Mumbai Court September 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.
Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Bhagwandas Goverdhandas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-15-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom168; (1938)40BOMLR19
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a suit by the Secretary of State for India in Council asking for specific performance of an agreement to grant a lease to the defendant.2. The defence is that the contract relied on by the plaintiff was not made in accordance with Section 30 of the Government of India Act, 1915.3. I will refer first of all to the terms of that section before considering whether thecontract relied on complies with the provisions of the section. We have to deal in this case with a contract and not with an assurance, and Section 30, so far as it is material for the present purpose, provides :-.any local Government may, on behalf and in the name of the Secretary of State in Council,... sell and dispose of any real or personal estate whatsoever in British India, within the limits of their respective Governments, for the time being vested in His Majesty for the purposes of the Government of India, or raise money on any such real or personal estate by way of mortgage,... and...
The Surat Borough Municipality Vs. HamiduddIn NasiruddIn Sayed
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom301; (1938)40BOMLR387
Norman, J.1. This is an application to revise an order made by the Sessions Judge of Surat, under Section 111 of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925, revising a decision of the Magistrate made under Section 110 of the Act.2. A preliminary objection is taken that no such application lies. The dispute relates to the assessment of land and houses belonging to the opponents. Under Section 104 of the Act a demand is made. On this an appeal lies and was made to the Standing Committee, and a further appeal lies to a Magistrate under Section 110. Then the Magistrate's decision is, under Section 111, subject to revision by the Court to which an appeal would lie against the Magistrate's decision : in this case, as the Magistrate was a first class Magistrate, to the Court of Session.3. Previous attempts have been made to bring such matters before this Court on its criminal side. The first is reported in In re Dalsukkram : (1907)9BOMLR1347 at which date there was nothing analogous to the prese...
Jesinglal Kalidas Shah Vs. Gangadhar Mahadeo Karandikar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom354; (1938)40BOMLR507
Engineer, J.1. This is an application for a final decree for sale in a mortgage suit.2. A preliminary decree for sale was passed on July 23, 1930, and a period of six months was given for payment of the mortgage amount. The date fixed for redemption was January 23, 1931, and on that date the right of the plaintiff to apply for a final decree for sale accrued. This notice of motion was taken out on August 23, 1937. The application is opposed by defendant No. 6 who stands in the shoes of the mortgagor, and he contends that the application is barred by the law of limitation. According to him Article 181 of the Indian Limitation Act applies to applications of this kind, and the period fixed by the article is three years.3. The plaintiff contends in the first place that there is no limitation applicable to applications of this kind. It is contended that just as in partition and partnership suits final decrees can be made at any time without any bar of limitation, so too in mortgage suits no...
Koynabai Vs. the Bombay Municipal Corporation
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom155; (1938)40BOMLR12; 173Ind.Cas.673
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. The facts found are that the Bombay Municipality, who were the employers, are in charge of the water supply for Bombay, and in order to test the efficiency of the system it becomes necessary for them at times to ascertain the degree of pressure in the water mains. On the occasion in question when the accident occurred they were testing the pressure in the 24' water main on Gibbs Road. In order to test the pressure they had to fix to the stand pipe a recording instrument and to keep that instrument working for twenty-four consecutive hours. They started the test at 8 a.m. on April 16, and as the test had to be continued throughout the might they placed two coolies on guard to watch the instrument during the night. The coolies in question were employed in the Water Department of the Bombay Municipality. During the night an accident occurred and one of the coolies, whose representative is the cl...
Veerappa Channappa Gondi Vs. Iratappa Malagi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom209; (1938)40BOMLR152
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application in revision against the judgment of the District Judge of Dharwar. The applicant is a judgment-debtor, and on March 11, 1936, his property was sold tinder the decree. On April 15, he applied to the Court under Order XXI, Rule 89, to set aside the sale. An application of that nature is to be made within thirty days of the sale under Article 166 of the Indian Limitation Act, and therefore, prima facie, the application was out of time. But Section 4 of the Indian Limitation Act provides that ' where the period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application expires cn a day when the Court is closed, the suit, appeal or application- may be instituted, preferred or made on the day that the Court re-opens.' It is not disputed here that the Court was closed from April 9 to 14 inclusive, and therefore the application made on April 15 would seem to be in time under Section 4. The learned Judge, however, has held that the application...
The Central Bank of India Limited Vs. P.D. Shamdasani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom33; (1937)39BOMLR1187
Broomfield, J.1. This is an application for revision of an order of the Presidency Magistrate, Sixth Court, rejecting an application made by the petitioner on October 2, 1936, for permission to inspect certain documents which have been produced in Court. The petitioner is prosecuting the auditors of the Central Bank of India for offences under Sections 191, 193, 197 and 199 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of alleged false statements contained in the balance-sheet of the Bank for the year 1925 certified by them as being correct.2. By an application of December 5, 1935, the complainant asked for a witness summons to be issued against the Managing Director of the Bank for the production of various documents and books specified in a list attached to the application. The application purported to be made under Section 94 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Magistrate made an ex parte order for compliance, and he explains in the order under revision that he did this because he thought it ...
Vithabai Dattu Patar Vs. Malhar Shankar Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-07-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom228; (1938)40BOMLR147
Barlee, J.1. The property in dispute in this case belonged to two brothers Ramchandra and Laxman, and it is not now disputed that they were joint. Ramchandra died first leaving a widow Bhagubai. Laxman died in 1902 leaving a widow Kalava, who succeeded to a widow's estate. She died in 1909, and after her came Bhagubai as the widow of gotraja sapinda. Bhagubai had a step-daughter Vithabai, and in the year 1918 she transferred the whole of her interest in the estate in suit to Vithabai, and shortly afterwards it is common ground that she obtained from Vithabai some document (not on record) which secured her a pension ofRs. 100 a year Bhagubai's interest was a life interest, and it is the case of the plaintiff that she died by drowning in the year 1921-19221 and that defendant No. 12 Shankar became entitled to the estate as the nearest heir of Laxman.2. There was some litigation in connection with a mortgage in 1925. The land mortgaged is not now in dispute. The contest was between one Ha...
John Andrew Lammas Dore Vs. Karachivalla and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom364; (1938)40BOMLR473
B.J. Wadia, J.1. Plaintiffs carry on business in England inter alia in the manufacture of shoes under the name and style of Messrs. Brooker Dore & Co., and have filed this suit to recover a sum of Rs. 2,049-5-7 on three bills of exchange in respect of three. consignments of shoes to the 1st defendants in Bombay. The bills were drawn by the plaintiffs. The 1st defendants are the drawee of the bill. The 2nd defendants are the drawee in case of need. The bills were payable forty-five days after sight. They were duly accepted by the 1st defendants, but when they were presented in them for payment on the due dates, the 1st defendants failed to pay, upon which the bills were protested for non-payment. They were subsequently presented for payment to the 2nd defendants, the drawee in case of need, but they refused to pay. They contend that the bills were never presented to them for acceptance, nor have they in fact accepted the same, and that therefore the presentment for payment was not legal...
Basawant Mallappa Neje Vs. Kallappa Virbhadrappa Kotiwale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom222; (1938)40BOMLR164
Rangnekar, J.1. In this appeal a preliminary objection is raised by Mr. Jahagirdar In order to appreciate it, some facts will have to be stated. In 1923 defendant No. 1 executed a mortgage for Rs. 3,500 in favour of the plaintiff. Six years after that the mortgagor sold his equity of redemption to defendant No. 2, and defendant No. 2 agreed to pay off the plaintiff's mortgage and in addition paid a premium of Rs. 600 to the mortgagor. In 1933, four years after this sale, the mortgagee brought a suit on his mortgage which has given rise to this appeal.2. Defendant No. 2, the purchaser of the equity of redemption, pleaded that he was an agriculturist and in the alternative he pleaded that the agreement between the parties was that the principal should be Rs. 3,000 and not Rs. 3,500 and he prayed for instalments. The learned Assistant Judge found that he was an agriculturist. It is complained before us that in spite of the finding, the learned Judge ignored the provisions of the Dekkhan A...
Vinayak Pandurangrao Desai Vs. Parsappa Laxmanna Biradar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom212; (1938)40BOMLR160
Rangnekar, J.1. This is a reference made by the First Class Subordinate Judge of Bijapur, The question raised in the reference is whether a decree or order adjusting the claim of the judgment-creditor in execution of his decree, whereby a charge is created in favour of the judgment creditor on immoveable property of the value of more than Rs. 100 and which property is not the subject-matter in suit, is to be sent to the Registrar for registration, or whether a copy of such decree or order can be accepted for registration.2. The facts are that the applicant purchased a money decree in suit No. 470 of 1929. He applied to carry out the decree, and in the course of the execution proceedings a compromise was arrived at between him and the judgment-debtor, as a result of which the judgment-debtor agreed to create a charge on certain immoveable property of his which admittedly was of more than Rs. 100 and which property was not the subject-matter of the suit.3. The applicant contended in the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›