Mumbai Court February 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.
Chhotalal Mansukhlal Vs. Someshwar Jivram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom10; (1937)39BOMLR820
Tyabji, J.1. This appeal arises out of the taxation of a bill of costs, claimed by an advocate practising in the mufassal in respect of legal services rendered in connection with a petition for the compulsory winding up of a registered company, presented under Section 162 of the Indian Companies Act. It is admitted that the advocate is entitled to recover from his own client the fees that are claimed in the bill of costs : but it is said that certain items cannot be claimed as against other parties.2. Rule 767 of the Rules of the High Court of Bombay (O.S.), 1936 edn., provides that attorneys and pleaders are entitled to charge and to be allowed the fees set forth in the second schedule to the said rules (at p. 398). The rule is, however, subject to two provisions : the said fees shall be allowed (1) so far as the same are applicable and (2) unless the Court shall otherwise specially direct. (The rule was amended by a notification in the Bombay Government Gazette, dated February 20, 19...
Chhotalal Mansukhlal Vs. Someshwar Jivram and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-1937
Reported in: 173Ind.Cas.489
Tyabji, J.1. This appeal arises out of the taxation of a bill of costs claimed by an Advocate practising in the mufatsal in respect of legal services rendered in connection with a petition for the compulsory winding up of a registered company, presented under Section 162, Companies Act. It is admitted that the Advocate is entitled to recover from his own client the fees that are claimed in the bill of costs; but it is said that certain items cannot be claimed as against other parties. Rule 767 of the Rules of the High Court of Bombay (Orginal Side), 1936 Edn, provides that attorneys and Pleaders are entitled to charge and to be allowed the fees set forth in Schedule II to the said rules (at p. 398). The rule is, however, subject to two provisions : the said fees shall be allowed (1) so far as the same are applicable, and (2) unless the Court shall otherwise specially direct. (The rule was amended by a Notification in the Bombay Government Gazette, dated February 20, 1936, but the amend...
Parvateppa Mallappa Hubli Vs. the Hubli Municipality
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Bom491; (1937)39BOMLR881
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Dharwar. The plaintiff had been prosecuted for an offence under Section 152 of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925, and was acquitted. He brought a suit for malicious prosecution against the Municipality of Hubli. The learned Judge held on a preliminary issue that the suit was time-barred.2. The learned Judge held that the section governing the case is Section 206 of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, and it seems to me clear that if that section on its wording covers a case of malicious prosecution, then that is a specific section which covers this case on the point of limitation, to the exclusion of either Article 2 or Article 23 of the schedule to the Indian Limitation Act. That seems to me to be clear from the provisions of Section 23 of the Indian Limitation Act. The real question is whether a suit for malicious prosecution, that is a suit instituted against the Municipality fo...
Karusinga Kushansing Vs. Narsinha Rangrao Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom121; (1937)39BOMLR1287
Broomfield, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Sholapur allowing the plaintiff-respondent's suit for possession of two items of property : (a) a temple and house at Pangri in the Barsi Taluka of the Sholapur District, and (b) two fields at Ratanpur in Amraoti District, Berar. The plaintiff has alleged, and it is admitted, that these properties belonged to her father Balkrishna Vyankatesh, who died without other issue in 1905. His widow Haribai, plaintiffs step-mother, died in 1927, and the plaintiff claims to have become entitled to the properties on her death. This appeal has been brought by defendant No. 9, who purchased the Ratanpur lands from defendant No. 1 pendmte lite. Defendant No. 1 is Haribai's brother's son and the Ratanpur lands are in his possession from 1908 when Haribai gave them up to him by the ordinary revenue process of rajmama and kabulayal.2. The principal defences to the suit, which arise also in this appeal, were (1) that...
Musammat Biro Vs. Atma Ram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-1937
Reported in: (1937)39BOMLR726
Shadi Lal, J.1. On September 20, 1900, one Harbans Lal, a Khatri of Ludhiana in the province of the Punjab, died leaving him surviving a widow, Musammat Bir Wanti alias Musammat Biro, and a daughter, Musammat Ishri, by a pre-deceased wife. The widow took possession of the whole of his estate, which consisted not only of moveables, but also of agricultural land and house property. In July, 1920, she made a will, by which, after declaring that she had previously gifted certain immoveable properties to her v. relative, Bhagat Ram, she gave various properties to charities. The dispute in the suit, which has led to this appeal, is confined to the gift made to Bhagat Ram, the validity of which is contested by the plaintiffs, who claim to be the collaterals of Musammat Biro's husband, Harbans Lal. They challenge her authority to make the transfer, and ask for a declaration that it should not adversely affect their right to succeed to the estate after her death.2. The trial Judge held that the...
Maharaja Sir Kesho Prasad Singh Bahadur Vs. Bahuria Musammat Bhagjogna ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-1937
Reported in: (1937)39BOMLR731
George Rankin, J.1. In this case five appeals remain to be decided, seven having been compromised. The plaintiff in suit No. 106 (appeal No. 35) was Bahuria Musammat Bhagjogna Kuer and the principal defendant was the then Maharaja of Dumraon. In the other four suits the Maharaja was plaintiff and the principal defendant was Babu Ramsarup Singh, Musammat Bhagjogna's husband. These original parties have all died and their place has been taken by representatives, but these changes in the record may be disregarded for the sake of brevity in expression. The suits arose out of proceedings taken by the tenants of certain agricultural lands near to the River Ganges and to the border line between the district of Shahabad in Bihar and Orissa and the district of Ballia in the United Provinces. By Section 149 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, a tenant, if sued for rent by a person whose title to the rent he does not admit, may pay the money into Court with a plea that the rent is due to a third person. T...
Ramprasadgiri Guru Tukangir Gosavi Vs. Krishnanandgiri Guru Purshottam ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom23; (1937)39BOMLR867; 173Ind.Cas.113
Barlee, J.1. This litigation was instituted by the present respondent No. 1, Purushottamanandgiri, against the present appellant, Ramprasadgiri, for possession of certain property claimed to be the property of an institution called the 'Dharmanath Bova Devasthan,' and for a declaration that it was not subject to any encumbrance except one created by the decree in a suit filed by the plaintiff, Purushottamanandgiri, against Amritgiri, a predecessor of Ramprasadgiri in the Mysore Court.2. A gosavi by name Ramkrishnagiri lived in Poona city. Ramkrishnagiri when very old went to Benares and shortly before his death, that is, on November 28, 1901, he made a will. It is pleaded that by this will he dedicated all his property to a charitable trust, the Dharmadaya Bova Devasthan, and gave instructions for the management of the Devasthan. The will was in favour of his chela, Amritgiri, who obtained probate and managed the property. Under the will he had to defray the expenses of the Dharmanath ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›