Mumbai Court April 1939 Judgments
Sir Hari Shankar Paul, Kt. Vs. Kedar Nath Saha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-25-1939
Reported in: (1939)41BOMLR1144
Macmillan, J.1. . The plaintiffs in this suit, now the appellants, seek to enforce a mortgage for the principal sum of Rs. 25,000 with arrears of interest accrued. Their case is that the mortgage was effected by the delivery to them of the documents of title to certain immoveable property in Calcutta with intent to create a security thereon.2. The general law in India under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, is that a mortgage for a principal sum of Rs. 100 or upwards can be effected only by a registered instrument duly signed and attested, but the validity of mortgages by deposit of title-deeds in Calcutta and certain other places is expressly recognised and saved, doubtless because of the convenience of this form of security in commercial centres (see Section 59 of the Act as it stood at the date of the transaction with which this case is concerned, and now, by amendment, Section 58(f)).3. That the title-deeds of the property were deposited by the respondents with the appellants is ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Narayan Sahu Vs. Musammat Makhna
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-20-1939
Reported in: (1939)41BOMLR1136
George Rankin, J.1. Rameshwar Sahu (died 1913) _____________________________________________:__________________________ : : : : : Ram Das Ram Narain : Parsotam Raghunandan = Sampat (Plaintiff-Appellant) : : (Died c. 1918) : Devi : : Ganesh : Lachmi Narain : (minor) _______________ (minor) : Mst. Mst. (Plaintiff-Appellant) : Mantorta Mansuria Deo Narain = Mst. Makhna (Died 5th (Defendant-Respondent) August, : 1927) Mst. Shaman2. The sole question in this case is whether at the date of his death (August 5, 1927), Deo Narain was separate in estate from all the other members of his family ; or whether he was joint with the plaintiffs-appellants, viz. his brother Ram Narain and Lachmi Narain, the latter's son. If he died a separated Hindu, then, as he left no son, his widow, Musammat Makhna (defendant-respondent), became heir to his property; if at the time of his death he was a member of a joint Hindu family, his interest passed by survivorship to his coparcener. Both Courts in India have ...
Tag this Judgment!The Central Talkies Circuit Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-14-1939
Reported in: (1939)41BOMLR919
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This application raises a short point of practice relating to costs, and it is desirable that points of practice relating to costs should be settled one way or the other. The question which arises is this. The assessee asked the Commissioner of Income-tax to state a case under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, and the Commissioner took the view that no point of law arose and refused to state a case. Thereupon, the assessee applied to the Court under Section 66(3), asking the Court to direct the Commissioner to state a case. The Court took the view that there was a point of law and that the Commissioner ought to state a case, and directed him to do so accordingly. The question is whether in those circumstances the costs of the application to state a case should follow the event, that is to say, be paid by the Commissioner who failed to establish his view that there was no point of law, or should be costs in the reference. We stood the matter over in ...
Tag this Judgment!Central Talkies Circuit Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-14-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Bom448; [1939]7ITR628(Bom)
ORDERBEAUMONT, C.J. - This application raises a short point of practice relating to costs, and it is desirable that points of practices relating to costs should be settled one way or the other. The question which arises is this. The assessee asked the Commissioner of Income-tax to state a case under Section 66(2), Income-tax Act, and the Commissioner took the view that no point of law arose and refused to state a case. Thereupon, the assessee applied to the Court under Section 66(3), asking the Court to direct the Commissioner to state a case. The Court took the view that there was a point of law and that the Commissioner ought to state a case, and directed him to do so accordingly. The question is whether in those circumstances the costs of the application to state a case should follow the event, that is to say, be paid by the Commissioner which failed to establish his view that there was no point of law, or should be costs in the reference. We stood the matter over in order to ascert...
Tag this Judgment!Yadav Vishvanath Gandre Vs. Bachoo Abraham David Awaskar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Bom493; (1939)41BOMLR949
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. J. This is a second appeal from a decision of the District Judge of Thana, in which the learned Judge held that where this Court dismissed an appeal with costs, it only meant that the appellant was not to get his costs. ' Appeal dismissed with costs ' is the ordinary expression which the Judge uses, when he means that the appellant has to pay costs having failed in the appeal. When the order comes to be drawn up, it is usually framed in such a way as to direct the appellant to pay the respondent's costs when taxed, but if in drawing up the order, the same expression is used as the Judge normally uses, ' Appeal dismissed with costs,' it can only have one meaning, and that is, that the appellant has to pay the costs of the respondent of the appeal. It is somewhat astonishing to find that the learned District Judge could take any other view of the matter.2. April 13. A further point as to costs is also raised. The order I propose to make is to allow the appeal w...
Tag this Judgment!The Borough Municipality of Ahmedabad Vs. the Ahmedabad Manufacturing ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Bom478; (1939)41BOMLR1015
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. These are seven applications in revision against a decision of the Additional Sessions Judge of Ahmedabad, and the question raised is as to the construction of certain sections in the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925. The learned Judge held that appeals preferred by the respondents, who are rate-payers of Ahmedabad, to a Magistrate Under Section 110 of the Act were competent. The learned Magistrate himself in the case of five of the appeals held that the appeals were not competent, but in the case of the other two appeals, on second thoughts inspired by a decision of a former Sessions Judge of Ahmedabad, which was cited to him, held that the appeals were competent, and dealt with them on the merits. In revision the learned Judge preferred the second thoughts of the learned Magistrate and held that all the appeals were competent.2. Section 110, under which appeals lie, provides in Sub-section (2)(b) that no appeal shall lie unless, amongst other things, an ...
Tag this Judgment!NoorudIn Esmailji Kurwa Vs. Mahomed Umar Subrati
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Bom321; (1940)42BOMLR605
Blackwell, J.1. The plaintiff, who is the transferee of a deed of mortgage da,ted October 24, 1918, alleges that by reason of mutual mistake of the parties thereto the mortgaged premises are therein wrongly described as being Ward number 3912(3) and Street number 99B, and that the parties meant and intended to comprise in the said mortgage the property bearing Ward number 3912(2) and Street number 99A. The plaintiff prays that the mortgage, and deeds of transfer dated November 12, 1920, and March 30, 1931, in which the mistake was repeated, may be rectified by substituting the correct Ward and Street numbers, and that if and so far as may be necessary a preliminary mortgage decree passed on April 3, 1935, in suit No. 1742 of 1932 may be set aside as between the plaintiff in that suit and defendants Nos. 1 to 3 and defendant No. 5 in that suit; the plaintiff further asks for the usual preliminary mortgage decree.2. Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 are the heirs and legal representatives of Sardar...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Hakimbu Vs. Dayabhai Rugnath
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Bom508; (1939)41BOMLR1104
Lokur, J.1. The appellants' father, who was the plaintiff, died during the pendency of the suit, and the appellants were brought on record as his heirs and legal representatives. For the sake of facility I shall refer to the deceased plaintiff as the plaintiff in this judgment. He and the defendant were the creditors of two brothers, Fidaali and Nuralli, who were the owners of the property in suit. They separated on September 29, 1927, when the property in suit was allotted to the share of Nuralli who undertook to pay off the joint debts, and also to pay Rs. 2,500 to Fidaali for his share. As Nuralli was unable to pay the amount in cash, he mortgaged the property in suit with possession to Fidaali for Rs. 2,500 on the same day. After they were thus separated, both the plaintiff and the defendant filed separate suits against them to recover their respective dues. The defendant filed suit No. 342 of 1928 on October 25, 1928, and pending the suit he got the property in suit attached befor...
Tag this Judgment!Anwar F.J. Laljee Vs. Ebrahim F.J. Laljee
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-1939
Reported in: (1939)41BOMLR1091
B.J. Wadia, J.1. This is a chamber summons taken out by the applicant, who is practising as a solicitor of this Court in the name of B.H. Vakil & Co., for a declaration that he has an attorney's lien for his costs on the sum of Rs. 774-11-0 paid by Anwar Fazalbhoy Laljee, the plaintiff in suit No. 980 of 1929, to the Sheriff of Bombay, under the warrant of attachment dated February 23, 1939, and for payment of the said sum to him. The two persons to whom the summons is addressed are Anwar and his brother Adam, defendant No. 2 in that suit.2. The facts leading up to the chamber summons are not in dispute. There was a consolidated consent decretal order of reference in all the above suits to the Commissioner for taking Accounts on the footing of the award made by the arbitrator, and ultimately a consent decree was passed on July 2, 1935, under which a sum of Rs. 59,860 was found due and owing by Adam to Anwar. The decree contained no specific direction to Adam to pay that sum to Anwar. O...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. M.A. Bhagvati
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-06-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Bom480; (1939)41BOMLR878
N.J. Wadia, J.1. This is an application in revision against a conviction of the accused by the Presidency Magistrate, Third Court, Bombay, under Section 44(b) of the Indian Electricity Act, and Rule 31(2) read with Rule 122(a) of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1937. The applicant, accused No. 2, is an electrical contractor and engineer. Accused No. 1, who is not before us, was the owner of a building in Kolbhat Lane. The Bombay Electric Supply and Tramways Company had been supplying electricity to the building, and on March 4, 1937, accused No. 1, the owner of the building, sent a requisition to the company asking for an estimate for the work of shifting the meter board from its old position on the verandah to a new position. The company sent an estimate of Rs. 112. This estimate was considered excessive by both the accused, and, on May 21, 1937, another letter was sent to the company who repeated their former estimate. Accused No. 2, the contractor, then had an interview with the Assis...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »