Mumbai Court March 1939 Judgments
Chimanram Motilal Vs. Jayantilal Chhaganlal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Bom410; (1939)41BOMLR899
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against a judgment of Mr. Justice Somjee. There are two plaintiffs, both of which are firms, which have been registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. They financed defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in relation to the purchase of large quantities of corrugated iron sheets, and they sue for a sum of over nine lakhs of rupees alleged to be due from defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in respect of these transactions. Various defences were set up on the merits, all of which failed, but by an amendment the defendants alleged that in respect of these transactions for financing them the two plaintiff firms became partners ad hoc, and that that partnership was not registered under the Partnership Act, and, therefore, the plaintiffs' suit did not lie under Section 69(2) of the Act. That defence prevailed with the learned Judge, who accordingly dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. The question, which we have to determine on this appeal, is whether th...
Tag this Judgment!Akberally Tayaballi Vs. Alimahomed Abdul Hussain
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-28-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Bom372; (1939)41BOMLR749
Macklin, J.1. This is an application in revision by four persons who have been ordered by the Additional Sessions Judge of Ahmedabad to be committed for trial to that Court on charges under Section 406, 420, 467, 114, 493, 497 and 498 of the Indian Penal Code. The case arose out of a private complaint by the opponent to this application. It was his allegation that accused No. 1 wanted to marry the opponent's wife and with that object devised a plot by which the opponent was induced to sign a blank paper upon a representation that it was to be used for an application for some form of service; but that after the signature was made and attested, the accused between them arranged for the document to be filled up in the form of a deed of divorce. The Magistrate before whom the proceedings came up by way of committal went into the evidence, and at the end of his judgment remarked as follows:On the whole the evidence which is led by the complainant in the case to prove the alleged charges aga...
Tag this Judgment!Lachhmeshwar Sahai Vs. Moti Rani Kunwar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-28-1939
Reported in: (1939)41BOMLR1068
George Rankin, J.1. Narbadeshwar Sahai, a Hindu governed by the Mitakshara, died on August 28, 1926. He had been married three times and had a son by each wife. His eldest son was Ram Nandan, his second son was Lachhmeshwar, the plaintiff-appellant: his third son Sumeshwar was born in 1924. The defendant-respondent Musammat Moti Rani Kunwar was his third wife and was the mother of Sumeshwar.2. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by Lachhmeshwar against his step-mother in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Bareilly on May 22, 1931. It was a suit for the enforcement by sale of two mortgages, dated September 18, 1926, and September 20, 1929.3. The deed of September 18, 1926, was executed by the respondent within a month of her husband's death. It was for Rs. 5,000, of which only Rs. 545 was advanced at the time, the balance being set-off against four sums of Rs. 2,565, Rs. 1,292, Rs. 448 and Rs. 150. The last-mentioned sum (Rs. 150) was not in fact advanced and no clai...
Tag this Judgment!Surendra Singh Vs. Chaudhri Ghulam Mohammad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-28-1939
Reported in: (1939)41BOMLR1245
Romer, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in the suit from a decree dated October 7, 1936, of the High Court of Judicature at Lahore, which set aside a decree dated December 4, 1935, of the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Sheikhupura.2. The plaintiffs, who are the sons of Sardar Balwant Singh, deceased, a Sikh Jat, brought their suit to obtain possession of ancestral lands which had been mortgaged by their father in their lifetime by way of usufructuary mortgage in favour of the respondent (defendant) Chaudhri Ghulam Mohammad. They alleged in their plaint that according to the customary law of the agriculturists of the Punjab, which admittedly governs the transaction, their father was not competent to mortgage the ancestral lands without legal necessity and that there was no such necessity for the mortgage in the present case. They accordingly prayed for a decree that the mortgage was ineffectual to bind their reversionary rights in the land and for possession.3. The mortg...
Tag this Judgment!Biradh Mal Vs. Prabhabhati Kunwar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-1939
Reported in: (1939)41BOMLR1061
George Rankin, J.1.Hamir Singh(d. 1847-48).:______________________________________________________________: : :Sujan Mal Sameer Mal Umed Mal (d. 1863). (d. 1897). (d. 1923).: :: : :: __________________________________________ :: : : : : :: Sirah Mal Abhey Mal Biradh Mal Gadh Mal :: (d. 1900). (adopted to (d.31-8-35). (adopted to :: : Umed Mal). : Sirah Mal). :: Gadh Mal Omrao Mal :: (Appellant No. 2). (Appellant No. 1). :: _______________________________________ :: : : : : :: Omrao Mal Sardar Mal Fateh Mal Baby :: (adopted to : : Biradh Mal). ::____________________________________ :: : Abhey Mal Raj Mal Chand Mal (d. July, 1924).(d. 1901). (d. 1920). :: : Sobhag MalGuman Mal=Manohar Kunwar Kan Mal (Respondent No. 4).(d.1914).(Appellant No. 4). (d.19-7-34).: : Jeet Mal=Prabhabhati Kunwar :(d. March, 1923.) (Respondent No. 1) : :________________________ : :Pan Mal Anand Mal(Appellant No. 3 (a)). (Appellant No. 3 (b)).2. This pedigree table has reference to a family of the sub-caste 'Lodh...
Tag this Judgment!Basappa Chanbasappa Chekki Vs. Hanmappa Ramappa Manaur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Bom492; (1939)41BOMLR943
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a second appeal from a decision of the Assistant judge of Dharwar. The facts giving rise to the suit are these. On May 27, 1921, defendants Nos. 1 to 3 agreed to sell five survey numbers to the plaintiff. That sale was carried out by a conveyance on September 26, 1922, but in the meantime, namely on September 6, 1922, one Sitaram commenced a suit against the defendants for a sum of money and obtained an order for attachment before judgment of the property, or part of the property, included in the plaintiff's sale. On November 8, 1922, when the provisional order for attachment, which Sitaram had obtained, came up to be made absolute, the Court refused to make the rule absolute and cancelled the attachment. Sitaram appealed against that order, and on March 1, 1923, an order was made by the then District Judge of Dharwar, the effect of which is said to be to restore the attachment. The true construction of that order is one of the questions with which I ...
Tag this Judgment!Jugal Kishore NaraIn Singh Vs. Charoo Chandra Sur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-1939
Reported in: (1939)41BOMLR1055
Porter, J.1. The question for determination in the present case is whether a lease of a certain village in the district of Gaya in Behar is binding on the respondents.2. The land involved had been the property of one Nebaran Chandra Biswas who died without issue leaving a widow Mussamat Srimati Kiransasi Dasi who had a Hindu widow's estate in the property after his death. On her death the respondents who were the reversioners of the estate to her late husband were entitled to the property.3. The husband died in 1895. His widow was then about twenty-four years of age. On April 7, 1919, she executed a lease for eleven years of the village of Chokti Amarwan, Thana Nawaba, in favour of the predecessor of the appellants at a yearly rent of Rs. 3,350 payable in five annual instalments. The lease provided that the tenant should deposit a sum of Rs. 3,350 to be held by the lessor without interest and that this sura should be restored to the tenant by a deduction from the three last instalments...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. D.R. Naik
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Bom362; (1939)41BOMLR652; [1939]7ITR362(Bom)
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, raising two questions :(1) Whether on the facts of the case, the Income-tax Officer was entitled to take action under Section 34 of the Act with a view to re-assess the assessee to super-tax as an individual?(2) Whether the assessee is entitled to a deduction of Rs. 7,200 from the total income on account of maintenance allowances paid under a decree of a High Court to certain female members of the Hindu family to which he belongs?The learned Commissioner answered the first question in the affirmative and the second in the negative,2. So far as the first question is concerned, the facts are that the assessee was assessed for the year 1936-37 on July 1, 1936, the assessment being based on the income of the preceding year, which expired on March 31, 1936. Then, in February, 1937, there was a supplementary assessment, because it was found that the income of a h...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. the Ahmedabad Millowners' Associati ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1939
Reported in: (1939)41BOMLR656
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, in which he raises the question;Whether the Association constituted as aforementioned and having the members mentioned in para. 4 hereof has been correctly treated by the Assistant Commissioner as chargeable to income-tax under Section 3 of the Act as being an 'association of individuals'.2. The association in question is the Ahmedabad Millowners' Association, and according to the finding of the learned, Commissioner it consisted, during the year of assessment, of sixty-one members, sixty of whom were limited companies and one was an individual person. It is clear, therefore, that if the association is to be assessed as an association of individuals, it must be on the basis that a limited company is an individual for the purposes of the charging section in the Income-tax Act. The learned Commissioner, relying on the dictionary meaning of 'individual', holds...
Tag this Judgment!Keshav Ramkrishna Bhatt Phadke Vs. Subba Manga Naik
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Bom490; (1939)41BOMLR994
Lokur, J.1. This is an application in revision against the order passed by the First Class Subordinate Judge of Karwar refusing to set aside the consent decree in suit No. 221 of 1932, on the ground that the compromise application had been presented by the petitioner's pleader without any authority from him and without consulting him. The petitioner was the plaintiff in the suit. He sued for possession of certain property which had been purchased by him for Rs. 51. In the course of the suit a compromise application, exhibit 38, was put in, whereby it was agreed that the plaintiff should give up his claim on being paid Rs. 51 within three months. The application was signed by his pleader Mr. Nadkaini, and just above his signature he made a note 'duly authorised by plaintiff.' A decree was then ordered to be drawn up in terms of the compromise on October 5, 1935. The plaintiff presented this application on November 21, 1936, stating that he had not authorised his pleader, Mr. Nadkarni, t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »