Mumbai Court October 1938 Judgments
S.N. Bannerjee and Secretary of State Vs. Kurchwar Lime and Stone Comp ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-31-1938
Reported in: (1939)41BOMLR136
Porter, J.1. These are consolidated appeals from an order of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, dated October 9, 1936, made on the petition of the Kuchwar Lime and Stone Company (in liquidation), whereby it was ordered that (1) the Secretary of State for India in Council, (2) S.N. Ghose and (3) S.N. Bannerjee had been guilty of contempt, and that the Secretary of State should forthwith pay to the petitioners one-half of their costs, and that the other respondents should also pay to the petitioners one-half of their costs and should be jointly and severally liable therefore. Of these persons S.N. Ghose is the managing director of a company called the Kalyanpur Lime Works, Ltd. and Section N. Bannerjee then manager of that company. 2. The reason for the petition is to be found in the previous acts and relationship of the parties.3. On April 1, 1928, the Secretary of State granted to the petitioners two leases, one of the mineral rights in Lower Murli Hill and the other of the surface...
Tag this Judgment!Mahbub Singh Vs. Abdul Aziz Khan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-31-1938
Reported in: (1939)41BOMLR668
Porter, J.1. The plaintiffs in this suit, who are also appellants, are the nearest reversioners of their uncle, one Chaudri Mangal Singh, who died on October 29, 1928. It is common ground that they are entitled to inherit his estate if on his death he was a Hindu and not a Mahomedan: if, however, he died a Mahomedan, whoever may be entitled to his estate, the appellants have no claim to the inheritance.2. The appellants contend that the deceased man, who was a Hindu by birth, had never been converted to Mahomedanism, whereas the respondents maintain that he was not only a Mahomedan at his death but that he had become a Mahomedan some thirty years earlier and remained of that faith.3. Mangal Singh died in the house of the respondent and it was said that twenty-two years earlier he had made an oral waqf or charitable disposition of his property substantially in the terms afterwards embodied in a formal document dated October 25, 1928, and had appointed himself mutawalli or trustee thereo...
Tag this Judgment!Gokal Chand-jagan Nath Vs. Nand Ram Das-atma Ram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-21-1938
Reported in: (1939)41BOMLR128
Wright, J.1. The appellants are a firm of merchants carrying on business at Sialkot. The respondents are a firm of commission agents in Calcutta, who, from between 1919 and 1922, were employed by the appellants to conduct transactions for the purchase and sale of sugar and the purchase of gunny bags. The question in this appeal relates to three transactions executed by the respondents on behalf of the appellants in accordance with this course of business. These transactions were duly closed by the respondents with the other parties, and in the result three sums of money were respectively due on the balance of the transactions from Diwan Chand-Amar Chand Rs. 1,275, from Chatter Bhuj Dossa Rs. 8,670, from Kalu Ram-Kanhaya Lal Rs. 510. This was the position when the transactions were closed in October, 1920. But the three parties were in financial difficulties, and in the result the respondents succeeded in obtaining payment of a part only of this indebtedness. This action was brought to ...
Tag this Judgment!Premila Devi Vs. the Peoples Bank of Northern India, Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-1938
Reported in: (1939)41BOMLR147
Romer, J. 1. These are three consolidated appeals from the order of the High Court of Judicature at Lahore dated March 10, 1936, made upon an application by the Official Liquidator of the respondents, the Peoples Bank of Northern India, Limited. The question to be determined is whether the appellants should be placed upon the list of contributories notwithstanding the fact that in the year 1933 the directors of the Bank purported to forfeit the appellants' shares, and removed the appellants' names from the register of members in respect thereof.2. The Bank was incorporated in the year 1925 under the Indian Companies Act with a capital of fifty lacs of rupees divided into 50000 shares of Rs. 100 each. These shares, all of which were issued, were called 'A' shares. In the year 1926 the capital was increased by another 50000 shares of Rs. 100 each, of which 25000, called 'B' shares, were then issued. In 1929 some of the remaining 25000 shares were issued and were called 'C' shares, but wi...
Tag this Judgment!Nand Kishore Vs. Azmat Ulla, Official Receiver
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-1938
Reported in: (1939)41BOMLR663
Romer, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Lahore dated November 16, 1933, setting aside a decree of the Senior Subordinate Judge at Delhi dated August 5, 1929, in an action in which one Lala Shibba Mal (since deceased and now represented by the appellant) was the plaintiff and the second respondent, Rai Sahib Rup Narain, was originally the sole defendant. The defendant having become insolvent, the first respondent, the Official Receiver, Delhi, was added as a party to the suit. The short question to be determined is whether a sum: of Rs. 1,66,570 that admittedly became due from the second respondent to Lala Shibba Mal constitutes, as was held by the Subordinate Judge, a charge upon the interest of that respondent in certain land at Delhi hereinafter referred to, or, whether, as was held by the High Court, the sum is merely an unsecured debt. The facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows.2. On November 24, 1921, the said Rup Narain, therein call...
Tag this Judgment!Shanmukhappa Gurulingappa Vs. Rudrappa Golappa Malli
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Bom266; (1939)41BOMLR223
Broomfield, J.1. These are cross-appeals in a suit .for partition and possession of a half share in the suit properties. There was a Hindu joint family consisting of Rudrappa and his two sons Shiddappa and Gurappa. Shiddappa had no son. Gurappa had sons Golappa and Gurulingappa. Shiddappa adopted Golappa as his son. Soon after this adoption he died. Golappa the adopted son died in 1908 and soon after that Gurappa died. From 1908 to 1929 Gurulingappa, defendant No. 1 in the suit, his mother Channavva and Golappa's widow Iravva defendant No. 7 lived together as a joint family. The plaintiff was adopted by Golappa's widow in 1929. Defendant No. 1 while he was the sole surviving coparcener alienated a number of the family properties, some to his wife Ningavva defendant No. 8, some to the other defendants in the suit. After the adoption of the plaintiff he alienated other properties in satisfaction of debts previously incurred by him. This suit was brought to recover a half share in all the...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Gurushidayya Shantivirayya Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Bom63; (1938)40BOMLR1286
Broomfield, J.1. This is an application for revision by Gurushidayya Shantvirayya Kulkarni who has been convicted of an offence of criminal breach of trust under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment. An appeal against the conviction was summarily dismissed by the Sessions Judge of Belgaum.2. The applicant is the officiating kulkarni of the village of Mugbasav in the Sampgaon taluka, and the only question that arises in this revision application is whether the proceedings against him are void and illegal because the sanction of Government was not obtained for the prosecution. Under Section 58 of the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act an officiating kulkarni may be removed from office by the Collector but only with the previous sanction of the Provincial Government. He is therefore a public servant who is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the local Government, and so far Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code...
Tag this Judgment!Suleman Haji Ahmed Oomer Vs. Darabshaw Pirojshaw Dubash
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Bom98; (1939)41BOMLR25
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. After setting out the facts of the case, the judgment preceded: The only question which we have to decide, as it seems to me, is whether the defendant is entitled to have those words. If the benefit of the leases to the Japanese firm remains vested in the Pandias, undoubtedly the defendant will not get the benefit of those leases, as they are entitled to do under their agreement with the plaintiff; but if, on the other hand, the benefit of those leases is vested in the plaintiff, the plaintiff offered in the correspondence before action to assign such benefit as he has to the defendant by an independent document to which the Pandias would not be parties, so that there will be no difficulty provided that the benefit of the under-leases is not vested in the Pandias.2. Now the question in whom the benefit of those under-leases is vested seems to me to turn on the proper construction of Section 115 of the Transfer of Property Act. That section provides that:The s...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Ramchandra Rango Sawkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Bom129; (1939)41BOMLR98
Wassoodew, J.1. The seven accused-appellants have been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge of Dharwar upon various charges relating to the embezzlement of funds of the Dharwar Bank, Limited, and fabrication of accounts and evidence. Accused Nos. 2 and 3, who were the directors of the bank, were convicted of the offences punishable under Sections 408, 409 and 193 and also 477A read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code; accused Nos. 1, 4, 5 and 7 who along with accused Nos. 2 and 3 as partners in Joshi & Co., were conducting Shri Ram Cinema Company, were convicted of the offences punishable under Sections 408, 409 and 193 and also 477A read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code; and accused No. 8, the manager of the bank, of the offences punishable under Sections 408 and 409 read with Section 193 and also 477A of the Code. Upon a complaint by the present general manager of the Dharwar Bank, Limited, this prosecution was commenced with the sanction of the board of director...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›