Mumbai Court December 1936 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.
R.T. Rangachari Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-1936
Reported in: (1937)39BOMLR688
Roche, J.1. This is the appeal of the plaintiff in the action against a decree of the High Court of Madras, in its appellate jurisdiction, dismissing an appeal against a decree of the High Court in its original jurisdiction whereby the action of the plaintiff had been dismissed and judgment had been entered for the defendant.2. The facts giving rise to the litigation are as follows : Prior to and in the month of July, 1927, the appellant was a Sub-Inspector of Police in the Presidency of Madras. Certain charges of irregular and improper conduct in the execution of his duties as a police-officer were made against him and were the subject of an official enquiry conducted by a Mr. Charsley, an Assistant Superintendent of Police for the district in which the appellant was serving. This enquiry was held in the manner required by Rule XIV of the statutory rules, 1924, Nos. 354 and 355 (the Civil Services Classification Rules), made under Section 96B(2) of the Government of India Act, 1919. M...
R. Venkata Rao Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-1936
Reported in: (1937)39BOMLR699
Roche, J.1. This is an appeal against a decree dated December 19, 1933, of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in its appellate jurisdiction affirming a judgment of the High Court in its original jurisdiction dismissing the action of the present appellant, the plaintiff in the action. The action was one claiming damages for wrongful dismissal from Government service and the questions involved were whether the dismissal was in fact wrongful and in breach of the material rules of the service and, if so, whether the suit for damages was maintainable.2. The facts of the case were these : The appellant in May, 1924, was a reader in the Government Press, Madras, and as such reader held office: in the civil service of the Crown in India. In May, 1924, he fell under suspicion of being concerned in a leakage of information in respect of the charge. The matter was investigated and at first the appellant was directed to vindicate his character in a Court of law. He proceeded to do so by action...
In Re: Peninsular Life Assurance Company Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Bom24; (1937)39BOMLR1163; 160Ind.Cas.638; 173Ind.Cas.727
Kania, J.1. This chamber summons was adjourned into Court to determine the question whether claimant No. 51 is entitled to rank as a preferential creditor.2. The company in liquidation did only life assurance business. A policy of assurance on the life of Pirmahomed Fatemahomed was issued before the company went into liquidation and the assured also died before that date. The claimant is the representative of the deceased. The contention of the claimant is that by reason of Sections 4 and 6 of the Indian Life Assurance Companies Act (VI of 1912) he is entitled to rank as a preferential creditor. That contention is opposed by the other creditors of the company.3. No decision, English or Indian, directly dealing with the right of the policy holders to claim priority as against the creditors of the life assurance business has been cited before me. In British Union and National Insurance Company Limited, In re [1914] 1 Ch. 724; on appeal [1914] 2 Ch. 77 the dispute was between the holders ...
In Re: Peninsular Life Assurance Co. Ltd. (In Liquidation.)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-1936
Reported in: AIR1938Bom91
ORDERKania, J.1. This Chamber Summons was adjourned into Court to determine the question whether claimant No. 51 is entitled to rank as a preferential creditor. The Company in liquidation did only life assurance business. A policy of assurance on the life of Pirmahomed Fatemahomed was issued before the Company went into liquidation and the assured also died before that date. The claimant is the representative of the deceased. The contention of the claimant is that by reason of Sections 4 and 6, Life Assurance Companies Act (6 of 1912), he is entitled to rank as a preferential creditor. That contention is opposed by the other creditors of the Company.2. No decision, English or Indian, directly dealing with the right of the policy-holders to claim priority as against the creditors of the life assurance business has been cited before me. In British Union and National Insuranoe Company Limited In re (1914) 1 Ch 721 the dispute was between the holders of fire and accident policies on the on...
Kisandas Laxmandas Gujar Vs. Godavaribai Govinddas Gujar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-1936
Reported in: (1937)39BOMLR351
Barlee, J.1. One Kisandas died leaving a widow, a son Ganpatdas, and some minor daughters. The widow and Ganpatdas died and the estate came to the minor daughters, who are the plaintiffs in this case. In 1900 the District Court appointed two persons, Ganpatdas Hirachand and Laxmandas Narottamdas, to be guardians of the minors' property, and each of them entered into a bond under Section 34(a) of the Guardians and Wards Act making himself liable to the fxtent of Rs. 6,000 if he failed duly to account for what he might receive in respect of the property of the wards. The plaintiffs came ofage in the years 1914 and 1915 and in 1919 Ganpatdas exhibited his accounts, paid what was due from him to the minors and obtained from them a receipt Godavari and later got a discharge from the Court. The other guardian Laxmandas did not render an account and the plaintiffs applied to the District Court for an assignment of the bond to enable them to file a suit against him. In the course of those proc...
The Borough Municipality of Ahmedabad Vs. Jayendra Vajubhai Divatia
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Bom432; (1937)39BOMLR329
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application in revision under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, it being alleged that the learned Judge has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in him. The point raised is of some importance in connection with compulsory purchases under the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925. Under Section 118 the Municipality can lay down lines of the public streets, and acquire land for adding to a street, and then Sub-section (3)(c) provides that compensation, the amount of which shall in case of dispute be ascertained and determined in the manner provided in Section 198, shall be paid by the Municipality to the owner of any land added to a street under Clause (b) of Sub-section (3) for the value of the said land. So that, what is to be paid is compensation for the value of the land compulsorily taken. Then Section 198 provides for the method of assessing compensation. If the amount is not agreed, the parties have to appoint arbitrators, who are to selec...
Purshottamdas Harjivandas Patel Vs. Rukshamani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-1936
Reported in: (1937)39BOMLR458
Wassoodew, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit by the plaintiff, a Hindu: widow, against the executors and trustees of her husband for maintenance at a sum higher than that recoverable from a fund set apart by her deceased husband in a post-nuptial agreement of separation dated June 22, 1907, and confirmed in the husband's will dated October 19, 1919, for separate residence, for arrears of maintenance in the amount of Rs. 150 and for a declaration of a charge for maintenance on the properties of the husband. The grounds upon which the higher rate was claimed were that the income available was insufficient to meet her needs and that the estate of her husband could afford paying more on the same scale as the co-widows.2. The defence was that the terms of the agreement and the will debarred the plaintiff from making the claim, that there was no justification for claiming an enhanced rate of maintenance, that the suit was not maintainable in the absence of proper and necessary parties su...
In Re: Zulekhabai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-1936
Reported in: (1937)39BOMLR1175; 173Ind.Cas.783
B.J. Wadia, J.1. This is a chamber summons taken out by the Court Receiver as guardian of the property of the minor Bai Zulekhabai to vary the Commissioner's certificate which was issued on April 2, and filed on April 16, 1936, in. respect of the amount of his commission on a sum of Rs. 3,300 which was held by the Accountant General of the High Court to the credit of the minor and which was ordered to be paid over to the guardian of the minor's property.2. The Court Receiver was appointed guardian of the property of the minor by an order dated November 7, 1930. By another order dated February 22, 1935, the Accountant General was directed to pay over to the guardian of the minor's property the sum of Rs. 3,300 held by him to the credit of the minor, and on March 25, 1935, the amount was accordingly paid over to the guardian of the property who debited to the minor a sum of Rs. 165 by way of commission calculated at five per cent, on that sum under Rule 444 (b)(2) of the High Court Rules...
Kisandas Laxmandas Gujar and ors. Vs. Godavaribai Govinddas Gujar and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Bom334
Barlee, J.1. One Kisandas died leaving a widow, a son Ganpatdas, and some minor daughters. The widow and Ganpatdas died and the estate came to the minor daughters, who are the plaintiffs in this, case. In 1900 the District Court appointed, two persons, Ganpatdas Hirachand and Laxmandas Narottamdas. to be guardians of the minors' property, and each of them entered into a bond under Section 34(a), Guardians and Wards Act, making himself 'liable to the extent of Rs. 6,000 if he failed duly to account for what he might receive in respect of the property of the wards. The plaintiffs came of age in the years 1914 and 1915 and in 1919 Ganpatdas exhibited his accounts, paid what was, due, from him to the minors and obtained from them a receipt and later got a discharge from the Court. The other guardian Laxmandas did not render an account and the plaintiffs applied to the District Court for an assignment of the bond to enable, them to file a suit against him. In the, course of those proceeding...
Purshottamdas Harjivandas Patel and ors. Vs. Rukmini and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Bom358
Wassoodew, J.1. This sppeal arises out of a suit by the plaintiff, a Hindu widow, against the executors and trustees of her husband for maintenance at a sum higher than that recoverable from a fund set apart by her deceased husband in a post-nuptial agreement of separation dated 22nd June 1907, and confirmed in the husband's will dated 19th October 1919, for separate residence, for arrears of maintenance in the amount of Rs. 150 and for a declaration of a charge for maintenance on the properties of the husband. The grounds upon which the higher rate-was claimed were that the income available was insufficient to meet her needs and that the estate of her husband Could afford paying more on the same scale as the co-widows.2. The defence was that the terms of the agreement and the will debarred the plaintiff from making the claim, that there was no justification for claiming an enhanced rate of maintenance, that the suit was not maintainable in the absence of proper and necessary parties s...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »