Mumbai Court April 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.
Shamrao Ambaji Nadgouda Vs. Holya Subhanna Samagar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-08-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Bom494; (1937)39BOMLR920
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of remand made by the District Judge of Belgaum. The facts are that in 1923 one Ambaji was the owner of the property in suit, which is watan property, and in that year he mortgaged it for ten years to the plaintiffs or their predecessors. Ambaji died in 1930, and in 1931 his widow adopted the defendant. After his adoption the defendant claimed from the revenue authorities restoration of the watan property, and the Assistant Collector made an order for such restoration. Before the Assistant Collector the plaintiffs relied on their mortgage of 1923, but they also claimed that they were permanent tenants under Section 83 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code as having been in possession from time immemorial. The actual order that the Assistant Collector made was this. He said :-I find that the lands were alienated in 1922 by applicant's father to the father of opponent No. 1. Applicant's father is dead and the land being watan land and ...
iswari Bhubaneshwari Thakurani Vs. Brojo Nath Dey
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-08-1937
Reported in: (1937)39BOMLR933
Macmillan, J.1. On May 5, 1888, Rakhal Chandra Dey, since deceased, and his brother, Brojo Nath Dey, the first respondent, executed a deed of dedication of certain properties in the environs of Calcutta in favour of a female domestic Hindu deity, who, by her shebait Mohini Dey, is the present appellant. On April 5, 1896, the same two brothers as individuals by deed of sale sold and conveyed to themselves as shebaits of the deity certain land in the district of Hooghly. The main question in the appeal relates to the efficacy of the deed of dedication of 1888.2. Before proceeding to deal with this question it is desirable to narrate certain events which intervened between the granting of the deed in 1888 and the raising of the present action. Rakhal Chandra Dey, one of the grantors of the deed, died in 1901, leaving two sons, Pulin and his half-brother Satya, the latter then an infant. In 1904, in a suit brought by Satya, by his mother as his next friend, against his uncle Brojo Nath Dey...
The Indian Radio and Cable Communications Company Limited Vs. the Comm ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-08-1937
Reported in: (1937)39BOMLR1025
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a case stated by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, which raises a question,Wheither the half share of the net profits payable by the assessee company under Clause (5) of the agreement dated February 19, 1932, viz., Rs. 3,35,861, is a proper deduction to be allowed for the purposes of arriving at the amount on which this company should be assessed for the purposes of income-tax and super-tax, within the meaning of Section 10(2)(ix)?2. The sum in question is payable under the agreement referred to by the Commissioner and it is expressed to be a payment of half share of the net profits. The agreement is rather a long and complicated one made between the Imperial and International Communications Ltd., which is an English company, and the assessee company. The arrangement is that the assessee company is to take over, putting it shortly, the Indian business of the English company, and to take over all pla...
The Indian Radio and Cable Communications Company, Ltd. Vs. the Commis ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-08-1937
Reported in: [1937]5ITR270(Bom)
LORD MAUGHAM. - This is an appeal from a judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, dated March 28, 1935, whereby the High Court, upon the hearing of a case referred to it by the respondent under the provisions of S. 66(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 (XI of 1922) (referred to below as 'the Act'), answered the question of law raised thereby adversely to the contention of the appellant company.The question of law referred to the High Court arose in the course of the assessment of the income of the appellant company chargeable with income-tax and super tax for the year of assessment ending on March 31, 1934, and was a follows :'Whether the half share of the net profits, payable by the Assessee company' (meaning the appellant company 'under cl. 5 of the Agreement, dated the day of February 19, 1932, viz., Rs. 3,35,861, is a proper deduction to be allowed for the purposes of arriving at the amount on which this company should be assessed for the purposes of income-...
Karimunnisa Begum Vs. Kaji Mir JamaluddIn Valade Mir Masum Alikhan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Bom457; (1937)39BOMLR915
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. In this case a consent order was made, and it is alleged that that order contains a clerical or arithmetical mistake, and an application was made to the learned Judge under Section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code asking him to correct the mistake. The learned Judge refused to entertain the application on the ground that Section 152 does not apply to a consent order. I have been referred to no authority, and I know of none, in this country or in England, which deals with this particular point, and I must decide it on principle. A consent order is a form of contract; a mistake in a contract common to both parties,-and a clerical or mathematical error can hardly fail to be that-can be rectified by an order of the Court; the method of obtaining such an order is a matter of procedure; normally a suit is necessary, but when the contract is embodied in an order, I see no reason why the parties should not avail themselves of the simple method of correcting such mista...
Guljarkhan Abdul Gafurkhan Sarguro Vs. Husenkhan Vaidkhan Sarguro
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Bom476; (1937)39BOMLR917
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application in revision against an order made in appeal by the First Class Subordinate Judge of Ratnagiri. The position is that the present applicant obtained a money decree against opponents Nos. 2 and 3, which he applied to execute, and opponent No. 1 intervened on the ground that the property had been sold to. him by opponents Nos. 2 and 3. That intervention succeeded, and thereupon the applicant filed a suit for a declaration that the sale-deed on which the opponents based their claim is void, and that the property is liable to be sold. That application was made under Order XXI, Rule 63. The trial Judge decreed the plaintiff's suit, but on appeal the appellate Court raised an issue, Is this suit under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act? and held that it was, and that therefore the suit was not maintainable. The Judge, therefore, allowed the appeal without going into the merits. Now, in the first place, the point that this is a suit unde...
Emperor Vs. Desaibhai Khushalbhai Patel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-1937
Reported in: (1937)39BOMLR1056
Broomfield, J.1. [His Lordship, after setting out the facts, proceeded:] The first point taken in the appeal is that the provisions of Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code have not been complied with. It is contended that the sanction is not in the proper form and does not specify with sufficient clearness the offences for which prosecution of the appellant was permitted. The learned Counsel for the appellant has relied on Queen-Empress v. Samavier I.L.R. (1893) Mad. 468. It was held in that case that an order by the Board of Revenue, Madras, sanctioning the prosecution of a Deputy Tahsildar by the Collector of the District for 'bribery or such of the charges set forth in the Deputy Collector's report as he thinks likely to stand investigation by a criminal Court' is not a legal sanction within the meaning of the Criminal Procedure Code. But, as has been pointed out in Emperor v. Madhav Laxman I.L.R. (1918) Bom. 147 : 20 Bom. L.R. 607 what happened in the Madras case was that Gov...
Desaibhai Khushalbhai Patel Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom50; 172Ind.Cas.873
Broomfield, J.1. His Lordship, after setting out the facts, as above continued). The first point taken in the appeal is that the provisions of Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code, have not been complied with. It is contended that the sanction is not in the proper form and does not specify with sufficient clearness the offences for which prosecution of the appellant was permitted. The learned Counsel for the appellant has relied on Queen-Empress v. Samavier 16 M 468 : 3 MIJ 227 : 2 Weir 220. It was held in that case that an order by the Board of Revenue, Madras, sanctioning the prosecution of a Deputy Tahsildar by the Collector of the District for 'bribery or such of the charges set forth in the Deputy Collector's report as he thinks likely to stand investigation by a Criminal Court' is not a legal sanction within the meaning of the Criminal Procedure Code. But, as has been pointed out in Emperor v. Madhav Laxman : AIR1918Bom117 , what happened in the Madras case was that Government ha...
Sir J.N. Duggan, Kt. Vs. K.M. Talyarkhan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-06-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom77; (1937)39BOMLR1166; 173Ind.Cas.714
Kania, J.1. This is a vendor-and-purchaser summons taken out by the plaintiff (purchaser) to determine the following questions :-1. Whether the defendant has made out a marketable title?2. Whether the plaintiff is bound to accept the defendant's title?3. Whether the defendant is entitled to specific performance of the contract in Suit?4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to return of the earnest money with interest and costs on the footing that the defendant had failed to make out a marketable title?5. About the costs of the suit.2. The contract between the parties is contained in two letters dated September 1 and 3, 1936. The property admeasures about 14,708 square yards and consists of stables at Moreland Road. The material terms are, that the price is to be Rs. 2,30,000 and the title is to be marketable. The plaintiff paid Rs. 25,000 as earnest money on September 4, 1936.3. When the title-deeds were submitted to the plaintiff's attorneys for investigation, on the face of the deeds t...
Mallappa Yellappa Bennur Vs. Raghavendra Shamrao Deshpande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom173; (1938)40BOMLR77
Rangnekar, J.1. This case illustrates some of the difficulties which a judgment-creditor in this country meets with in realizing the fruits of his decree, and it raises a point of some importance relating to the effect to be given to a foreign judgment under Section 13 of the Civil Procedure Code. First as to the facts : The Native State of Savanur lies in the district of Dharwar and the Collector of the district is generally the Political Agent there. It is common ground that the State has an independent civil and criminal jurisdiction. Any decree made by a Court in the State has the effect of a foreign judgment in British India. The appellant as manager of a joint and undivided Hindu family advanced certain moneys to the respondent who admittedly was a watandar and a mankari holding watan property within the jurisdiction of the Savanur State. In June, 1920, an account of the monetary dealings was made up, and a sum of Rs. 15,000 odd was found due by the respondent to the appellant in...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »