Mumbai Court January 1939 Judgments
Radhi Kathari Bhoir Vs. Namdeo Dhaku Bhagat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Bom394; (1939)41BOMLR585
Lokur, J. 1. This is an appeal against an order passed by the Extra-Assistant Judge of Thana remanding the suit which had been dismissed by the Subordinate Judge of Panvel on the grounds that it was not maintainable and that it was time-barred.2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff, who was formerly the certificated guardian of the defendant and her sister during their minority, to recover Rs. 1,300 which he claimed to have spent out of his own pocket for the benefit of the minors. The defendant was born on April 14, 1912, and the plaintiff was appointed the guardian of the person and property of the defendant and her sister on April 20, 1920. The defendant's sister died in 1925 and the defendant attained her majority on April 14, 1933. She then made an application to the District Court that her propery should be ordered to be restored to her by the plaintiff. That application was opposed by the plaintiff on the ground that he should be allowed to remain in possession until the amount ...
Tag this Judgment!Keshavlal Tribhuvandas Vs. Bai Dahi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Bom418; (1939)41BOMLR784
Lokur, J.1. This is an appeal against an order passed by the Joint First Class Subordinate Judge at Ahmedabad in execution proceedings. The decree sought to be executed was obtained by a step-mother against her step-son for maintenance, and it provided as follows:Defendant to pay Rs. 600 to the plaintiff per year for the plaintiff's maintenance from the date of suit. The said amount will be payable in two sums as follows:- Rs. 300 on May 1 of each year : Rs. 300 on November 1 of each year.The amount of future maintenance due up to November 1, 1936, will be paid up immediately.2. In the darkhast the plaintiff-decree-holder claimed maintenance from the date on which she had made an application to file her suit in forma pauperis. That application was filed on March 30, 1935, and was granted on October 31, 1936. The judgment-debtor contended that the suit was really instituted on the date on which the application was granted and the plaint was ordered to be registered. He, therefore, conte...
Tag this Judgment!The Benares Bank Limited Vs. S.C.H. Meyer
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1939
Reported in: (1939)41BOMLR1023
Thankerton, J.1. This is an appeal against a judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal dated April 7, 1936, which affirmed on appeal a judgment of the said Court in its original insolvency jurisdiction dated June 18, 1935, whereby inter alia the present appellant's exceptions to the findings and report of the Registrar in insolvency, dated respectively December 15, 1934, and February 26, 1935, in insolvency-cases Nos. 137 and 166 of 1911, were discharged.2. Five persons, who were carrying on business in Calcutta as merchants and agents under the name and style of M. L. Laik and Banerjee, were adjudicated insolvents by the High Court, three of them on June 15, 1911, and the other two on July 14, 1911. On June 4, 1913, the creditors of the insolvents, including the appellant, approved a scheme of composition, and the two insolvency cases having been consolidated, the Court approved the composition on September 15, 1913, and both adjudication orders were...
Tag this Judgment!The Oudh Commercial Bank, Ltd. Vs. Bind Basni Kuer
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-1939
Reported in: (1939)41BOMLR708
George Rankin, J.1. This is a decree-holder's appeal. It is brought by the Oudh Commercial Bank, Ltd., Fyzabad, against an order of the Chief Court of Oudh dated August 14, 1934, dismissing an application for the execution of a final decree for sale passed on January 22, 1916, by the Subordinate Judge, Mohanlalganj, Lucknow. The respondents are the representatives of Babu Narindra Bahadur Singh (herein called the 'judgment-debtor') who died in 1936 while the present appeal was pending.2. He was the grantor of a mortgage to the appellants dated September 2, 1894, for Rs. 2,35,000 at eight per cent. per annum over a large number of ancestral properties including both proprietary (kham) and under-proprietary (pukhtadari) villages. To enforce this mortgage a suit was brought against him by the appellants in 1911 and a preliminary decree for sale obtained on October 31, 1912, from the Subordinate Judge. On appeal to the Judicial Commissioner's Court this preliminary decree was on June 15, 1...
Tag this Judgment!Jehangir Cursetji Mistri Vs. Kastur Pannaji Oswal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-1939
Reported in: (1939)41BOMLR583
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. In the two suits, out of which these revision applications arise, the plaintiff sued the defendant on money claims in the Small Cause Court at Poona, the suits having been commenced on February 2, 1938. The defence in each case was that, as the defendant had been adjudicated insolvent in August, 1935, the plaintiff's suit did not lie, since he had not obtained leave to sue under Section 28(2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act. The answer to that defence was that the insolvency had been brought to an end subject to a condition which allowed the creditors to sue.2. The material facts relating to the insolvency are that the adjudication took place in 1935, and certain sums were paid into Court by the insolvent. Subsequently he applied for his discharge, and the learned Subordinate Judge at Poona, before whom the application came, was of opinion that the debtor had not paid eight annas in the rupee, and, therefore, ought not to be given an unconditional discharge,...
Tag this Judgment!Pakala Narayana Swami Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1939
Reported in: (1939)41BOMLR428
Atkin, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of the High Court of Patna who affirmed the decision of the Sessions Judge at Berhampur who had convicted the appellant of the murder of one Kuree Nukaraju and sentenced him to death. The accused, his wife, his wife's brother, and his clerk living at his house were charged with the murder before the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Chatrapur, in May and June, 1937. After hearing the evidence the examining Magistrate discharged all the accused holding that there was no sufficient evidence to support the charge. Thereupon the Sessions Judge, Berhampur, exercising his powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure, called upon the accused to show cause why they should not be committed for trial, and in July, 1937, ordered the present accused and his wife to be committed to the Court of Session to stand their trial for offences under sections of the Indian Penal Code 120B (conspiring to murder) 302 (murder) and 201 (causing evidence of ...
Tag this Judgment!Raghunath Ramchandra Jere Vs. Ramchandra Narayan Jere
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Bom396; (1939)41BOMLR779
Lokur, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Satara dismissing the plaintiff's suit for partition against his, father, defendant No, 1, his grand-mother defendant No. 14 and twelve others to whom the ancestral properties were alienated by his father. He claimed to have those alienations set aside on the ground that they were not supported by any legal necessity nor were they for the benefit of the family and that they were due to the immorality of his father. A preliminary objection was raised in the lower Court that the suit was bad for misjoinder of parties and causes of action, but that objection was overruled and the suit was tried on its merits. As the alleged misjoinder has not affected the merits of the case or the jurisdiction of the Court, the decree of the lower Court cannot be reversed or altered in appeal on that ground by reason of the provisions of Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Code, and the appeal has to be disposed of on the me...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Mahomad Islam Abdul Sakur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Bom371; (1939)41BOMLR554
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference made to the Court by the District Magistrate of Nasik in which he asks us to extend by one year the period for which Mahomed Islam Abdul Sakur was directed to be kept in a certified school.2. The facts are that the boy in question was found guilty of an offence on June 18, 1934, by the District Magistrate of Nasik. The boy was at that date aged eleven years, and the learned District Magistrate ordered him to be detained in a reformatory school for a period of five years. He was accordingly sent to the Yeravada Industrial School, and the Superintendent of that school has reported to the District Magistrate of Nasik that the Visiting Committee of the School considers that in view of the character and circumstances of this boy, the period of his detention should be extended by one year. The learned District Magistrate held, I think quite rightly, that he had no jurisdiction to extend the period ; and he has referred the matter to us for actio...
Tag this Judgment!The Government of Bombay Vs. Ganpat Manohar Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Bom398; (1939)41BOMLR772
Broomfield, J.1. The question in this Letters Patent appeal is whether the widow of a deceased watandar whose name has been entered as representative watandar is a holder of the watan within the meaning of Section 15 of the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act so that she is competent to enter into an agreement for commutation of services under that section.2. The facts so far as it is necessary to state them are as follows. There is a kulkarni watan in the village of Mohari in the Ahmednagar District. In 1914 this watan was registered as regards a twelve annas share in the name of Gangubai, the widow of Manohar, and as to the remaining four annas share in the name of one Narayan Madhav. We are only concerned with the twelve annas share of the watan. On January 24, 1914, commutation of the kulkarni service was effected under the provisions of Section 15 by agreement between Gangubai and the Collector. Section 15 provides that the Collector may, with the consent of the holder of a watan, given...
Tag this Judgment!Mariyaya Chanviraya Hiremath Vs. Shantirappa Danappa Nelvigi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Bom338; (1939)41BOMLR575
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal under the Letters Patent from a decision of Mr. Justice Sen dealing with a question as to costs which I should imagine must frequently arise. The substantive part of the decree in the suit concluded with the words 'Plaintiff's suit is dismissed with costs'. Then followed three columns of costs, (1) the costs of the plaintiff, (2) the costs of defendant No. 1 and (3) the costs of defendant No. 2; and the learned Judge assessed those several costs at certain amounts, and then duly signed the order below the memorandum as to costs. The form of the order follows the forms Nos. 1 and 2 of Appendix D to the Civil Procedure Code which contain columns for the costs both of the plaintiff and the defendant in the schedule to the order.2. The contention of the appellant is that the expression 'Plaintiff's suit is dismissed with costs' only renders him liable for one set of costs in respect of both the defendants, and for that proposition he relies on t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »