Mumbai Court November 1936 Judgments
Ahmed Abdulla Rubatti Vs. Ahmed Abdulla Dubaee
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Bom180; (1937)39BOMLR110
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. In this case the plaintiff sued before the Registrar of the District Court, Aden, for Rs. 28, commission earned. The Registrar decreed the plaintiff's claim. Under Section 15 of the Aden Civil and Criminal Justice Regulation VI of 1933, the District Judge may call for any proceedings before the Registrar at any stage or within thirty days of their termination, and may pass such orders thereon as he thinks fit. The learned District Judge in revision called a witness whose evidence he considered it necessary to hear, and having heard the evidence of that witness, he set aside the Registrar's order, and dismissed the suit. It is obviously rather a dangerous course to admit further evidence in revision, but I am not prepared to say that the District Judge had no jurisdiction to adopt the course which he did, the language of Section 15 being extremely wide.2. A preliminary objection was taken that this Court has no power to revise an order made by the District Jud...
Tag this Judgment!Kalyanji Vithaldas Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-1936
Reported in: (1937)39BOMLR374
George Rankin, J.1. These six appeals concern the assessment to supertax for the year 1931-32 of six of the seven partners of a firm known as Moolji Sicka & Co. This firm was for the year in question registered under Section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, the instrument of partnership being a Gujarati deed dated September 11, 1930. Its business was that of dealers in Indian tobacco and cigarettes. The assessment to income-tax of the registered firm has been made in due course, and the present controversy is whether six of the partners should each be assessed to super-tax upon his share of the profits as an individual, or whether these six shares should each be assessed as income of a Hindu undivided family. The rates of super-tax imposed by the relevant Finance Act are less in the case of a Hindu undivided family than in the case of an individual.2. The problem has to be answered by applying to the facts of each case the language of Section 55 of the Act :In addition to the income-t...
Tag this Judgment!Khodadad Mundegar Vs. Bai Jerbai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-1936
Reported in: (1937)39BOMLR1156
Engineer, J.1. The claim in the suit is an extraordinary one. The plaintiffs pray for the dissolution and accounts of what they call a family partnership business, which, according to them, was dissolved on October 1, 1933. The parties to the suit are Irani Zoroastrians. The basis on which their claim is made is set out in para. 6 of the plaint as follows :-An ancient invariable and well known custom prevails among Iranis who have settled down in Bombay that they carry on family business in partnership and every male member of the family joins such family business and acquires an equal share in the profits and losses as well as the assets of the firm with the other members of the family who have previously joined such family business.2. The family partnership business mentioned in the plaint is alleged to have started in 1892, when Behram, the eldest brother of plaintiff No. 1, having come to Bombay, started a tea shop. In 1897 the second brother Merwan, who was the original defendant ...
Tag this Judgment!Khodadad Mundegar and anr. Vs. Bai Jerbai and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-1936
Reported in: AIR1938Bom6
Engineer, J.1. The claim in the suit is an extraordinary one. The plaintiffs pray for the dissolution and accounts of what they call a family partnership business, which, according to them, was dissolved on 1st October 1933. The parties to the suit are Irani Zoroastrians. The basis on which their claim is made is set out in para. 6 of the plaint as follows:2. An ancient Invariable and well-known custom prevails among Iranis who have settled down in Bombay that they carry on family business in partnership and every male member of the family joins such family business and acquires an equal share in the profits and losses as well as the assets of the firm with the other members of the family who have previously joined such family business.3. The family partnership business mentioned in the plaint is alleged to have started in 1892, when Behram, the eldest brother of plaintiff 1, having come to Bombay, started a tea-shop. In 1897 the second brother Merwan, who was the original defendant 1 ...
Tag this Judgment!Chunilal Bulakhidas Patel Vs. Abdul Karim Shaikh Subhrati
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Bom483; (1937)39BOMLR795
Wassoodew, J.1. This appeal arises from an action by a mortgagee to recover the mortgage money in the amount of Rs. 16,500 due on a mortgage of certain leasehold estate situated outside Sarangpur Darwaja in the Sheher-kothada sub-district of Ahmedabad. The mortgage-deed was executed on March 5, 1927, by defendants Nos. 1, 4 and 5 of whom defendant No. 1 represented his own interest and that of his minor sons, defendants Nos. 2 and 3. Besides the said mortgagors the other parties to the suit were the heirs of the deceased surety, defendants Nos. 5 to 8, and the subsequent incumbrancer, defendant No. 9, who happened also to be the heir of the lessor. The principal advanced on the mortgage was Rs. 12,999 and the rate of interest agreed upon was thirteen and a half per cent, payable monthly The deed provided that on failure to recover the interest regularly compound interest was to be charged with monthly rests. In accordance with the terms of the deed the mortgagee was to be placed in pos...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Yamanya Kallappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1936
Reported in: (1937)39BOMLR76
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. [His Lordship after narrating the facts of the case proceeded :] The case, in point of fact, falls within the decision of this Court in Emperor v. Krishnaji Dange : (1932)34BOMLR590 which shows that there was an improper joinder of charges, and that the trial was therefore illegal. The learned Judge thereupon came to the conclusion that he would not pursue the suggestion for a reference and he acquitted accused Nos. 1 to 5; so that by two different orders he acquitted all the accused.2. It is in my view clear that as the whole trial was illegal the learned Judge could neither convict nor acquit, and we are bound to set aside the orders of acquittal. The only substantial question is whether we ought to direct the accused to be re-tried. Now as accused Nos. 6 to 10 have been acquitted by the verdict of the jury and the Judge was prepared to accept that verdict, it certainly would be very hard on them that they should be retried because the original trial was de...
Tag this Judgment!Shivramdas Vs. B.V. Nerurkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1936
Reported in: (1937)39BOMLR633
B.J. Wadia, J.1. This is a chamber summons taken out by the applicants, who are a firm of solicitors of this Court against the respondents who were the defendants in the suit in the matter of the costs incurred by them in defending the suit on behalf of the defendants. The applicants claim both their out-of-pocket and profit costs of the suit, notwithstanding that their senior partner, Mr. S.A. Sabnis, was one of the defendants. The respondents contended before the Taxing Master that the applicants were not entitled to any profit costs, but only to their out-of-pocket. The Taxing Master held in favour of the respondents' contention, on which the applicants filed their objections. These objections were considered by the Taxing Master, and he gave his judgment on January 16 which is attached to his certificate dated January 17, 1936. The Taxing Master held that the defendants in the suit were trustees of the temples, charitable institutions, and funds belonging to the Gowd Saraswat commu...
Tag this Judgment!Janardan Govind Gore Vs. Narayan Bhaskar Gore
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Bom496; (1937)39BOMLR1151
Kania, J.1. This petition gives rise to an interesting question of law which does not seem to be covered by any authority in India. The question is whether evidence is admissible to show that, having regard to the intention of the testator as expressed in the will, the name 'K.N. Godbole' applied to 'K.G. Godbole.' In the affidavit filed in support of the caveat it was alleged by the caveators that in the will, the deceased, by his own hand, had altered the letter 'N' into 'G' and that alteration was made before other alterations were made by him in the will, which were duly initialled.2. This particular alteration in question has not been initialled by the deceased.3. On behalf of the plaintiffs it is contended that oral evidence is permissible only under Section 80 of the Indian Succession Act and unless the case came within that section no oral evidence should be allowed to be led. On the other hand it is alleged on behalf of the defendants that Sections 80 and 81 are not exhaustive...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Sabnis, Goregaonkar and Senjit and Vs. B.V. Nerurkar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Bom374
B.J. Wadia, J.1. This is a Chamber Summons taken out by the applicants who are a firm of solicitors of this Court against the respondents who were the defendants in the suit in the matter of the costs incurred by them in defending the suit on behalf of the defendants. The applicants claim both their out-of-pocket and profit costs of the suit, notwithstanding that their senior partner, Mr. S.A. Sabnis, was one of the defendants. The respondents contended before the Taxing Master that the applicants were not entitled to any profit costs, but only to their out-of-pocket. The Taxing Master held in favour of the respondents' contention, on which the applicants filed their objections. These objections were considered by the Taxing Master, and he gave his judgment on 16th January which is attached to his certificate dated 17th January 1936. The Taxing Master held that the defendants in the suit were trustees of the temples, charitable institutions and funds belonging to the Gowd Saraswat Comm...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Yemanya Kallappa and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Bom152; 168Ind.Cas.479
Beaumont, C.J.1. (His Lordship first narrated the facts of the case and then continued). The case, in point of fact, falls within the decision of this Court in Emperor v. Krishnaji Dange 34 Bom. L.R. 590 : 138 Ind. Cas. 520 : A.I.R. 1932 Bom. 277 : (1932) Cr. Cas. 389 : 33 Cri.L.J 619 : Ind. Rul. (1932) Bom. 383, which shows that there was an improper joinder of charges, and that the trial was, therefore, illegal. The learned Judge thereupon came to the conclusion that he would not pursue the suggestion for a reference and he acquitted accused Nos.1 to 5 so that by two different orders he aquitted all the accused.2. It is in my view clear that as the whole trial was illegal, the learned Judge could neither convict nor acquit, and we are bound to set, aside the orders of acquittal. The only substantial question is whether wought to direct the accused to be re-tried. Now as accused Nos. 6 to 10 have been acquitted by the verdict of the jury and the Judge was prepared to accept that verdi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »