Mumbai Court February 1936 Judgments
Prahlad Madhoba Ruikar Vs. Aboobaker Abdul Rehman and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Bom313; (1936)38BOMLR535
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This appeal raises a short question of jurisdiction. The plaintiffs are entitled to a mortgage created by defendants Nos. 1 to 5. The mortgage is on property situate outside British India, and defendants Nos. 1 to 5 reside outside British India. But the mortgage was executed in Bombay. Under the decision of this Court in Hatimbhai v. Framroz Dinshaw I.L.R(1926) 51 Bom. 516 : SC 29 Bom. L.R. 498, by which we are bound, a suit to enforce a mortgage is not a suit for land within the meaning of Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, and if that is so, it is clear that the plaintiffs are entitled to bring their suit against defendants Nos. 1 to 5, the cause of action having arisen in Bombay. Defendant No. 6, who is the present appellant, claims a charge on the property, that charge arising under a decree of a Court outside British India. His contention is that as his interest in the property arises outside British India, and the property is situate outside British India...
Tag this Judgment!Arunachalam Chettiar Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1936
Reported in: (1936)38BOMLR660
George Rankin, J.1. This is an appeal by the assesses from the decision of the High Court at Madras on a reference made by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act (Act XI of 1922). The appellant is the manager of a Hindu undivided family and the order of assessment dated March 11, 1932, was in form an assessment to income-tax of the Hindu undivided family. The year of assessment is the year 1931-32, and the year of account is the previous year, viz., 1930-31. The appellant took exception to the assessment made by the Income-tax Officer on March 11, 1932, as aforesaid, but his appeal to the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax was on December 10, 1932, dismissed, and the High Court of Madras has in effect upheld the orders of the Income-tax authorities.2. The facts of the case as stated by the Commissioner and as appearing by the orders of the Assistant Commissioner and Income-tax Officer [extracts from these orders being exhibited to the...
Tag this Judgment!Mohitai Vs. S. Sundaram Ayyar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1936
Reported in: (1936)38BOMLR672
Thankerton, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, dated January 21, 1924, which affirmed, subject to a modification, a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Tanjore, dated July 1, 1918, and made in an interpleader suit, which was instituted on July 8, 1912, by the receiver and manager of the Tanjore Palace estate, in order to have the right of succession to these properties determined by the Court.2. Maharajah Sivaji, the last King of Tanjore, died in 1855, leaving no male issue. On his death the East India Company, in the exercise of its sovereign powers, took possession, as an act of State, of all his properties, which included the properties in suit.3. About a year later, the senior widow of the Rajah filed a bill in equity against the East India Company, disputing the legality of the seizure of -the private properties of the Rajah, and seeking recovery of the same in her right as senior widow of the Rajah. The litigation was final...
Tag this Judgment!The Calico Printers Association Ltd. Vs. Ahmed Abdul Karim Bros.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Bom310; (1936)38BOMLR531
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order made by Mr. Justice B. J. Wadia, which raises rather an important question of practice. The suit is a suit for an injunction to restrain the defendants from wrongful user of the plaintiffs' registered design, and an application was made ex parte for an injunction, and on that application an injunction was granted by Mr. Justice Divatia until the hearing of the motion, costs being made costs in the motion. When the motion was heard, Mr. Justice B. J. Wadia continued the injunction until the trial, and directed that the costs of the motion be costs in the cause. Now if an order had been drawn up in those terms, in my opinion, it is quite clear that the applicants would have got separate sets of costs for the ex parte motion and the motion on notice. They would have got, since no contrary direction had been given, Rs. 125 for the ex parte motion under item 54 of the Table of Fees, and they would have got Rs 175 for the costs of th...
Tag this Judgment!Calico Printers' Association, Ltd. Vs. Ahmad Abdul Karim Bros.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1936
Reported in: 164Ind.Cas.695
Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order made by B. J. Wadia, J., which raises rather an important question of practice. The suit is a suit for an injunction to restrain the defendants from wrongful user of the plaintiffs' registered design, and an application was made ex parte for an injunction, and on that application an injunction was granted by Divatia, J., until the hearing of the motion, costs being made costs in the motion. When the motion was heard, B. J, Wadia, J- continued the injunction, until the trial, and directed that the costs of the motion be costs in the cause. Now if an order had been drawn up in those terms, in my opinion, it is quite clear that the applicants would have got separate sets of costs for the ex parte motion and the motion on notice. They Would have got, since no contrary direction had been given, Rs. 125 for the ex parte motion under item No. 54 of the Table of Fees, and they would have got Rs. 175 for the costs of the contested motion. But whe...
Tag this Judgment!Manekbai Nadirshaw Vachha Vs. Nadirshaw Jamshedji Vachha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-1936
Reported in: (1936)38BOMLR836; 165Ind.Cas.977
Broomfield, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 42 of the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, XV of 1865, from an order of Mr. Justice B. J. Wadia sitting in chambers as Judge of the Parsi Chief Matrimonial Court, Bombay, reducing the amount of permanent alimony awarded to the appellant from Rs. 85 to Rs. 50 per mensem.2. The parties were married in 1915. In November, 1927, the appellant brought a suit under the Act for dissolution of her marriage with the respondent on the ground of adultery. The case was tried by Mr. Justice Davar and eleven delegates, and a decree for dissolution of the marriage was made on January 31, 1928. On July 6, 1928, Mr. Justice Davar sitting in chambers made an order that the respondent should pay the appellant Rs. 85 per mensem as permanent alimony from February 1, 1928. Subsequently both parties remarried and on March 6, 1935, the respondent took out a chamber summons before Mr. Justice B. J. Wadia, upon which the amount of the monthly payment was reduced as...
Tag this Judgment!Sakharlal Jamnadas Vs. Pirojsha Sorabji Patel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Bom315; (1936)38BOMLR719; 165Ind.Cas.86
Broomfield, J.1. This is an appeal under the Letters Patent from a judgment of Mr. Justice N. J. Wadia in execution proceedings. Certain property was sold in execution of a money decree. An application was made to set aside the sale which was dismissed by the trial Court. Mr. Justice N. J. Wadia on appeal confirmed the trial Court's order. The date of the sale was December 31, 1931. The property consisted of two lots, Nos. 3 and 13, and the appellant before us, one Sakharlal, had a half share in lot No. 13 only, which is a house. Lot No. 3 and half of lot No. 13 belonged to another judgment-debtor, Balkisandas Tulsidas. The grounds on which the sale was sought to be impeached were : firstly, that there was a wrong description of the incumbrances on the property in the sale proclamation : it mentioned that there was a charge of Rs. 31,000 and odd on the whole of lots Nos. 3 and 13, whereas, as a matter of fact, this charge really subsisted only on the property belonging to Balkisandas; ...
Tag this Judgment!Cooverji Umersey Vs. Mawji Vaghji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Bom26; (1936)38BOMLR982; 166Ind.Cas.565
B.J. Wadia, J.1. [The judgment after dealing with points not connected with the report proceeded.]2. It is contended that no proper notice of the sale was given by the pawnee to the pawnor under Section 176 of the Indian Contract Act. It must be remembered that the 922 bales were hypothecated to Cooverji Umersey & Co. on September 30, 1925, by defendant No. l's firm of Damodar Mawji Vaghji. On January 13, 1927, Cooverji Umersey & Co. wrote to Damodar Mawji Vaghji that they did not want to keep their moneys invested on the security of the bales, that Damodar Mawji Vaghji should give an order within four days for sale or pay Rs. 60,000, and in default they would ask their Kobe agent to sell off the goods. This letter was received by Damodar Mawji Vaghji on January 17. On that date Cooverji Umersey & Co. gave notice through their solicitors to defendants Nos. 1 and 2, demanding Rs. 1,20,000'. with the interest due thereon, and in default of payment they threatened to realise their mortgag...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Nazarally V. Natterwala
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Bom327; (1936)38BOMLR434; 165Ind.Cas.261
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal by the Government of Bombay against the acquittal of the accused by the Chief Presidency Magistrate for a breach of Rule 41 of the rules made under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, as subsequently amended.2. The accused is the owner of a house situate at Doctor Street, Bombay, and in July last an accident occurred in the house. It appears that a contractor was employed to lay chunam in the house, and a workman employed by the contractor, in the course of his work, broke through the lead sheathing of an electric wire and the rubber insulation by means of a metal trowel which the workman had in his hand. He thereby brought the trowel into contact with the electric wire. He was at the moment supporting himself by holding to a pipe for gas, and the result was that he was electrocuted and died.3. The learned Chief Presidency Magistrate has held as a fact that the earth wire connection in the electric supply line of the accused was defective; but...
Tag this Judgment!Sahu Jagdishwar Nath Vs. Sahu Gauri Shankar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-1936
Reported in: (1936)38BOMLR477
Thankerton, J.1. Their Lordships find it unnecessary to call on counsel for the respondent in the case or to enter in any detail into the facts.2. Mr. de Gruyther, on behalf of the appellants, has raised three questions on the appeal. The first point is with reference to the suggested blending or throwing of property self-acquired by Bisheshwar Nath, the appellants' father, into the common stock with the ancestral property which he held. The second point is the issue as to whether the joint family had any interest in the business partnership, to use that phrase in a very broad sense, which had existed between the respondent and Bisheshwar Nath for some fifteen years from 1905. The third question raised by Mr. de Gruyther was with regard to whether the four deeds dated in 1920 by which the partnership was finished up and the various properties directly or indirectly concerned with the partnership were dealt with was a family settlement carried out, on the assumption that the joint famil...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »