Mumbai Court November 1937 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.
The Government Pleader, High Court Vs. Tulsidas Subhanrao Jadhav
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom197; (1938)40BOMLR75
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application by the Government Pleader asking that a rule may be issued against the respondent, Tulsidas Subhanrao Jadhav, to show cause why he should not be committed for contempt of Court in respect of a speech which he made at Sholapur on June 26, 1937. The speech followed closely upon the disturbances of June 23 at Sholapur, which were the subject-matter of the last application with which we dealt. But the charge against the respondent here is under a different heading of contempt of Court to that in the last case. It was laid down by Lord Russell of Killowen C.J. in Reg v. Gray[1900] 2 Q.B. 36, that any act done or writing published which is calculated to bring a Court or a Judge into contempt, or to lower his authority is contempt of Court. It is a class of contempt usually referred to as ' scandalising the Court,' and the principle on which the Court proceeds in taking notice of that class of contempt is based on the interest of the public an...
The Secretary of State for India Vs. Sunderji Shivji and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-16-1937
Reported in: (1938)40BOMLR285
Lancelot Sanderson, J.1. These are two consolidated appeals against the decrees of the High Court of Judicature of Patna dated July 4, 1934. The first appeal relates to a suit brought in the Subordinate Court of Dhanbad exercising Small Cause Court jurisdiction in which Sunderji Shivji & Co. sued the Secretary of State for India in Council representing the East Indian Railway and the North Western Railway for damages: for the conversion of certain coal, of which the plaintiffs claimed to be the proprietors. The other appeal relates to a suit brought by Deoji Shivji & Co. against the Secretary of State representing the East Indian Railway and the Bengal and North Western Railway Company in the above-mentioned Court in which a claim of a similar nature was made in respect of certain coal which the plaintiffs alleged had been sold by the railway administration in a manner which was illegal, irregular and ultra vires.2. The Small Cause Court Judge dismissed both suits with costs.3. The pla...
Emperor Vs. Dhirajlal Dalsukhram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-10-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom186; (1938)40BOMLR67
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application in revision made by the applicant against his conviction by the Stipendiary Magistrate, First Class, Ahmedabad, under Section 137 (b) of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925, the conviction having been upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge.2. The case involves the consideration of Sections 123 and 137 of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925. Section 123 comes within Chapter IX under the sub-heading ' Powers to regulate buildings, etc' which is placed immediately in front of Section 119, and Sub-section (1) of Section 123 provides that before beginning to construct or alter any building the person intending so to construct or alter shall give to the Chief Officer notice thereof in writing and shall furnish to him at the same time, if required by a by-law or by special order to do so, a plan showing the matter specified in the section and all information required by the by-laws or demanded by the Chief Officer regarding, amongst o...
Shripad Ramchandra Bhide Vs. Tuljaramrao Narayanrao Nimbalkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-10-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom372; (1938)40BOMLR461
Rangnekar, J.1. The questions which arise in the appeal are, first, whether the village of Nagaral is a watan village of which the defendant is a watandar and whether as such watandar he is a grantee of the soil of the village. The second question is, whether the paintiffs have acquired any occupancy rights under Section 217 of the Land Revenue Code by reason of the introduction of the survey settlement in 1898 into the village. It is clear from the evidence that several villages including the village of Nagaral were granted in inam to the defendant's family long before the beginning of the Peshwa rule ; and it is equally clear from the evidence that in the village of Nagaral itself there were twenty-one lands known as chavarat which had been granted as a watan to the family of the defendant even before the grant of the village itself.2. The question then is whether the learned Judge was right in holding that the defendant had; established that he was the watandar of the village and th...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Naval Kishore Kharaiti Lal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-1937
Reported in: (1938)40BOMLR280
George Rankin, J.1. This appeal is brought from a decision of the High Court at Lahore by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Punjab, North-West Frontier and Delhi Provinces. On June 8, 1931, the Income-tax Officer at Delhi made an order under Section 23, Sub-section (3), read with Section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, whereby for the year of assessment 1926-27 he assessed the respondent firm upon a ' total income' of Rs. 72,928, and determined that the tax payable thereon was Rs. 6,837. This assessment order was made upon the respondent firm, whose name and style is Nawal Kishore-Kharaiti Lal and who carry on business as jewellers at Delhi, but it was made upon them as agent for a Hindu undivided family resident in the State of Jaipur outside British India. One, Seth Banji Lal, had been head of this family but had died in December, 1928.2. The validity of this assessment order is in substance the matter in dispute between the parties, but the case comes before their Lordships as ...
Dahyabhai Lallubhai Shah Vs. Chamanlal Mahasukhram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-08-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom341; (1938)40BOMLR418
Broomfield, J.1. The plaintiff appellant sued for a declaration that a will dated February 3, 1930, made by. his brother Sankalchand, who died on December 6, 1931, is inoperative and null and void. Alternatively he prayed for a declaration that the bequest of a certain house, in which Sankalchand was living, to one Bhikabhai, nephew of the testator, is null and void.2. The grounds for contending that the will is inoperative are that the testator and plaintiff were members of a joint Hindu family and that certain bequests for good works and dharmada are void for uncertainty. The first ground would of course affect the validity of the will as a whole. The second would merely affect the specific bequests challenged by the plaintiff. The ground on which the bequest of the house to Bhikabhai is challenged is that Bhikabhai died in 1929 before the will was made. By an amendment of the plaint plaintiff prayed for possession of this house and paid the necessary Court fees. But no relief other ...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. the Sarangpur Cotton Manufacturing ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-05-1937
Reported in: (1938)40BOMLR257
Thankerton, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated March 28, 1935, upon a question of law referred to the High Court by the present appellant under Section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.2. The question arises out of the assessment of the respondents to income-tax for the financial year ending March 31, 1932, and concerns the computation of the profits or gains of their business for the year of account ending on December 31, 1930, under Section 10 of the Act.3. The respondents are a limited liability company doing business atAhmedabad as manufacturers of cloth and yarn. For the purpose of their assessment for the year ending March 31, 1932, they made a return under Section 22(i) of the Act on July 18, 1931, to the Income-tax Officer, which consisted of (a) a copy of the audited balance sheet and profit and loss account of the company for the accounting year ending on December 31, 1930, which showed the profit for the year as Rs. 2,...
Raja Ram Vs. Raja Bakhsh Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-02-1937
Reported in: (1938)40BOMLR277
George Rankin, J.1. On November 15, 1920, two persons named Badri Singh and Chandika Singh, members of a joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara executed a mortgage deed in favour of the appellant Raja Ram. Badri Singh having died, the appellant on August 25, 1930, brought a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Hardoi to enforce the mortgage. He impleaded seventeen defendants. In addition to Chandika Singh ( defendant No. 3) and other persons, he sued Badri Singh's two sons, Gaya Singh and Randhir Singh (defendants Nos. 1 and 2), and their five sons (grandsons of Badri Singh) (defendants Nos. 8 to 12), who are now the five respondents to this appeal.2. The relationship of the defendants to the suit may be exhibited as follows :-Manna Singh.|-------------------------------------| |Mitan Singh Badri Singh| |------------ -------------| | | |Chandika Jang Bahadur Gaya Singh Randhir SinghSingh Singh(Defendant (Defendant (DefendantNo. 3). No. 1). No. 2).| | |Defendants Defenda...
Emperor Vs. Bhatu Sadu Mali
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-01-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom225; (1938)40BOMLR297
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. The facts giving rise to this reference to a full bench are these. In a civil suit the plaintiff obtained a decree against the defendant in 1933, and in 1936 there were darkhast proceedings to execute the decree. In those proceedings the defendant produced a receipt showing a larger amount as having been paid than was in fact paid. It is not disputed that the receipt was a forged document. The learned Subordinate Judge who tried the suit recorded a rinding under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code that it was in the interest of justice that the matter should be enquired into, and accordingly lodged a complaint for forgery against the defendant. The defendant preferred an appeal against the direction for lodging a complaint to the District and Sessions Court, and the District and Sessions Judge referred the case to the Assistant Judge. The Assistant Judge made an order directing that the complaint should not be proceeded with on the somewhat singular gr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›