Mumbai Court September 1936 Judgments
Ahmedmiya Haji Mahomed Kadwani Vs. Bai Rukhiabai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1936
Reported in: (1936)38BOMLR1283
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J. 1. This is an appeal by ten persons, who are described as being some of the members of the managing committee of the Cutchi Memon Jamat having their office at Kambekar Street without the Fort of Bombay, and a preliminary objection is taken that they have no right of appeal. The matter originated with a petition by a trustee of a charity created under the will of Abdulla Haji Dawood Bawla in respect of a property situated at Mahim and known as Abdulla Haji Dawood Bawla Sanatorium. According to the petition the trusts of the sanatorium were for the Cutchi Memon community. The trusts are not confined to the members of that community in any particular locality but extend to the whole community. The petition asks that the sanatorium may be sold and the proceeds of the sale applied under the directions of the Court. The matter originally came before Mr. Justice Kania, who made an order for sale, but subsequently some technical difficulty arose and the petition came o...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Bai Rukhiabai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Bom63; 166Ind.Cas.940
Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an appeal by ten persons, who are described as being some of the members of the managing committee of the Cutchi Memon Jamat having their office at Kambekar Street without the Fort of Bombay, and a preliminary objection is taken that they have no right of appeal. The matter originated with a petition by a trustee of a charity created under the will of Abdulla Haji Dawood Bawla in respect of a property situated at Mahim and known as Abdulla Haji Dawood Bawla Sanatorium. According to the petition the trusts of the Sanatorium were for the Cutchi Memon community. The trusts are not confined to the members of that community in any particular locality but extend to the whole community. The petition asks that the Sanatorium may be sold and the proceeds of the sale applied under the directions of the Court. The matter originally came before Kania, J. who made an order for sale, but subsequently some technical difficulty arose and the petition came on again for hearing ...
Tag this Judgment!Baijnath Ramchander Vs. Binjraj Joowarmal Batia and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1936
Reported in: (1937)39BOMLR540
B.J. Wadia, J.1. This is a notice under Order XXI, Rule 16, of the Civil Procedure Code, taken out by the assignee or transferee of a consent decree dated December 16, 1921, calling upon the plaintiff in the suit and one Chandmal Binjraj, a partner of the defendant firm, to show cause why the decree should not be executed by the transferee under the provisions of that rule.2. The decree was for a sum of Rs. 55,312-10-0 with further interest, payable by certain instalments. Various applications were made by the original decree-holder for execution, and he received in all a sum of Rs. 40,475-2-0 in part satisfaction of the decree by divers payments which have been noted on the decree. It appears that a certified copy of the decree and the necessary certificates were transmitted to Calcutta in July, 1923, for further execution, but as nothing more was realized, the attachment levied in Calcutta was with-drawn. No further satisfaction was obtained by execution of the decree or otherwise wi...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Janki Prasad Poddar and Vs. Binjraj Joowarmal Batia and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Bom365
B.J. Wadia, J.1. This is a notice under Order 21, Rule 16, Civil P.C., taken out by the assignee or transferee of a consent decree dated 16th December 1921, calling upon the plaintiff in the suit and one Chandmal Binjraj, a partner of the defendant firm, to show cause why the decree should not be executed by the transferee under the provisions of that Rule. The decree was for a sum of Rs. 55,312-10-0 with further interest, payable by certain instalments. Various applications were made by the original decree-holder for execution, and he received in all a sum of Rs. 40,475-2-0 in part satisfaction of the decree by diverse payments which have been noted on the decree. It appears that a certified copy of the decree and the necessary certificates were transmitted to Calcutta in July, 1923, for further execution, but as nothing more was realized, the attachment levied in Calcutta was withdrawn. No further satisfaction was obtained by execution of the decree or otherwise, within the jurisdict...
Tag this Judgment!Nemichand Uttamchand Vs. Chaturbhuj Damji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Bom64; (1936)38BOMLR1281
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. In this appeal a preliminary objection is taken that the appeal is out of time. The relevant dates are that the judgment appealed from was given on July 31, 1935, and the present appellant applied on the same day to the Prothonotary for a certified copy of the order. On August 2 the respondent, in whose favour the order had been made, sent a draft of the order to the appellant for approval. The appellant did not approve the draft, and on August 15 the respondent sent a reminder to the appellant. On the 16th the respondent applied under Rule 268 of the High Court Rules to the Prothonotary to fix an appointment for settling the order. On August 26 there was an appointment by the Prothonotary, at which the parties appeared, and the order was settled. The copy order was actually issued by the Prothonotary on September 10, and the appeal was filed on September 28. So that, the time for appeal being twenty days, the appeal was filed in time if the starting point be...
Tag this Judgment!Neelawa Dundappa Kohalli Vs. Gurshiddappa Madiwalappa Patanshetti
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Bom169; (1937)39BOMLR211
Tyabji, J.1. The present appeal arises out of the affairs of the family of one Madivalappa, who died of plague on February 7, 1916. He left behind him his widow, Gangawa, (since deceased) and three daughters, Neelawa, Irawa and Sayawa. The first of these is the plaintiff : the second and the third daughters are defendants Nos. 5 and 6. The main object of the suit is to have it declared that an adoption purported to have been made by the widow Gangawa, on July 7, 1919, was invalid and of no effect : so that the inheritance of Madivalappa must lie with his daughters and not with defendant No. 1, who is alleged to have been adopted as his son.2. The first objection that has been taken to the adoption of a son by Gangawa to her deceased husband, is that she was an unchaste wife, and must therefore be taken as disqualified to adopt. There is a certain amount of evidence, and a good deal of suspicion cast as to the chastity of Gangawa; but the evidence is not sufficient to establish, and the...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary of State for India Vs. the Bank of India Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Bom145; (1936)38BOMLR1205
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of Mr. Justice B. J. Wadia which raises a question of considerable importance to Banks and not, I think, altogether free from difficulty.2. The facts are not in dispute. A lady called Gangabai was entitled, by endorsement, to a Government promissory note, which she had acquired through a broker named Acharya. Subsequently Acharya obtained possession of the note from Bai Gangabai, and he forged her endorsement on the note to himself. Subsequently he endorsed the note over to the defendants, the Bank of India, Ltd. The Bank sent the note, with other notes, to the Government Securities Department with a request for its renewal, and the note was in due course renewed by the prescribed officer of the Government Securities Department. When it was ultimately established that the signature of Bai Gangabai on the note had been forged by Acharya, Bai Gangabai sued the Secretary of State for the value of the note, and she recovered judg...
Tag this Judgment!HusseIn Mahomedbhai Khoja Vs. the Official Assignee of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-1936
Reported in: (1936)38BOMLR1204
John Beaumont Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal against an order made by Mr. Justice Kania in Insolvency. It appears from the Official Assignee's report, the correctness of which is not disputed, that the facts in sub-ss. (a), (d) and (f) of Section 39 of the Presidency-towns Insolvency Act exist in this case. Therefore, the learned Judge had discretion to suspend the discharge of the insolvent, and to grant, or not to grant, protection. The learned Judge suspended the discharge for two years and refused to grant a protection order in respect of the first year. The debts of the insolvent had all been incurred for gambling purposes, it is said, from professional money-lenders. It is quite clear, in my opinion, that the learned Judge had discretion to make the order which he did make, and I can see no principle on which we should interfere with the discretion which the learned Judge exercised in the matter. It is said that it is very hard to refuse a protection order for the first year; and ...
Tag this Judgment!H.H. Darbar Alabhai Vajsurbhai Vs. Bhura Bhaya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Bom401; (1937)39BOMLR444
Wassoodew, J.1. The facts giving rise to this appeal, so far as a, statement thereof is necessary for the present purpose, are these. The appellants who were holders of certain talukdari estate in the District of Ahmedabad filed a suit in 1900 to obtain a declaration regarding their title to a share in that estate in a civil Court. That title was confirmed by the High Court on August 6, 1907. The provisions of the Gujarat Talukdars' Act (Bom. VI of 1888) regulated the procedure in regard to the partition of the estate, and the appellants, therefore, applied in 1916 to the Talukdari Settlement Officer for the separation of their share in the said estate. To that petition there were numerous parties, the persons interested in the estate being not less than 65. They were, therefore, impleaded before the said Officer for the purpose of effecting a partition. In course of time before the application was decided some of them died, but through inadvertence the names of their legal representat...
Tag this Judgment!HusseIn Mahomedbhai Khoja Vs. Official Assignee
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Bom144; 167Ind.Cas.764
Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an appeal against an order made by Kania, J. in insolvency. It appears from the Official Assignee's report, the correctness of which is not disputed, that the facts in sub-sections (a), (d) and (f), Section 39 of Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, exist in this case. Therefore, the learned Judge had discretion to suspend the discharge of the insolvent, and to grant or not to grant protection. The learned Judge suspended the discharge for two years and refused to grant a protection order in respect of the first year. The debts of tile insolvent had all been incurred for gambling purposes, it is said, from professional money lenders. It is quite clear, in my opinion, that the learned Judge had discretion to make the order which he did make, and I can see no principle on which we Should interfere with the discretion which the learned Judge exercised in the matter. It is said that it is very hard to refuse a protection order for the first year; and that the result ma...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »