Mumbai Court July 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.
Purnananthachi Vs. T.S. Gopalaswami Odayar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1936
Reported in: (1936)38BOMLR1247
Shadi Lal, J.1. On November 25, 1895, the male descendants of one Sepperumal executed a deed, by which Balasubrahmanya, a grandson of Sepperumal, separated from the other members of the joint family on receiving one-fifth share of the family estate. In lieu of that share, the immoveable properties specified in list B mentioned in the third clause of the deed were allotted to him. There was admittedly a complete partition between him on the one side and the remaining members of the family on the other side, both in title to, and in physical possession of, the property. What was the status of the other members inter se Did they constitute a coparcenary, or were they divided in estate Now, clause 3 of the deed provided that they were to get the immoveable properties specified in list A and the outstandings detailed in list C. But these properties were not partitioned amongst them.2. The rule is, however, well established that ' when the members of an undivided family agree among themselve...
Ratan Jayakisan Shukla Vs. Bapu Hiraji Kunbi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Bom25; (1936)38BOMLR1196; 166Ind.Cas.893
Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an application in revision under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code against an order made by the District Judge of East Khandesh, and it raises a short, but not unimportant, point. The plaintiff was suing on a bond, and the last day for filing the suit so as to bring it within the period of limitation was February 28, 1933. At 11 p.m. on that day the plaintiff presented his plaint to the clerk of the Subordinate Judge's Court, in which the plaint was to be filed, at the clerk's private house. Both the trial Court and the lower appellate Court assumed that the clerk purported to accept the plaint so presented, but they held on that assumption that the plaint was not properly presented, and that the clerk had no power to accept it. If I were prepared to accept the fact that the plaint was accepted by the clerk, I should disagree with the judgments of the lower Courts and hold that the plaint was presented in time. Order IV, Rule 1, provides that ' Every suit...
Achut Sitaram Patwardhan Vs. Shivajirao Krishnarao Gaikwad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Bom244; (1937)39BOMLR224
S.S. Rangnekar, Acting C.J.1. This suit is concerned with the estate of a wealthy family in Poona called Gaikwad family. The common ancestor of the family was one Limbaji. He settled at Indore and enjoyed the favour of the ruler. He as well as other members of the family were employed in the State in various capacities and received from the ruler large gifts in the shape of jewels, cash and other property as a mark of their personal favour. The family thus amassed a large fortune, which they invested in the purchase of immovable property at Poona and Satara Districts. Limbaji died in 1892. About 1897 or 1898, the family seems to have incurred the displeasure of the ruler, in consequence of which their property at Indore was confiscated, and they had to leave the State. The family then came and settled in Poona. Limbaji had three sons,-Gangaram, Gopal and Balwant. Of these, Gopal was the manager of the family. Gopal died in 1906, leaving a widow Laxmibai and a minor son Krishnarao. Gang...
Emperor Vs. Keshavlal Harilal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Bom56; (1936)38BOMLR971; 166Ind.Cas.632
Wassoodew, J.1. The petitioner Keshavlal Harilal was convicted by the First Class Magistrate of Dhandhuka of the offence under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code, in that he assaulted and used criminal force to certain police constables whilst they were arresting in the discharge of their duty a cartman, who was charged with driving his cart in a rash and negligent manner and had caused hurt thereby to a child. The petitioner was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 150. He appealed to the Court of Session, and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who heard that appeal, confirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the police constables in question were lawfully discharging their duty as public servants at the material time.2. It is clear from the record that a Mahomedan child aged three years was injured by a cart on a public road, and on that account was taken to the dispensary. The Police Sub-Inspector, who had got information about that occurrence, went to the dispensary, and w...
Murugesam Pillai Vs. Minakshisundara Ammal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-1936
Reported in: (1936)38BOMLR1233
Maugham, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated August 22, 1934, affirming the order of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore dated August 22, 1930. The orders were made in proceedings for the execution of a compromise decree dated March 20, 1919, on a petition presented by the legal representative of one, Muthukumara Pillai, deceased, which was dated November 20, 1928. The respondent does not appear, and Mr. Parikh, for the appellant, has said everything that can properly be said in support of the appeal, but their Lordships are unable to accept the view that the judgments of the Courts in India are incorrect.2. The facts are comparatively simple. In or about the year 1912, one, Narayana Pillai and his two minor sons, whose first names were Murugesam and Muthukumara, formed a Hindu joint family. On February 26, 1912, the father, Narayana, partitioned the joint family properties amongst the three coparceners, namely, himself and h...
The Bombay Namdeo Co-operative Agency Ltd. Vs. Virdhaval
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-1936
Reported in: (1937)39BOMLR189
S.S. Rangnekar, Ag. C.J.1. The appellants brought a suit to recover Rs. 4,000 odd and interest thereon, on a promissory-note executed by one Sardar Dabhade in favour of one Murlidhar on August 19, 1925, and assigned by the latter to them. The suit was brought against the Sardar by his guardian ad litem the Collector and Court of Wards, Poona. The main defence to the suit was that the Court of Wards had assumed superintendence of the property of Sardar Dabhade on April 22, 1925, and that under Section 37 of the Court of Wards Act (Bom. I of 1905) the Sardar was incompetent to enter into any contract involving pecuniary liability. It was contended on behalf of the plaintiffs that the Court of Wards assumed superintendence on July 10, 1926, and not on April 22, 1925, and that therefore the promissory-note, having been executed prior to the assumption of the superintendence of the property of the Sardar by the Court of Wards, was outside the prohibition of Section 37 of the Act. This conte...
Bombay Namdeo Co-operative Agency Ltd. Vs. Virdhaval
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Bom266
Rangnekar, Ag. C.J.1. The appellants brought a suit to recover Rs. 4,000 odd and interest thereon, on a promissory note executed by one Sardar Dabhade in favour of one Murlidhar on 19th August 1925, and assigned by the latter to them. The suit was brought against the Sardar by his guardian ad litem the Collector and Court of Wards, Poona. The main defence to the suit was that the Court of Wards had assumed superintendence of the property of Sardar Dabhade on 22nd April 1925, and that under Section 37, Court of Wards Act (Bom. I of 1905) the Sardar was incompetent to enter into any contract involving pecuniary liability. It was contended on behalf of the plaintiffs that the Court of Wards assumed superintendence on 10th July 1926, and not on 22nd April 1925, and that therefore the promissory note, having been executed prior to the assumption of the superintendence of the property of the Sardar by the Court of Wards was outside the prohibition of Section 37 of the Act. This contention wa...
Alluri Venkatapathi Raju Vs. Dantuluri Venkatanarsimha Raju
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-1936
Reported in: (1936)38BOMLR1238
Shadi Lal, J.1. These are two consolidated appeals from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, by which that Court set aside a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Masulipatam dismissing the plaintiffs' suit, and granted a declaration that the plaintiffs would be entitled to succeed, on the death of their mother, to a portion of the estate claimed by them. The principal question, on which elaborate arguments have been advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, is whether the plaintiffs' maternal grandfather was, or was not, joint in estate with the ancestors of the contesting defendants.2. The relationship of the persons concerned is indicated in the following pedigree :-Alluri Venkataraju|-----------------------------------------------------------------| | | |Pattabhiramaraju Krishnamaraju Akkiraju Ramaraju|Buchi = Venkataraghavaraju = Venkata Venkayya Narasaya|Chandrayya|----------------------| |Venkata SatyanarayanarajuNarasimharaju (Plaintiff No. 2) (Plaintiff No. ...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. the Bombay Trust Corporation Limite ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-1936
Reported in: (1937)39BOMLR18
George Rankin, J.1. In this case two appeals from the High Court at Bombay have been consolidated. Both appeals are brought by income-tax authorities and both arise out of proceedings to assess a company registered outside British India called the Hong Kong Trust Corporation Limited, (herein referred to as the Hong Kong company) to income-tax in respect of the year of assessment 1928-9. The income-tax authorities have claimed to be entitled to assess the Hong Kong company in the name of the Bombay Trust Corporation Limited, (herein called the Bombay company) as its agent under the provisions of Section 42(I) and Section 43 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, that is, upon the footing that in the year 1927 profits and gains accrued or arose to the Hong Kong company through its business connection with the Bombay company. The Income-tax Officer having on March 29, 1930, made an assessment upon this footing the matter came on appeal from him before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistan...
Varjivandas Jamnadas Vs. Maganlal Chhabildas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-1936
Reported in: (1937)39BOMLR493
B.J. Wadia, J.1. This is a chamber summons taken out by the plaintiffs, for the appointment of a receiver in execution of two policies issued by the Oriental Government Security Life Assurance Company Ltd., with power to him to recover the amount due under the policies and to give the company a discharge for the same.2. A decree was passed against the defendant on September 5, 1930, in favour of the plaintiffs for a sum of Rs. 3,238-15-0 and interest thereon at six per cent, per annum till payment. In execution of the decree the plaintiffs attached the right, title and interest of the defendant in three policies of this, company of Rs. 1,000 each. The defendant was the assured in respect of one of them, and with regard to the two others the defendant was the assignee of one Maneklal Chhaganlal. By an assignment dated February 16, 1932, the defendant purported to assign in favour of his wife, Bai Kamla, for a sum of Rs. 750 his right, title and interest in the two policies assigned to h...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »