Mumbai Court June 1938 Judgments
Govindram Shivnarayan Vs. Shivnarayan Sarupchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-1938
Reported in: (1939)41BOMLR545
Somjee, J.1. This notice of motion was part heard at the end of the last term and was adjourned to June 17, 1938. During the vacation the plaintiffs took out a summons for amendment of the plaint. That summons was returnable on June 14, 1938, and was placed on the Board of Mr. Justice Engineer. By consent of the parties it was transferred to my Board and appeared on my Board on June 17, 1938, along with this notice of motion, On the morning of June 17, 1938, the summons was heard and an order was made granting leave to the plaintiffs to amend the plaint. On that day the notice of motion was adjourned to June 22, 1938.2. When the notice of motion was called on for hearing on June 22, 1938, the learned Counsel for defendant No. 1 tendered an affidavit of one Ram Krishna Chaumar dated May 16, 1938. The learned Counsel for the plaintiffs objected to the affidavit being taken on file. After hearing arguments, I granted leave to defendant No. 1 to file the affidavit.3. On that order being ma...
Tag this Judgment!S.D. MaraThe Vs. Pandurang Narayan Joshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Bom419; (1938)40BOMLR825
Broomfield, J.1. The facts material to these revision applications are these. As long ago as December 23, 1929, one Pandurang Narayan Joshi, who was a school teacher residing at Dahiwali in the Karjat taluka of the Kolaba district, was treated in the Local Board dispensary at Karjat for certain injuries to his left leg. The officer in charge of the dispensary at that time was Dr. S.D. Marathe, a member of the Bombay Subordinate Medical Service. Joshi complained to the police that a man named Pimputkar had assaulted him and wounded him with an iron bar having a sharp edge, The Police-Sub-Inspector who inquired into the complaint asked Dr. Marathe to state the nature of the injuries received by Joshi, and on January 9, 1930, the Doctor gave the police-officer a certificate stating that the wound was a contused one caused, in the Doctor's opinion, by some hard and blunt substance. As that meant that it was not a cognizable case under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code but a case of ordi...
Tag this Judgment!Balkrishna Mansukhram Vs. Jayshankar Narayan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Bom460; (1938)40BOMLR1010
Wassoodew, J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal from the decision of Mr. Justice Macklin in a case where the plaintiff sued to recover the balance of Rs. 1,608 due on a khata dated July 14, 1908. That khata was subsequently revived by acknowledgments from time to time each within the period of limitation till the filing of the suit. It has been found as' a fact-and that finding has been accepted as correct-that the original debt fell due in the year 1890, and that in 1908, when the khata in suit was executed in acknowledgment of that debt, the debt had become time-barred. The khata is in the following form :-A balance is struck. The said Rupees two thousand and six and two annas and six pies are found due. The same are duly payable.2. The Gujarati words are baki nikliya te deva sahi. The trial Judge and the Judge of first appeal held for the purpose of limitation that that khata constituted a fresh promise to pay within the meaning of Section 25 (3) of the Indian Contract Act, and acco...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Trimbakrao Chandwadkar Vs. Chimabai Prabhakar Nagpurkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Bom464; (1938)40BOMLR1040
Macklin, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the Second Class Subordinate Judge of Poona, directing the payment by the defendants of more than Rs, 5,000. The suit was one for an account, and the plaint was valued at Rs. 200.2. A preliminary objection has been taken that this Court has no jurisdiction to hear the appeal, it being an appeal from a decision of a Subordinate Judge of the Second Class. Reliance is placed upon Section 8 of the Bombay Civil Courts Act, which appears to conclude the point. There is, however, a decision of this Court, Ibrahimji Issaji v. Bejanji Jamsedji I.L.R. (1895) 20 Bom. 265 in which it was held that in a case where a claim valued at Rs. 600 was tried by a First Class Subordinate Judge who eventually passed a decree exceeding Rs. 5,000, the appeal lay to the High Court under Section 26 of the Bombay Civil Courts Act in view of the fact that the subject-matter of the suit exceeded Rs. 5,000 though the claim was originally valued at Rs. 600 only. The rea...
Tag this Judgment!Hasan Vali Bagas Vs. Isap Bapuji Patel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Bom51; (1938)40BOMLR1180
Sen, J.1. These appeals arise out of proceedings in the execution of a decree in suit No. 4696 of 1921 in the High Court in its original jurisdiction, the plaintiff having obtained a decree for over Rs. 4,000 against one Vali Bagas. The decree-holder assigned this decree on January 6, 1934, to one Isap Bapuji Patel, the respondent in Second Appeal No. 301 of 1937 and the appellant in the other second appeal. On January 8, 1934, the assignee applied to the High Court for recognition of his assignment. Notices were issued to the decree-holder as well as to the four heirs and legal representatives of the original judgment-debtor, who had died in the meanwhile. On January 19, 1934, three out of the four judgment-debtors asked for an adjournment of the proceedings and the order of the Court was that the notice was made absolute as against the plaintiff (the assignor). On January 26, 1934, the Court passed an order that the assignee should execute the decree against three out of the four jud...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Chunilal B. Mehta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-1938
Reported in: (1938)40BOMLR916
George Rankin, J. 1. The High Court at Bombay has answered in favour of the respondent assessee two questions of law formulated and referred to the Court by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Bombay Presidency and Aden under Section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The assessee is resident in British India and the year of assessment is the year ending March 31, 1934. By order dated December 13, 1933, the Income-tax Officer assessed the respondent on a total income of Rs. 12,95,726, the total demand for income-tax and super-tax being Rs. 7,18,472. This order was confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner on January 19, 1934. By these orders the assessee was held liable to pay tax upon profits derived by him from contracts made for the purchase and sale of commodities in various foreign markets- Liverpool, London, New York and elsewhere outside British India. The assessee disputes his liability in respect of such profits on the ground that they were not profits ' accruing or arising in B...
Tag this Judgment!The Calico Printers Association, Limited Vs. Ahmed Abdul Karim Bros., ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Bom198; (1939)41BOMLR290
Somjee, J.1. The plaintiffs are the registered proprietors under the Indian Patents and Designs Act (II of 1911) inter alia of two designs for printing textile goods. The plaintiffs filed this suit against the defendants who are importers of Japanese printed goods into Bombay for an injunction restraining them from importing textile goods bearing an imitation of the plaintiffs' two designs, for delivery up of the goods bearing the designs or any fraudulent imitation thereof and for damages.2. In the plaint the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had for the purpose of sale applied or caused to be applied to the goods the designs or a fraudulent or obvious imitation thereof knowing that the designs or a fraudulent or obvious imitation thereof had been applied to the goods without the license or consent of the plaintiffs.3. The plaintiffs having alleged that the defendants knowingly and fraudulently infringed their rights to the designs, admitted at the hearing of the suit before me, ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Ganpat Laxman Kalgutkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-10-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Bom427; (1938)40BOMLR820
Wassoodew, J.1. This is an appeal by the Government of Bombay from the order of acquittal passed by the Presidency Magistrate, Second Additional Court, Mazagaon, in a case in which the respondent along with his servant was charged with having committed breach of his license to sell toddy in that they kept it for sale adulterated with Chloral Hydrate in order to intensify its intoxicating effect.2. The second clause of the license contains the following words :-The Licensee shall keep and sell toddy unadulterated and undiluted as drawn from the tree, without the admixture of any foreign substance or liquid whatever.The effect of that positive injunction in the licence is undoubtedly to prevent the adulteration of toddy for sale to the public.3. The respondent licensee had obtained permission of the authorities to employ servants or managers to sell toddy for him and in pursuance of that permission had employed two servants for sale of toddy. It has not been denied that on October 3, 193...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›