Mumbai Court April 1937 Judgments
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A.P. Swamy Gomedalli
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-30-1937
Reported in: (1937)39BOMLR1010
Macmillan, J.1. Since the order pronounced by the High Court in the present case on March 28, 1935, this Board has had occasion to consider the interpretation of the words 'Hindu undivided family' as employed in Section 55 of the Indian Income-tax Act, in the case of Kalyanji Vithaldas v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bengal in which the judgment of their Lordships was delivered on November 30, 1936. In that case the meaning of those words in the section in question, where they are used in connection with liability to super-tax, was very fully examined in the judgment which Sir George Rankin prepared on behalf of the Board, and a conclusion was reached contrary to the view which the High Court has adopted in the present case. Mr. deGruyther has sought to show that the principle of that decision does not apply to the facts of the case now before the Board. Their Lordships have listened attentively to Mr. deGruyther's observations; but they are not satisfied that the facts of the present c...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnaji Vishnu Murale Vs. Vishnu Pandharinath Barsode
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-23-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom90; (1937)39BOMLR1212; 173Ind.Cas.561
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a revision application under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, which raises a short point as to the right of the applicants to rateable distribution under Section 73 of the Code. The facts are that the applicants obtained a money-decree against the defendant, and in their suit it was admitted that the defendant was an agriculturist, and it is further admitted that the decree shows on the face of it that the defendant is an agriculturist. That being so, by virtue of Section 22 of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act the decree could not be enforced by attachment and sale of the immoveable property of the debtor. The opponent obtained a decree in another suit against the same debtor, and in that suit it was held that the debtor was not an agriculturist. Therefore the decree in that suit can be executed by sale of the immoveable property of the debtor. The opponent then applied to execute his decree by sale of the immoveable property, and thereu...
Tag this Judgment!Rokkam Lakshmi Reddi Vs. Rokkam Venkata Reddi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-22-1937
Reported in: (1937)39BOMLR1005
George Rankin, J.1. On this appeal the question for decision is whether the plaintiffs have shown that they are the nearest reversioners of one Rokkam Nagi Reddi, a Hindu governed by the Mitakshara. The year of his death is not precisely ascertained but that he died 'about 1898' or 'about 1900' is not in dispute. The succession to his estate opened on the death of his widow Chinnamma in 1925. The word 'Rokkam' is a 'house name' or 'family name' but witnesses on both sides agree that there are in the same village several families using this 'house name' who are not related to one another. The addition of the word 'Reddi'-used in certain families, including the family now in question, as a name-does not make it distinctive of any single family. The caste of Rokkam Nagi Reddi was kapu (agriculturist).2. The appellants (defendants Nos. 2 and 3) not only deny the alleged relationship between Nagi Reddi and the plaintiffs : they claim to be themselves his nearest reversioners. The trial Judg...
Tag this Judgment!Maneklal Manilal Gujar Vs. Keshav Kishan Bari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-1937
Reported in: (1937)39BOMLR1094; 173Ind.Cas.790
Rangnekar, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Joint First Class Subordinate Judge, Poona, whereby the learned Judge accepted the respondent's claim for possession of a house No. 179 situate in Poona and passed a decree for possession in his favour against the appellant. The facts-material to the questions which arise in this appeal may be shortly stated as follows :-2. One Pandurang Ramji Bari died on September 8, 1913, possessed of considerable movable and immovable property. Prior to his death he made a will, by which he appointed his widow Venubai and a son of his brother in his genitive family by name Kisan as his executrix and executor. Venubai and Kisan obtained probate of the will and carried on the administration of the testator's estate jointly until August 21, 1917, when Kisah died. It is common ground that thereafter Venubai as the sole surviving executrix continued to administer her Husband's property until her death. In 1920, Venubai executed a deed of mortgage ...
Tag this Judgment!H. Vs. H.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-1937
Reported in: (1937)39BOMLR1182
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a husband's petition for divorce, and Mr. O'Gorman has drawn my attention to a question as to jurisdiction arising from a decision of the Judicial Commissioner of Sind in Bernard Louis William Hall v. Constance Thurzia Hall A.I.R. [1933] Sind 70 in which the learned Judicial Commissioner expressed the view not only that he had no jurisdiction to divorce persons domiciled in England who last resided together in Skid, but that no other Court in India had such jurisdiction. If that view is right, it discloses a serious omission in the Indian and Colonial Divorce Jurisdiction Act, 1926, but I think the view cannot be supported. Under Section 1 of the Indian and Colonial Divorce Jurisdiction Act, 1926, a High Court in India to which Part IX of the Government of India Act applies (and that would include this High Court) shall have jurisdiction to make a decree for the dissolution of a marriage, and give incidental relief, where the parties to the marriage a...
Tag this Judgment!Mahabaleshwar Venkatraman Hedge Makki Vs. Krishna Ganapati Hegde
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-15-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Bom453; (1937)39BOMLR928
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a second appeal from a decision of the District Judge of Karwar. I am told there is no authority on the point raised, but it seems to me a point which presents no difficulty at all, and depends upon appreciation of the rights of a widow under Hindu law. The suit is a suit to redeem a mortgage made in 1901. The equity of redemption in that mortgage became vested in Subraya, who died in 1905, leaving a widow Bommi, who became entitled to a widow's estate in her husband's property. That gave her the right during her life-time to receive the income of the property, or to deal with it as she chose, whether by sale or gift. In 1907, Bommi sold her rights in her husband's property, which included the equity of redemption in the mortgaged property, to one Subba, and in 1910 Subba sold the equity to the son of the mortgagee. I understand that the mortgagee was then dead, and that in fact the mortgagee's son became entitled to the whole of the mortgaged propert...
Tag this Judgment!The Jupiter General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Ardeshir Bomanji Shr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-15-1937
Reported in: (1937)39BOMLR997
Maugham, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in its appellate Jurisdiction, dated March 19, 1935. The judgment allowed in part the respondent's appeal from the decree of Mr. Justice Davar, dated August 23, 1934, and awarded him the sum of Rs. 17,000 as damages for wrongful dismissal from the service of the appellant company.2. Various questions were argued in the Courts below; but the only question with which their Lordships find it necessary to deal is whether, assuming that upon the true construction of the contract of service between the parties, the respondent's employment was not terminable on one month's notice, the appellants were entitled summarily to dismiss the respondent from their service. In the view their Lordships take of the appeal it is unnecessary to express an opinion upon the true construction of the contract of service, or on the question as to the proper measure of damages if any were recoverable.3. The appel...
Tag this Judgment!Auraj Joharmal Marwadi Vs. Dalpat Supadu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Bom464; (1937)39BOMLR925
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a second appeal from a decision of the District Judge of East Khandesh, and it raises a short point which is by no means free from difficulty. The plaintiff in the suit is suing to set aside a decree passed in 1927 against him on certain money bonds which had been passed by his mother. In that suit the mother was the guardian ad litem of the plaintiff in the present suit, who was a minor. She entered an appearance and engaged a pleader, but at the hearing of the suit the pleader put in a purshis that he had got no instructions, and, therefore, retired from the suit, and a decree was then passed against the property coming to the hands of the minor. That decree has not been challenged in review nor has an attempt been made to set it aside under Order IX, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, In 1929, the minor by his next friend started this suit for a declaration that the decree made in 1927 was not binding on him on the ground that the guardian ad lit...
Tag this Judgment!Sadashiv Vaman Patil Vs. Reshma Vaman Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom1; (1937)39BOMLR1115
Divatia, J.1. These two appeals arise out of two cross suits and there is a common question to be decided in both. The appellant claims as the adopted son of one Waman by his senior widow Bhagirathi. The claim is made against the junior widow Reshma and her daughter. The appellant's claim is resisted by the junior widow on the ground that the senior widow had passed a deed of relinquishment or release called bedavapatra on December 23, 1929, in her favour by which it was agreed that the senior widow should relinquish all her right, title and interest in half of the estate left by her husband including her right of heirship and maintenance and her right to adopt according to Hindu law in lieu of a payment of Rs. 3,000 and odd. It was stated in the deed: 'My right as senior widow as regards adoption has also been given to you by me by virtue of this deed. You may, if you like, take a boy in adoption; or you may not adopt if you like. I have no objection to that.' The deed was acted upon ...
Tag this Judgment!Sadashiv Waman Patil Vs. Reshma Waman Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-1937
Reported in: 173Ind.Cas.509
Divatia, J.1. These two appeals arise out of two cross suits and there is a common question to be decided in both. The appellant claims as the adopted son of one Waman by his senior widow Bhagirathi. The claim is made against the junior widow Reshma and her daughter. The appellant's claim is resisted by the junior widow on the ground that the senior widow had passed a deed of relinquishment or release called bedavapatra on December 23, 1929, in her favour by which it was agreed that the senior widow should relinquish all her right, title and interest in half of the estate left by her husband including her right of heirship and maintenance and her right to adopt according to Hindu Law in lieu of a payment of Rs. 3,000 odd. It was stated in the deed:My right as senior widow as regards adoption has also been given to you by me by virtue of this deed. You may, if you like, take a boy in adoption; or you may not adopt if you like. I have no objection to that.2. The deed was acted upon and t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »