Mumbai Court December 1939 Judgments
Naranlal Jethalal Thakkar Vs. Shivprasad Achratlal Jani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-21-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Bom259; (1940)42BOMLR494
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a revision application against an order made by the Third Joint Subordinate Judge of Ahmedabad refusing an application that the suit had abated. The suit was originally filed by one Achratlal Kalidas who was seeking to recover possession of certain property as the reversioner of the previous owner. The plaintiff died on February 1, 1938. On March 21, 1938, there was an application to bring the heirs of the plaintiff on record, and in answer to that application, the three sons of the plaintiff were brought on record. Besides those three sons, the plaintiff had left a widow named Bai Hira, and it is said that by reason of Act XVIII of 1937, which came into operation on April 14, 1937, Bai Hira was one of the heirs of the plaintiff jointly with the three sons, and that she ought to have been brought on the record. I will assume, without deciding, that Bai Hira was one of the heirs of the plaintiff and that she ought, therefore, to have been brought on th...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Rajendrasing Ramsing
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-1939
Reported in: (1940)42BOMLR356
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal by Government against the acquittal of the accused by the Presidency Magistrate, Third Court, Bombay, on a preliminary point.2. On August 1, 1939, the Chief Presidency Magistrate made an order under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code forbidding people from, moving about in the streets after 10 p.m., and on August 2 the accused was found in a street at 10-45 p.m., and was arrested. On August 7 the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate withdrew his order of August 1, 1939, and the accused was tried on August 11, 1939. The learned Magistrate was of opinion that as the order for breach of which the accused was prosecuted had ceased to be in operation at the time of the trial, the accused must be acquitted. The learned Magistrate relied on a passage in Maxwell's Interpretation of Statutes which, in the eighth edition, is at page 347. That passage, and the cases cited, show that formerly it was considered in England that where an Act expired...
Tag this Judgment!Ramrao Nilkanth Nadkarni Vs. Shrimant Purnanand Saraswati Swami
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Bom281; (1940)42BOMLR501
Kania, J.1. These are two civil revision applications from the judgment of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Karwar. Although the amount involved is small the questions involved are somewhat important. The facts are that plaintiff's predecessor in title granted by a mulgeni lease to the defendants' family certain lands in 1842. No Registration Act was then in force and the document was therefore not registered. The original document appears to have been misplaced but the predecessors of the defendant were paying rent. There arose a dispute in 1919 about the rent and suit No. 209 of 1919 was filed in the First Class Subordinate Judge's Court at Karwar. The defendants disputed the terms of the tenancy and their liability to pay the rent as claimed. Pending this suit the parties compromised the dispute. That compromise was recorded and a decree followed under Order XXIII, Rule 3. The terms of that decree are material. The relevant portion runs as follows :As regards the mulgeni in suit...
Tag this Judgment!The City Municipality Vs. Nusserwanji Hormusji Madon
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Bom252; (1940)42BOMLR491
Kania, J.1. This is a second appeal from the judgment of the District Judge at Jalgaon. The plaintiffs (respondents) filed this suit against the appellant to recover inter alia the sum of Rs. 666-12-0. It appears that the defendant-Municipality had recovered certain taxes. The plaintiffs along with other persons living within the municipal limits of the town paid the taxes. One of the tax-payers then filed a suit and obtained a declaration that the tax levied by the Mur.icipality was illegal. Thereupon the plaintiffs filed this suit to recover the amount on the ground that the tax was illegally levied. In the plaint it was stated that the plaintiffs came to know about the illegality of the said tax on December 1, 1931. In the trial Court issues as to whether the tax was illegal or not were raised. It was also contended by the defendant that this sum of Rs. 666-12-0 which was paid off in 1929 could not be recovered as the claim was time-barred. At the hearing all issues except the quest...
Tag this Judgment!Dayaldas Kushiram Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax, Central
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-15-1939
Reported in: (1940)42BOMLR414
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, asking the Court (a) to direct the Commissioner of Income-tax, Central, to forbear from exercising jurisdiction and passing orders in the assessment of the petitioner for the years 1937-38 and 1938-39, and (b) to direct the Income-tax Officer, Central, Section II, to forbear from exercising jurisdiction, passing orders and continuing assessment proceedings for the assessment of the petitioner for the years 1937-38, 1938-39 and 1939-40.2. The relevant facts, which give rise to the application, can be stated shortly. In respect of the year 1937-38 the applicant, who carries on business in Bombay, received a notice under Section 22 of the Indian Income-tax Act directing him to make a return to the Income-tax Officer appointed by the Commissioner of Income-tax for Bombay Presidency, Sind and Baluchistan, that is to say the Local Commissioner of Income-tax, and in respect of that year an ass...
Tag this Judgment!Dayaldas Kushiram Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central) and Anothe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-15-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Bom234; [1940]8ITR139(Bom)
BEAUMONT, C.J. - This is an application under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, asking the Court (a) to direct the Commissioner of Income-tax, Central, to forbear from exercising jurisdiction and passing orders in the assessment of the petitioner for the years 1937-38 and 1938-39 and (b) to direct the Income-tax Officer, Central, Section II, to forbear from exercising jurisdiction, passing orders and continuing assessment proceedings for the assessment of the petitioner for the years 1937-38, and 1938-39 and 1939-40.The relevant facts, which give rise to the application, can be stated shortly. In respect of the year 1937-38 the applicant who carries on business in Bombay, received a notice under section 22 of the Income-tax Act directing him to make a return to the Income-tax Officer appointed by the Commissioner of Income-tax for Bombay Presidency, Sind and Baluchistan, that is to say, the Local Commissioner of Income-tax, and in respect of that year an assessment was made....
Tag this Judgment!Siddappa Gangappa Shintre Vs. Ramchandra Vishnu Ginde
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-1939
Reported in: AIR1941Bom30; (1940)42BOMLR1005
Broomfield, J.1. The short point in this appeal is whether the defendant in a suit on a mortgage, who was not an agriculturist at the date of the preliminary decree, but who acquires agricultural status before the date of the final decree, is entitled to plead his status for the purpose of claiming instalments under Section 15B of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act.2. The facts so far as they are necessary may be stated very briefly. The mortgage was in July, 1926, for a sum of Rs. 1,10,000. Interest was twelve per cent. On February 4, 1932, the mortgagee filed a suit claiming Rs. 1,42,000. This was after allowing for the payment of Rs. 48,000. I may mention that since that date no payment whatever has been made. The defendants, the mortgagors, claimed to be agriculturists but it was held after framing an issue and taking evidence that they were not. The preliminary decree was passed on April 10, 1933. The defendants appealed mainly on the point of their status as agriculturists. T...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Hanmantrao Annarao Kalgi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Bom204; (1940)42BOMLR353
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a revision application against an order passed by the Sessions Judge of Bijapur.2. The material facts are that on January 24, 1939, the Police Sub-Inspector lodged a complaint against the present applicant under Section 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the Magistrate of Muddebihal asking him to take action. On May 5, 1939, the learned Magistrate caused a notice to issue under that Section, and that notice recites :Whereas I have received credible information from the Sub-Inspector of Police, Muddebihal, that you Hanmantrao Annarao Kalgi of Muddebihal within my jurisdiction are habitually committing extortion and cheating,...Matters have proceeded some distance, and the learned Magistrate has been hearing evidence on the application ; but an objection has been taken by the applicant that the learned Magistrate has no jurisdiction, because at the time when the information was lodged and the notice was issued, the applicant was not within the lo...
Tag this Judgment!Gurusangappa Basappa Hokrani Vs. Baslingappa Basappa Hokrani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Bom311; (1940)42BOMLR470
Kania, J.1. This is a first appeal from the decision of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Bijapur in Civil Suit No. 52 of 1934. The plaintiffs claiming to be the mortgagees brought this suit to enforce their mortgage. In the written statement different defences are raised. The trial Court, after an investigation into all the disputes, found in favour of the plaintiffs. The amount found to be due is sixteen thousand and odd rupees as stated in the decree. Before us the learned advocate for the appellants has urged only two points. The first is that this suit is barred because of the decree passed in suit No. 277 of 1926. The second is on the point of consideration.2. In support of his contention on the first point it was urged that suit No. 277 of 1026 was filed by plaintiff No. 4 against defendants Nos. 1 and 2. The suit was for a declaration that plaintiff No. 4 was the owner of the property, that it should be declared that the houses in question were in his possession as owner, an...
Tag this Judgment!The Arvi Co-operative Credit Society, Limited Vs. Dhondiram Navalchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Bom289; (1940)42BOMLR486
Kania, J.1. This is a first appeal from the decision of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Dhulia in Special Civil Suit No. 741 of 1935. The plaintiff (appellant), a co-operative credit society, filed this suit to obtain a declaration that the decree passed in Suit No. 349 of 1931 in the Dhulia Court in terms of the award is illegal, null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. The grounds are mentioned in paragraphs 2 to 5 of the plaint and in substance they are that defendants Nos 1 and 2 had some transactions in 1930. There was a private arbitration on March 30, 1931, and an award was made on the same date. On an application being made to the Court under the Civil Procedure Code a decree in terms of the award was passed on March 31, 1931. The ground for challenging the decree, as set out in this plaint, is that under that decree a charge was given in favour of defendant No. 1 on defendant No. 2's property, but that was to save the property of defendant No. 2 from his liability ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »