Mumbai Court October 1937 Judgments
Gulamkhaja Mahamad Ibrahim Vs. Shivlal Hiralal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom295; (1938)40BOMLR381; 175Ind.Cas.939
Divatia, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal in a suit to recover Rs. 7,600 with costs and future interest from the defendants who are all brothers. The lower Court has passed a decree against defendant No. 1 but it has dismissed the suit against defendants Nos. 2 to 4 on the ground that those defendants were minors at the date when the transaction in suit took place between the plaintiff and the defendants' father and therefore cannot be bound by that transaction, and in this appeal we are concerned with the rejection of the plaintiff's claim against them.2. The facts shortly are that the defendants' father Hiralal passed a registered mortgage-deed in the plaintiff's favour on January 28, 1926. The consideration for that mortgage consisted of two parts. The first part consisted of Rs. 1,309-12-0 which were due as principal and interest on a promissory note dated January 13, 1926, passed by Hiralal in the plaintiff's favour. The second part consisted of Rs. 2,490-4-0 which were paid in c...
Tag this Judgment!Dayalbhai Ramji Kunbi Vs. Dayabhai Dulachand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom309; (1938)40BOMLR411
Sen, J.1. This appeal arises out of an application for execution made by the appellant in the Court of the Second Class Subordinate Judge at Bulsar on April 20, 1933.2. The appellant got a deed of assignment in 1929 from a firm which had obtained a decree against respondent No. 1 in 1924. The appellant filed an application for execution on January 7, 1930, alleging that he was an assignee of the decree-holder. Notices were issued under Order XXI, Rule 16, but no process fee having been paid and no steps having been taken by the appellant to serve the notices on the judgment-debtors the darkhast was disposed of on July 15, 1930. The present application, being darkhast No. 272 of 1933, was filed on April 20, 1933. The point that arose for consideration was whether the execution application of 1930 was a step-in-aid of execution within the meaning of Article 182, Clause (5), of Schedule II, of the Indian Limitation Act. The learned Subordinate Judge held that it was a step-in-aid of execu...
Tag this Judgment!Vishwanath Ganshet Kode Vs. Raghunath Ganu Padave
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom344; (1938)40BOMLR458
Rangnekar, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit on a promissory note executed by defendant No. 2 as guardian and vahivatdar of the estate of defendant No. 1 in favour of one Bapuji Yeshwant Prabhu, dated January 30, 1928. The plaintiff is the assignee of the suit promissory note.2. The facts are that one Ganu Sakharam Kode died possessed of considerable property, both movable and immoveable, and consisting, inter alia, of a business which he was carrying on in his own name. Prior to his death he made a will by which he bequeathed all his property to the first defendant, who was his minor adopted son, and appointed the second defendant, who was the natural father of the first defendant, as guardian and vahivatdar of the estate. By the will the deceased authorized the second defendant to manage the estate and to carry on the business with the advice of one Tanavade, whom, the will stated, the deceased was going to appoint, along with two other persons, as ' trustees.' It has been found ...
Tag this Judgment!Chunilal Deepchand Gujarathi Vs. Bibubai Gulam Husen
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom386; (1938)40BOMLR517
Divatia, J.1. This appeal arises under the Provincial Insolvency Act and raises a question of priority between two judgment-creditors of the same insolvents. Two brothers, Chintaman and Ganesh, mortgaged their house to one Mahadev for Rs. 4,000 on April 25, 1923. Mahadev assigned his mortgage rights to one Panse on July 24, 1924, and a further charge on the same house was created by the two brothers in favour of Panse for Rs. 4,000 on November 15, 1926. The appellant-creditor got a decree for Rs. 1,550 with costs in a suit against the insolvents on April 9, 1927, creating a charge in his favour on the same house, subject to the previous mortgages. On January 10, 1928, the respondent paid Rs, 7,700 to Panse in full satisfaction of his mortgages. This payment is found to have been made on behalf of the mortgagors. Some days later, i.e., on January 29, 1928, the mortgagors mortgaged the said house to the respondent for Rs. 10,000, and a part of the consideration was stated to be Rs. 7,700...
Tag this Judgment!Ratansey Damji Vs. Ratansey Virji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-1937
Reported in: (1939)41BOMLR524
Engineer, J.1. This is a notice of motion asking the Court to give its opinion on the points referred to in the special report made by the learned Commissioner on August 28, 1937.2. In connection with the appointment of trustees of a charity for the benefit of a caste an order was made on February 25, 1937, that a meeting of the Jain Cutchi Dassa Oswal Mahajan be held for the appointment of three additional trustees. The learned Commissioner was to prepare a list of voters who were entitled to vote, and a meeting was to be called for the purpose of electing three additional trustees. The Commissioner gave directions that nomination papers of candidates should be submitted by July 19, 1937, and he fixed July 26, 1937, for scrutinising nomination papers. The Commissioner received five nomination papers, but two out of the five candidates subsequently withdrew. Whilst scrutinising the remaining three nomination papers the Commissioner rejected the nomination paper of one Ratansey Damji Ma...
Tag this Judgment!Ratansey Damji and ors. Vs. Ratansey Virji and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-1937
Reported in: AIR1939Bom335
Engineer, J.1. This is a notice of motion asking the Court to give its opinion on the points referred to in the special report made by the learned Commissioner on 28th August 1937. In connexion with the appointment of trustees of a charity for the benefit of a caste an order was made on 25th February 1937, that a meeting of the Jain Cutchi Dassa Oswal Mahajan be held for the appointment of three additional trustees. The learned Commissioner was to prepare a list of voters who were entitled to vote, and a meeting was to be called for the purpose of electing three additional trustees. The Commissioner gave directions that nomination papers of candidates should be submitted by 19th July 1937, and he fixed 26th July 1937, for scrutinizing nomination papers. The Commissioner received five nomination papers, but two out of the five candidates subsequently withdrew. Whilst scrutinizing the remaining three nomination papers the Commissioner rejected the nomination paper of one Ratansey Damji M...
Tag this Judgment!Govind Gurunath Naik Vs. Deekappa Mallappa Hubball
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom388; (1938)40BOMLR539
Rangnekar, J.1. This is a curious case in which a mortgage of what is alleged to be a joint family property effected by a Hindu father having a manor son is challenged as to part of the consideration for it by the second mortgagee of the father on the ground that there was no legal necessity so as to justify the prior mortgage. The suit was brought by the first mortgagee under a mortgage effected by one Kenchangouda on April 20, 1921, the consideration being Rs. 9,000. That consideration was made up of the balance of Rs. 3,500 then found due at the foot of a previous account in respect of money dealings existing between Kenchangouda and the plaintiff-mortgagee and a fresh advance of Rs. 5,500 in cash. The suit was directed against the son of Kenchangouda and the latter's widow (defendants Nos. 1 and 2) as heirs and legal representatives of Kenchangouda, and the present appellant (defendant No. 3) who claimed to hold a second mortgage from the father under a document dated April 17, 192...
Tag this Judgment!P.D. Shamdasani Vs. the Central Bank of India Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom199; (1938)40BOMLR238
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal against an order made by Mr. Justice Kania on March 9, 1937, refusing to restore the applicant's chamber summons to the list. The facts leading up to the application are that on December 23, 1936, the applicant took out a chamber summons to set aside an allocator issued by the Taxing Master, and that summons was duly adjourned into Court, It appeared on the daily list for hearing on February 4, 5, 8, 9 and 10. It was not reached on any of those days. The applicant says that he attended Court on those five days until the Board was discharged about 4 o'clock in the afternoon. On February 11, the summons was again in the list, and there were some ten matters in front of it; three were ex parte summary suits, three contested, and one ex parte motion, and three other matters, and the applicant being a layman, might not unreasonably have supposed that those matters would take some time, and that his case was no more likely to be reached promptly o...
Tag this Judgment!The Commisioner of Income-tax Vs. the Mazagaon Dock Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-1937
Reported in: (1938)40BOMLR343
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference made by the Income-tax Commissioner under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act raising the question, whether, in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Officer has correctly computed the depreciation allowance under Section 10(2) (vi) of the Act on the original cost to the assessee company itself, notwithstanding the fact that it was being assessed under Section 26 [2) of the Act as the successor to the partnership firm known as the Mazagaon Dock.2. The facts giving rise to the reference admit of no doubt. The year of assessment is the year 1935-36, soi that the previous year expired on March 31, 1935. On April 1, 1935, the assessees, the Mazagaon Dock, Ltd., acquired from a firm known as the Mazagaon Dock the assets of that firm, The assessees made a return of their income for the year ending March 31, 1935, based on the profit and loss account for that year of the vendor firm, the assessees themselves having no income for th...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Vs. the Mazagaon Dock Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-1937
Reported in: [1938]6ITR124(Bom)
BEAUMONT, C.J. - This is a Reference made but he Income-tax Commissioner under Sec. 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act raising the question, whether in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Officer has correctly computed the depreciation allowance under Sec. 10(2) (vi) of the Act on the original cost to the assessee Company itself, notwithstanding the fact that it was being assessed under Sec. 26(2) of the Act as the successor to the partnership firm known as the Mazagaon Dock.The facts giving rise to the Reference admit of no doubt. The year of assessment is the year 1935-36, so that the previous year expired not he 31st March, 1935. On the 1st April 1835, the assessee, the Mazagaon Dock Ltd., acquired from a firm known as the Mazagaon Dock the assets of that firm. The assessee made a return of their income for the year ending 31st March 1935, based not the profit and loss account for that year of the vendor firm, the assessee themselves having no income for the year ending 31...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »