Mumbai Court June 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.
Rudragowda Yeshvantgowda Vs. Gangowda Basagowda Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom54; (1937)39BOMLR1124; 173Ind.Cas.553
Thakor, J.1. This is an appeal against a decree of the learned First Class Subordinate Judge of Belgaurn, dated March 9, 1933, dismissing the plaintiffs' suit No. 353 of 1931. The suit was brought by the plaintiffs to recover Rs. 14,500 with future interest at ten per cent, from the defendant alleging, in substance, that he had committed breach of a contract dated November 10, 1925, by filing a written statement in suit No. 475 of 1925, and by deposing in contravention of the terms of the agreement of the aforesaid date. The cause of action was expressly based in the plaint on the dates, when the written statement was filed in June, 1927, and when the deposition was :given sometime at the beginning of the year 1929. The reliefs claimed were recovery of Rs. 8,000 paid at the time of the agreement and Rs. 6,500 in addition, which amounts, the plaintiffs alleged, they were entitled to recover from the defendant by reason of the alleged breaches. Plaintiff No. 1 has described himself as Ru...
Kunwar Rajendar Bahadur Singh Vs. Rajeshwar Bali
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-1937
Reported in: (1937)39BOMLR1021
George Rankin, J.1. On November 3, 1930, the appellant, acting under Chapter VII of the United Provinces Land Revenue Act, 1901 (herein called 'the Act'), presented in the Court of the Assistant Commissioner of Bara Banki an application for partition to which the first respondent filed objections. The case was tried as a suit under s. Ill, Sub-section (3), of the Act arid on November 16, 1931, the Assistant Commissioner dismissed the application with costs. The appellant under Section 112 of the Act, read with Section 39 of the Oudh Courts Act, 1925, had a right of appeal from this decision either (a) to the Court of the District Judge within thirty days (Article. 152 of Schedule I to the Indian Limitation Act, 1908), or (b) to the Chief Court within ninety days (Articled 156) according as ' the value of the original suit' did not exceed Rs. 5,000 or was in excess of that amount. On December 17, 1931, he brought his appeal in the Court of the District Judge valuing the appeal at Rs. 1,...
Shri Kamala Vahuji Maharaj Vs. the Collector of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-1937
Reported in: (1937)39BOMLR1046
Macmillan, J.1. On October 26, 1926, the Collector of Bombay addressed to the appellant a notification that the Government had been pleased to sanction, under Section 8 of the Bombay City Land Revenue Act of 1876, the assessment of certain property in Bombay belonging to her described as 'Land at Bora Bazar Street, bearing N.S. [New Survey] No- 8841 and C.S. [Cadastral Survey] No. 1356.' The notification indicated the scale on which the property had been assessed, and stated that the assessment would come into force from November 1, 1926, and would be guaranteed for ninety-nine years from that date.2. Availing herself of the provisions of Section 14 of the Act of 1876, the appellant instituted a suit against the respondent, contesting the legality of the assessment. She prayed for a declaration ' that there is a right on the part of the plaintiff in limitation of the right of Government to possess and hold her said land free from assessment and that the defendant has no right to levy a...
Parmeshari DIn Vs. Ram Charan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-14-1937
Reported in: (1937)39BOMLR1019
Shadi Lal, J.1. This appeal, which has been heard ex parte, raises the question of the application of the doctrine of lis pendens to a transfer of immoveable property, upon which the appellant founds his claim. The facts bearing upon the question lie within a narrow compass. The plaintiffs, who are respondents before their Lordships, were mortgagees of the property in dispute, and commenced in 1923 an action for the foreclosure of the mortgage against the mortgagor, Nurul Hassan and one Ram Narain. They obtained, on September 30, 1924, a preliminary decree for foreclosure, which, after an unsuccessful appeal by Ram Narain to the Chief Court at Lucknow, was followed on July 28, 1928, by a final decree for foreclosure.2. The decree-holders then made an application for the recovery of the property by executing their decree, and obtained symbolical possession from the judgment-debtors. The appellant, Parmeshari Din, was, however, in actual possession of it, and he based his title to it upo...
The Commisioner of Income-tax Vs. B.J. Fletcher
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-14-1937
Reported in: (1937)39BOMLR1051
George Lowndes, J.1. The question for determination in this appeal lies in a small compass, but it involves a question of considerable nicety under the provisions of the Indian income-tax law. It is, in effect, whether a sum of money payable to the respondent on his retirement after long, service with an Indian company is taxable as part of his income of the year in which his retirement took place. The learned judges, in the Madras High Court by whom the case was heard have-not unreasonably, as their Lordships think-differed in their conclusions and in the reasoning upon which those conclusions were arrived at.2. The facts may be stated shortly. The respondent was an employee of the Buckingham and Carnatic Company Ltd., and was paid a monthly salary with a half-yearly bonus, both of which were taxed in the ordinary course, and his liability in this respect was not challenged. He retired in February, 1933, and was then entitled to receive from the company a sum of Rs. 36,794 which stood...
Kumar Krishna Prosad Lal Singha Deo Vs. the Baraboni Coal Concern Limi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-04-1937
Reported in: (1937)39BOMLR1034
George Rankin, J.1. The plaint in this case was filed on November 18, 1927, and the claim of the plaintiff is for royalties due on coal raised during that year (up to the end of Aswin : October 17) from a colliery known as Monoharbahal under the terms of a lease dated January 25, 1912. The grantor of the lease is the Raja of Panchkote (defendant No. 3); the plaintiff, who is his son, claims the royalties due thereunder by virtue of a maintenance (korposh) deed dated September 29, 1926, which vests the landlord's reversion in him; no dispute arises upon this assignment. The original lessee, one Radha Ballav Mukherjee, has not been impleaded, the defendants being the Baraboni Coal Concern Limited, defendant No. 1 (' the defendant company ') and two others (defendants Nos. 2 and 2(e)). The defendant company are sued as assignees of the term, their assignment being by deed dated February 14, 1914; and the other defendants as persons claiming to have purchased the right, title and interest ...
Pradyumna Kumar Mullick Vs. Kumar Dinendra Mullick
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-04-1937
Reported in: (1937)39BOMLR1041
Shadi Lal, J.1. On February 13, 1920, two persons, namely Kumar Dinendra Mullick and Kumar Ganendra Mullick, executed, in favour of Nandalal Roy and Pulin Krishna Roy, a mortgage of certain house property situated in the town of Calcutta, to secure the repayment of a loan of Rs. 3,00,000 with interest thereon at nine per cent, per annum. The mortgagors did not redeem the mortgage within the stipulated period of one year, with the result that on July 26, 1921, the mortgagees brought an action to recover the money due to them by a sale of the mortgaged property. They obtained on April 12, 1922, a preliminary decree for sale, which was followed by a final decree on April 16, 1923.2. In pursuance of the final decree, the mortgaged property was directed to be sold by public auction on January 5, 1924, but the sale was postponed for one year in accordance with an arrangement arrived at between the parties for the satisfaction of the claim of the decree-holders. One, Pradyumna Kumar Mullick, ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›