Mumbai Court April 1938 Judgments
P.D. Shamdasani Vs. the Central Bank of India Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-14-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Bom431; (1938)40BOMLR904
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J. 1. This is an application made to me to quash a taxation of costs between the applicant Mr. Shamdasani and the Central Bank of India, Limited, before the Assistant Taxing Master on the ground that he ought not to have entertained the taxation. Three bills were taxed by the Assistant Taxing Master, and the applicant took out summonses to review the taxations. In the course of the hearing of those applications for review the applicant discovered that the Assistant Taxing Master was a debtor of the Central Bank of India. There is no dispute about the facts. I have asked the learned Assistant Taxing Master what the position is. He tells me that he did borrow money from the Central Bank of India in order to pay certain Government dues on property which had descended to him. The matter was entirely a business transaction, and the Bank were not pressing for payment, and I do not for a moment suggest that the Assistant Taxing Master was in any way affected in taxing th...
Tag this Judgment!Nellie O'hara Fido Vs. AustIn Henry Fido
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Bom425; (1938)40BOMLR900
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J. 1. This is a petition by the wife for divorce on the ground of desertion for three years or upwards, and the question arises whether the amendment of the English divorce law by the Matrimonial Causes Act of 1937 applies to the parties in this case. Apart from that Act it is clear that desertion is no ground for dissolution of marriage.2. Under the Indian and Colonial Divorce Jurisdiction Act of 1926, Section 1, Sub-section (7), High Courts in India have jurisdiction to make a decree for the dissolution of a marriage where the parties to the marriage are British subjects domiciled in England or in Scotland in any case where a Court in India would have such jurisdiction if the parties to the marriage were domiciled in India. Then by proviso (a) it is enacted that the grounds on which a decree for dissolution of such a marriage may be granted by any such Court shall be those on which such a decree might be granted in England according to the law for the time being...
Tag this Judgment!Nawab Mirza Mohammad Kazim Ali Khan and Nawab Fakhr Zahan Begam Vs. Na ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-1938
Reported in: (1938)40BOMLR843
George Rankin, J.1. In this case two appeals by separate sets of plaintiffs have been brought from a decree of the Chief Court of Oudh dated March 14, 1934, setting aside the decree of the Subordinate Judge, Lucknow, dated September 1, 1932, and dismissing with costs a suit for contribution. In both appeals the sole contesting respondent is the defendant in the suit, Nawab Mirza Mohammad Sadik Ali Khan, (herein called Sadiq Ali) who is the taluqdar of Makanpur Rahimabad in the district of Sitapur. The parties are Shia Mahomedans and the questions in dispute have reference to the administration of the estate of Nawab Mohammad Baqar Ali Khan (herein called the late Nawab) who died on January 17, 1921. The relationship of the parties to him and to each other is shown by the pedigree.2. The late Nawab left two widows, and a family by each. The property of which he was possessed at his death comprised the taluqa of Makanpur Rahimabad, an estate which had been entered under Section 8 of the ...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Khemchand Ramdas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-1938
Reported in: (1938)40BOMLR854
Romer, J.1. The respondents to this appeal are a firm who carry on business at Bunder Abbas and Kerman outside British India but are assessable to taxation in respect of their income under the provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. Their total income during the fiscal year ending on March 31, 1926, being in the opinion of the Income-tax Officer, Shikarpur, of such an amount as to render them liable to income-tax under that Act for the year ending March 31, 1927, a notice was served upon them by that official in accordance with the provisions of Section 22(2) requiring them to make a return of that income. He also served upon them a notice under Sub-section (4) of the Same section requiring production of the relevant accounts and documents. Had the respondents thought fit to comply with these notices they would have avoided a good many of the difficulties in which they subsequently found themselves involved. Unfortunately they completely ignored the notices. The duty of the Inco...
Tag this Judgment!Tarachand Pirchand Marwadi Vs. Bala Sakharam Fad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-1938
Reported in: (1938)40BOMLR974
N.J. Wadia, J.1. This appeal raises an interesting question of law under the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act. The respondents who are agriculturists brought a suit in the Court of the Second Class Subordinate Judge of Yeola for a declaration that a rent-note which had been passed by them to the defendant in the year 1927 for a period of eleven years was in reality a transaction of sale on payment of Rs. 3,300 at the end of eleven years. The plaintiffs' case was that the rent of Rs. 300 per year which was stipulated in the rent-note was really meant to cover annual instalments of Rs. 300 for eleven years ; and that there was a contemporaneous oral agreement that on payment of eleven annual instalments of Rs. 300 a sale-deed was to be executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiffs. The trial Judge decreed the plaintiffs' suit holding that it came within the provisions of Section 10A of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act; that it was therefore open to the plaintiffs to prove...
Tag this Judgment!Vinayak Shreedhar Kulkarni Vs. Chintaman Vaman Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-06-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Bom470; (1938)40BOMLR972
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal under the Letters Patent from a decision of Mr. Justice Macklin summarily dismissing the defendant's appeal. The plaintiff is a minor suing by his next friend to enforce an oral agreement for the payment of money. The defendant seems to have avoided service for about a year, but he was eventually served, and was directed to file a written statement by June 12, 1935. He did not file a written statement, but applied for further time, putting in a doctor's certificate saying that he was ill. The learned Judge rejected that application, pointing out that although the defendant might be ill there was no reason why he should not have given instructions to his pleader on which a written statement could have been filed. The learned Judge thereupon made an order, ' Case is fixed for hearing ex parte.' It is not uncommon to make an order of that nature where no written statement is put in, but such an order cannot be justified. The Judge should have d...
Tag this Judgment!Hakmaji Meghaji Vs. Punnaji Devichand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-06-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Bom453; (1938)40BOMLR995
Broomfield, J.1. This is an appeal in a suit brought by the plaintiffs-appellants for dissolution of partnership and accounts. The suit has been dismissed by the trial Court as being time-barred owing to the death of two of the partners of the firm more than three years before the suit, It appears that seven different Marwari firms trading in Gadag or the neighbourhood formed themselves into a single partnership in October, 1918, to do business in yarn. Apparently what was contemplated was forward business of a somewhat speculative nature. The composite firm so constituted traded in the name of Punnaji Devichand, which was the name of defendant No. 1, the largest of the constituent firms. The business went on for three or four months only and resulted, as we understand, in heavy losses and also in litigation which lasted for many years and involved two appeals to the Privy Council.2. In this appeal we are not much concerned with the names of the several constituent firms or with their ...
Tag this Judgment!Tukaram Ganpatrao Surve Vs. Atmaram Vinayak Gondhalekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Bom31; (1938)40BOMLR1192
Broomfield J.1. The two principal points in this second appeal are : (1) whether the equity of redemption in the case of a usufructuary mortgage is tangible property so that it can be transferred by an unregistered deed where the value of the property does not exceed Rs. 100, and (2) whether Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, which came into force on April 1, 1930, is to be regarded as retrospective.2. The facts so far as it is necessary to mention them are as follows :-The property in suit is a paddy field. In 1879 the owner Babaji Surve mortgaged it by a possessory mortgage to Gondhalekar, the ancestor of respondents Nos. 1 and 2. In 1890 the property, that is to say the equity of redemption, was sold in execution of a money decree against the mortgagor and it was purchased by Mahadev Khare, the father of respondents Nos. 10 and 11. In 1902 Khare sold it to Laxmanrao More, the father of respondent No. 3, by an unregistered sale-deed, exhibit 84. The consideration for the sa...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Havabu Vs. Isup Musa Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Bom467; (1938)40BOMLR968
Broomfield, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Surat dismissing the plaintiffs' suit to recover Rs. 9,360-3-4 with costs and future interest. The plaintiffs are the heirs of one Gorabhai Daudbhai and they brought their suit to recover sums lent by him to the defendant. The suit was based on a khata signed by the defendant on September 17, 1927. It was filed on October 21, 1932, but it was sought to be brought in time by an alleged payment of Rs. 150 by the defendant on August 15, 1930, on which date according to the plaintiffs the defendant made an entry in his own hand in Gorabhai's account book reciting this payment. The trial Judge held that the payment of Rs. 150 was not proved and that it was not proved that the entry in the account books, exhibit 54, is in the handwriting of the defendant. The suit was accordingly dismissed as being barred by time.2. In support of their case as to the alleged payment of Rs. 150 on August 15, 1930, and o...
Tag this Judgment!Jhavery and Co. Vs. Hirachand Gangji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Bom418; (1938)40BOMLR694
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal against an order made by Mr. Justice Somjee in chambers by which he directed the present appellants, who are attorneys of this Court, to hand over to the present attorneys for the plaintiff in a suit, to which I will refer in a moment, certain documents without prejudice and subject to the lien, if any, which the appellants may have against the minor plaintiff for their costs. The circumstances in which the order was made are these. There is a suit pending in this Court by a minor, Hirachand Gangji, in which he claims to be the adopted son of one Gangji Sojpal and he asks for partition of the joint family property. In that suit one Kanji Velji was next friend for the minor plaintiff. Originally he employed as his attorneys Messrs. Smetham, Byrne & Lambert. In the course of the suit the plaintiff through his next friend Kanji Velji arrived at terms of compromise, and in order to carry out the terms of the compromise, and I suppose, to get the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »