Mumbai Court November 1939 Judgments
Bruusgaard Kiosteruds Dampskibs Aktieselskab Vs. the Secretary of Stat ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Bom294; (1940)42BOMLR532
B.J. Wadia, J.1. The plaintiffs are a joint stock company incorporated in the Kingdom of Norway, having their registered office at Dramtaen, and are the owners of the motor tanker ' Hamlet' used for the carriage of mineral oils by sea. They have filed this suit against the Secretary of State for India in Council, after giving him the requisite notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code, to recover from him the sum of Rs. 11,536-12-0 which was imposed as a penalty by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay, under Section 167 (17) .of the Sea Customs Act (VIII of 1878) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The penalty was imposed for an alleged shortage of quantity in a certain cargo of benzene oil carried by the ship from Touapse on the Black Sea to Bombay in April, 1933. The penalty was paid in the first instance by James Mackintosh & Co., the ship's agents, in fulfilment of their obligation under certain undertakings signed by them in accordance with the provisions of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Jagannath Ganeshram Agarwala Vs. Shivnarayan Bhagirath
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Bom247; (1940)42BOMLR451
Kania, J.1. This is a first appeal filed in civil suit No. 47 of 1934 against a judgment of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Jalgaon. The short facts leading to the litigation are that the Bhagirath Mill, Limited, had borrowed money from various depositors. Originally Bhagirath, the father of the defendants, was the managing agent, and we are told that the managing agency agreement was made out between him, and the mills. The agency agreement is not put in as exhibit, and the only materials before the Court which give some indication of some of the terms consist of stray statements in the evidence of defendant No. 1. He stated that there was a kararnama by which the agency should be perpetuated from generation to generation. At another place he stated that it was the managing agent's sole business to borrow sums and pay them for the company without consulting the directors. Bhagirath died and defendant No. 1 was substituted in his place as the managing agent.The mill company came i...
Tag this Judgment!Manilal Maganlal Vs. Bai Champa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Bom193; (1940)42BOMLR382
Kania, J.1. This is a first appeal from the decision of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Ahmedabadi and the principal question involved is whether specific performance of an agreement executed by the original first defendant should be granted in favour of the plaintiff. The short facts are that the plaintiff, who was a minor, was to be married to defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 1 was the great-aunt of defendants Nos. 2 and 3, who were brothers. Defendant No. 3 had been married before and a house had been transferred to his name. On the occasion of the betrothal of the minor plaintiff to defendant No. 2 the palla of Rs. 1,000 was fixed and Rs. 600 more were agreed to be paid in cash. The ' Chanlla' took place on December 2, 1929. At about that time there was a talk of transferring the house by defendant No. 1 to the name of the; plaintiff and defendant No. 2, and defendant No. 1 directed the purchase of a stamp paper in that connection. An agreement, the terms whereof I shall present...
Tag this Judgment!Gurunath Balwant Deshpande Vs. Suryakant Dhunderao
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Bom225; (1940)42BOMLR399
Broomfield, J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Wassoodew in Second Appeal No. 713 of 1934.2. The material facts are as follows -:-The suit land was mortgaged with possession to one Tippanna by Venkatrao the manager of a joint family on May 2, 1877. In September, 1877, by reason of certain awards the equity of redemption fell to the share of the other branches of the family of Venkatrao now represented by the plaintiffs, who have sued to redeem the mortgage. The mortgage deed provided that the mortgagee was to pay a net sum of Rs. 82-2-0 to the mortgagor. In spite of the awards in 1877 this annual payment was made first to Bhimrao the son of Venkatrao, and afterwards to defendant No. 4, the son of Bhimrao, never to the plaintiffs. Bhimrao and defendant No. 4 claimed to be entitled to the equity of redemption, and the mortgagee recognised that claim. The plaintiffs were presumably aware of the fact that the moneys due to them were being appropriated by ...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. the Ahmedabad Advance Mills Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-14-1939
Reported in: (1940)42BOMLR318
Romer, J.1. The respondents, who carry on the business of cotton spinners and weavers in British India, are the owners of certain sterling bonds of the Government of India, the interest on which is payable in England.2. In the year ending March 31, 1936, interest on such bonds was paid in sterling in England to certain agents of the respondents, the amount of such interest expressed in rupees being Rs. 18,333. This sum was expended by such agents in the purchase in England on behalf of the respondents of certain mill stores and machinery which were then sent to the respondents in British India and there used by them for the purposes of their business.3. In these circumstances the Income-tax Officer in assessing the respondents to income-tax for the year of assessment 1936-7 included in their income for the year 1935-6 the sum of Rs. 18,333 as being income ' brought into British India ' within the meaning of Section 4 (2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.4. It will be convenient at th...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Motiram Nandram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-14-1939
Reported in: (1940)42BOMLR323
George Rankin, J.1. In this case the respondents have not been represented before their Lordships.2. The appeal is brought by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Central and United Provinces, Lucknow, from a decision of the High Court at Nagpur given upon a reference made to that Court under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The question of law is as to the admissibility of a deduction of Rs. 39,500 in computing the profits of the assessees' business. The year of assessment in respect of which the question arises is the year 1933-4, and as it is not contested that the sum in question was expended or lost in the ' previous year,' 1932-3, the deduction, if permissible, is claimed for the proper year.3. By the terms of Section 10 of the Act the profits or gains of a business are to be computed after making certain allowances, one of which is provided for by the terms of Clause (ix) of Sub-section (2) as follows :-(ix) any expenditure (not being in the nature of capital expendi...
Tag this Judgment!Nandlal Tribhovandas Vs. Baker Jafer and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-14-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Bom390; (1940)42BOMLR935
Blackwell, J.1. This is a summons on the part of two persons who have been served with the writ of summons herein as partners in the defendant firm asking that the issue whether they were partners in the defendant firm at the time of the accrual of the cause of action may be set down for trial on a date to be fixed by the Court; or in the alternative that the service on them of the writ of summons be set aside on the ground that they were not partners in the defendant firm at the time of the accrual of the cause of action or are not liable as such.2. Rule 8 of Order XXX, which corresponds with Rule 7 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 0. 48a, as they originally stood, provides that any person served with a summons as a partner tinder Rule 3 may appear under protest, denying that he is a partner, but such appearance shall not preclude the plaintiff from otherwise serving a summons on the firm and obtaining a decree against the firm in default of appearance where no partner has appeared. ...
Tag this Judgment!Errol Mackay Vs. Oswald Forbes
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-10-1939
Reported in: (1940)42BOMLR315
Thankerton, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal, in its civil appellate jurisdiction, dated April 11, 1938, which allowed in part the appeal of the present respondent from the judgment and order of the said High Court, in its original jurisdiction, made by Panckridge J. on July 22, 1937.2. The respondent raises a preliminary point as to the jurisdiction of this Board to entertain this appeal in view of the provisions of Section 205 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which provides as follows :-205.-(1) An appeal shall lie to the Federal Court from, any judgment, decree-or final order of a High Court in British India, if the High Court certifies that the case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of this Art or any Order in Council made thereunder, and it shall be the duty of every High Court in British India to consider in every case whether or not any such question is. involved and of i...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Janaki Nath Roy Vs. Raja Pramatha Nath Malia
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-10-1939
Reported in: (1940)42BOMLR339
Romer, J.1. These are consolidated appeals against the judgment and. decree of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal dated December 1, 1936, which varied the judgment and decree of the Additional: Subordinate Judge of Howrah dated January 3, 1933. The question to be decided is whether, as held by the High Court, respondent No. 4, Kumar Pramatha Nath Roy, is entitled to be treated as a mortgagee of the properties A, B and C hereinafter mentioned, ranking in priority to the mortgage thereon of the appellants, or whether, as held by the Subordinate Judge, the appellants' mortgage ranks in priority to any claim of the said respondent-There was also at one time a question as to the relative priorities of the mortgages of the appellants and the said respondent on property D, hereinafter mentioned. It was indeed the question involved in the cross appeal of the said respondent being the second of the two consolidated appeals. This cross appeal was, however, abandoned at the he...
Tag this Judgment!Sunil Kumar Kerr Vs. Sisir Kumar Kerr
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-10-1939
Reported in: (1940)42BOMLR394
Thankerton, J.1. The only question in this appeal is whether two mortgages executed by the executors of Thakur Das Kerr are binding on the estate of Thakur Das Kerr and on the properties which are the subject of the mortgages. The issue arises in a suit filed by the appellant and respondents Nos. 1 and 2 on August 31, 1929, for construction of the will of Thakur Das Kerr and for certain declarations, including a declaration that the said mortgages are invalid, inoperative and nullities and do not in any way bind the estate of the testator. Respondents Nos. 5 and 6, who alone appear in the appeal, are the representatives of the mortgagee under the first of the two mortgages. This appeal is against the judgment and decree of the High Court, of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal, in its appellate jurisdiction, dated December 7, 1934, which, as regards the declaration in question, affirmed the judgment of the said High Court in its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, made by Ameer Ali ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »