Mumbai Court May 1939 Judgments
Mian Feroz Shah Vs. Sir Mohammad Akbar Khan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-23-1939
Reported in: (1939)41BOMLR1071
George Rankin, J.1. This appeal is brought by the plaintiff from a decision (May 23, 1936) of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner for the North-West Frontier Province affirming a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Peshawar dated March 25, 1935, whereby the appellant was awarded Rs. 8,110. The appellant complains of this sum as inadequate; partly, but not solely, on the ground that a three-year period of limitation has been applied to his claim and not a six-year period under Article 120 of the schedule to the Indian Limitation Act of 1908.2. On March 12, 1917, one Sohbat Khan, who was the owner of a considerable area of land in the village of Sheikhu in the Peshawar District, mortgaged 1,011 kanals 8 marlas of his land to the appellant and his brother. The mortgage was for a term of ten years and was a mortgage with possession, the sum secured being Rs. 44,233. Possession was not, in fact, taken by the mortgagees, but by a second document of even date the mortgaged land was leased b...
Tag this Judgment!Jhina Soma Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-09-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Bom457; (1939)41BOMLR965
B.J. Wadia, J.1. This is an appeal by the Government of Bombay1 against the acquittal of the accused on the charge of murder and abetment of the commission of the offence of murder. The third accused is the father of the first and second accused who are brothers. The charge against them was that the first accused on or about May 5, 1938, at about 9-30 p.m. at Malvan did commit murder by intentionally causing the death of Ranchhod Bhula of Vasan, and that the second and third accused abetted the commission of the said offence of murder by the first accused, and thereby committed an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code so far as the first accused was concerned, and under Sections 302 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code so far as the second and third accused were concerned. The accused were tried by the learned Sessions Judge at Surat with the help of a jury. The jury unanimously came to the conclusion that the accused were not guilty of the offences with which they were charge...
Tag this Judgment!Keshardeo Chamria Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-09-1939
Reported in: (1940)42BOMLR129
Russell, J.1. In this case the appellant appeals from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal on a reference to it by the respondent under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.2. The question referred was framed thus :-Whether in the circumstances described above the present assessee and Rai Bahadur Ramprotap Chamria were the managers of the properties appointed by or under any order of a Court within the meaning of Section 41 of the Indian Income-tax Act and whether in the facts and drcumtsances given above the Income-tax Officer acted illegally in assessing the present assessee in respect of his share of the property 3. The relevant facts and circumstances, which appear in the statement of case, must be stated.4. In the year 1929, the appellant instituted a suit in the High Court at Calcutta (No. 183 of 1929) against one Ramprotap, and a minor grandson of Ramprotap, alleging that he was the adopted son of Ramprotap's deceased brother Amloke Ch...
Tag this Judgment!Monghibai Vs. Cooverji Umersey
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-02-1939
Reported in: (1939)41BOMLR1127
Porter, J.1. This case raises a short point for the decision of the Board. It is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court at Bombay in its appellate jurisdiction dated March 16, 1937. By its judgment the Appeal Court affirmed a decree of. the High Court in its ordinary original civil jurisdiction dated July 30, 1936.2. Up to and after the year 1925, a firm of Cooverji Umersey & Co. were carrying on business in partnership in Bombay. In 1925 it consisted of nine partners, Cooverji Umersey, the respondent, his father Umersey Katchra, and seven others who were defendants Nos. 4 to 10 below.3. On September 30, 1925, one Mawji Waghji and his wife, the appellant, borrowed Rs. 1,20,000 from the firm and gave a promissory note for that sum in favour of the firm. The advance was secured by certain bales of cotton, and at the same time the title-deeds of two houses belonging to the appellant and to her husband and situated at King Lane and Borah Bazar Street were deposited with the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›