under Section 37 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. It seems that a City Survey was held in respect of the lands in the village site in 1921 and that in 1922 the District Deputy Collector held an inquiry in which he held that both these plots belonged to Government. The plaintiff's appeal to the Collector was dismissed in 1926. The oral evidence adduced, for t...
Tag this Judgment!Suraji Fulaji Vs. Secretary of State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Bom193; 169Ind.Cas.327
Sen, J.1. The plaintiff-appellant sued the Secretary of State, the defendant-respondent, for a declaration that he is the owner of the land in suit and for a consequential injunction. The land in suit consisted of two plots marked X and Y in the map which has been produced in this case. The plaintiff's case is that these two plots belong to him and have been in the possession of his family from ancient times. The contention of the defendant is that the plot marked Y is used as a passage by the village people visiting or passing through the locality, that the plot marked X is an open wada and that both the plots belong to Government under Section 37, Bombay Land Revenue Code. It seems that a City Survey was held in respect of the lands in the village site in 1921 and that in 1922 the District Deputy Collector held an inquiry in which he held that both these plots belonged to Government. The plaintiff's appeal to the Collector was dismissed in 1926. The oral evidence adduced for the plai...
Tag this Judgment!Liladhar Chaturbhuj Vs. Harilal Jethabhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Bom155; (1937)39BOMLR44
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of Mr. Justice Rangnekar. The plaintiff's case is that on July 25, 1930, when he was a boy about thirteen years of age, he was knocked down by a motor car, and severely injured. He claims that the motor car in question was owned by the defendant, that it was driven by one Bhikhalal, who was a servant of the defendant, and that it was driven negligently. The burden of proving all those facts is upon the plaintiff. It is not disputed in this appeal that the accident took place, that the car which caused the accident belonged to the defendant, that it was driven by Bhikhalal, and that it was driven negligently. But the defendant denies that Bhikhalal was his servant. His case is that this car was one of several cars which he used to let out for hire as taxis, that the practice was for the driver of the car merely to pay so much a day for it, and that the driver was not the servant of the defendant, but was in the position of a b...
Tag this Judgment!Appa Trimbak Deshpande Vs. Vaman Govind Deshpande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Bom181; (1937)39BOMLR156
Broomfield, J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council. It was a case which involved several difficult questions of law and this Court disagreed with the trial Court and dismissed the plaintiff's suit.2. There has been some argument however on the question whether the value of the subject-matter within the meaning of Section 110 of the Civil Procedure Code is rupees ten thousand or upwards. The suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover his one-sixth share in certain properties by partition. The trial Court allowed the suit and provided in its decree that defendant No. 4, a brother of the plaintiff, should also recover his one-sixth share, with mesne profits equal to those which the plaintiff would get, on payment of the necessary stamp duty. The plaintiff valued his claim at Rs. 5,410 for Court-fees and Rs. 5,500 for jurisdiction. There was an appeal to this Court by defendants Nos. 1 to 3. They valued the appeal at Rs. 4,279 for Court-fees and Rs. 5,500 fo...
Tag this Judgment!Gurushiddappa Gurubasappa Bhusanur Vs. Gurushiddappa Chenavirappa Chet ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Bom238; (1937)39BOMLR130
Rangnekar, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the District Judge of Dharwar, affirming a decree made by the Second Class Subordinate Judge at Hubli in a suit for redemption of a mortgage of certain property mentioned in the plaint. The suit was filed under the provisions of Order I, Rule 8, Civil Procedure Code. The facts are not very clearly stated in the judgments, but it is sufficient to state that the plaintiffs are claiming through the owner of the property, and the principal contesting defendants, who are styled as the 'Hubli Pinjrapole Samstha,' are claiming as donees of the property from the representatives of the mortgagee of the property, who as a result of certain litigation had purchased the property at a Court-sale and claimed to have become owners of it. It was inter alia pleaded by these defendants that the suit wag barred by res judicata by reason of a decree made in an earlier suit brought by the same plaintiff against them for the same relief in 1926. That suit...
Tag this Judgment!Pallonjee Eduljee and Sons Vs. the Lonavala City Municipality
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Bom417; (1937)39BOMLR835
Tyabji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by certain building contractors and sanitary engineers primarily on the basis of a contract between themselves and the defendant, the Lonavla Municipality. The plaintiffs allege that it was agreed that they should put up a new vegetable market, a new beef market and a slaughter-house for the defendant Municipality. The contract alleged by the plaintiffs is based on rates. It is not on the basis of a lump sum payable for the works to the contractor. An alternative to the suit based on contract is that contained in paragraph 15 of the plaint, which may be referred to shortly as a claim on the basis of Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act.2. Dealing, first, with the claim on the basis of the contract between the Municipality and the plaintiffs (exhibit 32), it seems clear that the contract referred only to that part of the works done by the plaintiffs which was styled the vegetable market, and that assuming that there were any other p...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »